Hacker News Reader

Comment by ck2 | Hacker News Reader

Why the hell are people still stupid enough to talk to police without a lawyer present in this country?

Anything during that conversation could have been used against them in the future no matter how innocent it actually is. Or if they lied without meaning to, boom, you just lied to a law enforcement officer which is instant crime.

Guess what, no matter how friendly you are to them up front, they are still going to come and rip out all your equipment later and return it after years pass when it's all thrown out of court because nothing actually wrong was done.

View on HN

I've noticed a large number of US TV shows (many of which involve the police) constantly feature people instantly and without hesitation assisting the police in their enquiries. I don't want to say it's brainwashing, but it's not far off.

And when they do immediately lawyer up, it's because they've been portrayed as the Bad Guy© up to that point.

Yeah TV. Here's the really "entertaining" part about talking to the FBI in reality.

Let's say you decide to talk with them. Now that you are talking to them, if they decide during that conversation that you've "become agitated" and pull out their gun and shoot you in their "self defense", guess who investigates them? That's right, the FBI.

Guess how many times in the history of the FBI an officer was found to have shot someone inappropriately, even if they weren't armed? That's right, zero times.

Do you think you're more likely to encourage an FBI officer to decide you are "agitated" if you insist they come back with a warrant and slam the door on them, or politely and cautiously answer basic, non-incriminatory questions on the assumption you're probably not guilty of whatever they're investigating? You can always pull the "if I'm being implicated in a crime, perhaps we should go down the police station and have a recorded conversation with a lawyer present" tack later if the questions start going uncomfortable places.

Might be useful for you to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

There are indeed times when subdued appeasement and "friendly banter" as negotiation tactic may be a good/best course of action.

FBI knocking on your door wouldn't be one of them though. At least for me, but to each his own.

manish_gill's linked video is an amazing example of the information/power asymmetry working against you in this game. By the time you realize you're in an "uncomfortable place", it's likely too late.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer!

Say nothing, ever, for any reason. [0]

The only thing you should ever say to Police is, "Am I suspected of committing a crime?"

  if (crime_suspect) {
    lawyer(yourself);
  } else {
    print "Thank you, have a nice day.";
  }

[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Coincidentally, I also received a totally unexpected call from police earlier this week. I wasn't suspected of committing a crime. Apparently helping them get in touch with my flatmate - who unbeknownst to me had reported a crime - didn't incriminate me or my flatmate. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a lawyer would rather I had that two minute conversation in their paid presence, but I'm not really sure where they'd have helped me avoid accidentally intimating that I might be a criminal: I think I'd have done that more effectively by automatically assuming I was being investigated.

Assuming instantly pleading the Fifth helps misses the bit where police and especially more powerful organizations like the FBI jump to and act on a lot of conclusions that aren't admissible in court (and of course have plenty of capability to find non-verbal, admissible evidence of wrongdoing if motivated to look for it, even if you're innocent). If they're casually following up a dubious lead, which they probably are if you're not expecting their visit and don't have pot plants or a server mirroring Wikileaks in your conservatory, you probably don't want to fit their mental model of a suspect, which probably means you being at least slightly curious about why they want to speak to you, and at least willing to entertain the possibility that you're not the suspect. Statistically, you're more likely to plead the Fifth if you're guilty.

(This probably doesn't apply when they're picking on you because you're a genuine suspect or there are political reasons for them trying to find out about your friends or organization.)

I don't think that's the reason.

It's more along the lines of: if a friendly law enforcement officer comes up to you and politely asks you some questions, many people have no problem being polite in return and answering them. Often the officer(s) will say something like "I just want to ask a few things, then I'll leave."

So 1) you'll think that the more you cooperate, the sooner you will be free from their presence, 2) you may fear that if you don't cooperate at all, they may harass you more, and finally 3) they may act like they are "doing you a favor" and so you may feel a bit compelled to do them a favor in return.

Federal agents in particular (FBI etc.) typically go this route. They'll try to build a rapport, "you-help-me, I-help-you", and may or may not subtly imply that if you don't respond they'll return for further questioning. They may even use classic interrogation tactics to make you more likely to answer them.

By simply not being accusatory or impolite, they have a much greater chance of getting the information they want.

Maybe just maybe I could accept than mentality on a casual encounter.

If a cop or FBI agent is seeking to talk to you, specifically by looking for you in the first place, you have far bigger problems than you can possibly talk your way out of, regardless of how innocent you actually are.

The FBI keep tabs on plenty of people they're not imminently planning on arresting or secretly carting off to Guantanamo Bay. In this case, it looks like there are plenty of reasons they could have received a tip-off: nuclear material purchased, collecting details on nuclear power stations and "homes for hackers" are all likely to alert suspicious members of the public. Casually explaining what it's all about is the perfect way to defuse trouble; stonewalling them until they decide you must be hiding something, get a warrant and find the uranium hidden in the cellar with the map of all the power stations probably isn't.

