Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cryptex | Hacker News Reader

I am not a lawyer, but can't you just shut up? The FBI comes by asking questions, you can tell them "I will not answer any questions.", and, depending on the general mood, because not all FBI agents are nice people that will understand what you're doing, you can probably further say "If you have grounds to arrest me, I will want an attorney present for all interactions".

As far as I am aware, you do not have to answer them if they question you. This might frustrate the FBI however, and different agents will likely respond in different ways.

View on HN

It's better to say you want to speak with your lawyer before you will answer questions. The fact you remained silent after being asked a question can be used against you in certain situations, especially with a non-custodial questioning. (the recent 2013 Supreme Court decision, Salinas v. Texas, has more on this)

> The fact you remained silent after being asked a question can be used against you in certain situations, especially with a non-custodial questioning.

How is this possible given the 4th and 5th amendments?

The whole argument behind this ruling is that at first the suspect talked and then stopped answering questions. Had the suspect not talked in the first place, then the 5th wouldn't have been voided, but since he did, it was.

So am I correct to assume that, according to this description and the other answer, that this falls under the 4th amendment and since the person in question initially answered questions they implicitly gave up this right and are thus accountable when they decide to stop talking?

The guy initially "cooperated" and answered questions and, at a certain point, finally just shut up and refused to speak anymore. It was ruled that the fact that he suddenly decided not to "cooperate" and became silent could be used against him.

I imagine the state arguing it to the jury similar to this: "Mr. Doe was helpful and cooperative at first and happily answered our questions. Then, when we asked him about <insert crime here> he stopped being cooperative and refused to answer any more of our questions. If he wasn't involved with <the crime>, why wouldn't he continue to cooperate?"

Seems like another reason to never start talking in the first place. Thanks!

Basically, the 5th Amendment "right to remain silent" isn't as absolute when facing questioning outside of police custody (when you aren't free to leave) or a court room. You need to specifically invoke it under the Salinas decision.

> different agents will likely respond in different ways.

That's the worrying thing. One guy might just go "OK", and that's it. Another guy might pistol-whip you, claim you assaulted him, and haul you in for "enhanced interrogation".

Stanford prison experiment tells you just about everything you need to know about the mindset of LE.

The Stanford prison experiment was heavily influenced. In a real-life scenario there are always checks, balances and limits to law enforcement, even in corrupt precincts.

In the Stanford experiment, there was nothing. It was like Lord of the Flies for adults - an artificial environment where things would escalate unnaturally and unrealistically fast. However, even in precincts with Training Day levels of corruption, people in positions of power know that their excesses and abuses still have to have an upper bound.

I'm not attacking you personally on this point, but I studied psychology and have family in law enforcement who have worked in I.A.

I too have family in LE. All of them have/had major power issues - one joined SWAT, and beat his wife, my aunt, until she left him. Another takes pride in telling tales about shocking abuse of suspects in his custody. Thinks it's funny.

Either way, you're right that Stanford was unrealisticly unbounded, but those upper limits you speak of can be pretty damn high!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com