If the FBI have opened a file on there you probably don't want the words "suspicious of law enforcement" added to the list.

The police social engineer them that if they talk then they'll probably be let go, or all of it will be "sorted out". Foolish criminals actually think they can snow the police too with transparent lies.

The police are hoping you lie, because now they can easily trip you up later in court. Often they will just nod their heads and accept your complete BS and write it all down to give to the prosecutor. They will listen to an hour's worth of fabrications and pretend to be fooled by it so you talk some more, then arrest you because now you have provided them all they need.

In the UK police do this all the time with suspected drug importers. They show up and claim to whoever answers the door that if they tell them where the drugs are, this will all be sorted out with a fine or something and they will be on their way. The fool at the door agrees and now their entire place is ripped apart by a search and they are arrested and charged. There is a fine in UK/Ireland for cannabis drug posession, not for importing though.

Lack of education? Yesterday there was a blog post lamenting computer illiteracy in which the author asked how many people could tell the difference between the Internet, world wide web, a browser and a search engine without referencing Wikipedia?

Well, in America we have widespread political and legal illiteracy as well. I'm not talking about citizens not reading the Constitution, I'm talking about most people being unable to paraphrase the Fifth Amendment when asked. Aside from "plead the fifth" most people in America probably couldn't tell you what the amendment means. Yes, it applies to more than just courts. You won't be held to incriminate yourself, your property can't be unjustly seized without compensation, you must have due process and a jury, etc. etc. etc.

Americans lack basic Bill of Rights knowledge, because honestly, they don't teach it enough in schools. It's great that we have to stand up and pledge allegiance, but it would be nice if we had to repeat our own rights. As an American it bothers me.

Most people don't exercise that right when a police officer (or any other agent) speaks to them because it seems innocuous, and they don't think that their rights apply to a simple conversation with law enforcement.

All that said...I wouldn't say it's always unintelligent to speak to law enforcement without a lawyer...but still, most people should be aware of the right, and take judicious advantage of it.

  Well, in America we have widespread political and legal 
  illiteracy as well. I'm not talking about citizens not 
  reading the Constitution, I'm talking about most people 
  being unable to paraphrase the Fifth Amendment when asked. 
  Aside from "plead the fifth" most people in America 
  probably couldn't tell you what the amendment means. Yes, 
  it applies to more than just courts. You won't be held to 
  incriminate yourself, your property can't be unjustly 
  seized without compensation, you must have due process and 
  a jury, etc. etc. etc.

The right to a jury trial is not actually present anywhere in the Fifth Amendment. (For criminal cases, it is in the Sixth Amendment, for certain civil cases, it is in the Seventh Amendment.)

You're right, my phrasing was unclear. Specifically, the Fifth Amendment clauses the right to silence in the face of an accusation unless you're at a court proceeding ("grand jury") - this ties in to not necessarily needing to respond to law enforcement questioning. I could have just stopped at due process, I was rambling :)

The Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against yourself applies in court proceedings and certainly includes the right to silence in court proceedings in a criminal case. The grand jury provision in the Fifth is in reference to being charged with a serious crime, not an exception to the right of silence.

Its a good question, although some folks like the challenge. If you treat it like a game where you get information and they don't it can be entertaining. You can think of it like a puzzle, which is "What can I say in answering this question which is seems like an answer that is completely useless?"

Now of course I don't recommend playing head games with law enforcement officers, when they figure it out it irritates them (just like it would probably irritate you when someone was playing head games with you) But I do recommend playing this game with friends. The benefit is that if you play it for a while you be able to recognize pretty quickly when someone is playing with you (friend or not) and then you can either call them out on it (if you are trying to establish higher levels of trust) or play back (at which point there will be a reaction which varies all over the map).

It's sort of like lock picking, a skill that is fun to have but you really don't think you will use it in your professional dealings with people.

This sounds like a really stupid thing to do, so it intrigues me. Do you have any funny examples?

Well you wouldn't be the first person to tell me that my sense of humor was a bit 'off.' That said, I find it funny when recruiters try to develop a CV on me over the phone so they can tell someone else I'm available (when I'm not). They will say something like "You went to a major school right?" and I'll say "Yes, I went to a top school, and majored in a world recognized degree in a tough competitive environment." They'll say "So what programming language would you say you were most comfortable in?" and I'll say "I'm extremely comfortable writing code in the today's leading language, used by companies like Facebook, Google, and General Electric." etc. It probably isn't nice, but I do find it funny.

Haha, nice. It sounds like we have the same sense of humor. I get recruiters calling me all the time, so maybe I'll use this to mess with them.

You don't need a lawyer present, you just need to record the interview, although it's unlikely the FBI will agree to this.

Very relevant: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/11/why-the-fbi-doesnt-reco...

Why are people still stupid enough to talk to police without a lawyer present

So when you get pulled over for a speeding ticket, do you refuse to speak, demand to see your lawyer, and plead the fifth?

Sure, why not?

You can just ask them to hand you the speeding ticket?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com