Cell Phone Guide For US Protesters, Updated 2014 Edition
eff.org
eff.org
> ask to speak to your lawyer
> you will need an attorney to help you sort through your particular circumstance
Do normal people in the US always and at all times have a lawyer on call? Especially the type of person likely to be arrested at a protest (not that there's anything wrong with that - I just doubt they're the 1%).
I'm in my late thirties and certainly don't have a lawyer on standby I can call at the drop of a hat. This "advice" always seems, if not disingenuous, at least a little naive.
The act of asking for one gives you protections: it is improper for the police to question you after you've asked for one before a lawyer is there. If you've been arrested, you'll consult with a state appointed lawyer before your arraignment, but generally arraignments are purely procedural and after one you'll either be released (and you'll get a public defender or have to hire one depending on your means) or have the opportunity to hire a private one via the phone or a proxy.
You ask for one because:
1. Talking to the police is almost never in your interest, and you have very little chance of recognizing when it is in your interest without assistance of counsel
2. Asking for one will stop the interrogation attempts until a lawyer is there. If they want to keep questioning you in custody it's on them, and not you, to get you a lawyer.
3. You gain protections you didn't have by asking.
There is no reason not to refuse questioning without a lawyer present.
I am not advocating getting a lawyer if you are a witness to a crime. Simply if they have it in their minds you have done something wrong politely tell them you will gladly answer all of their questions once you have proper legal counsel. An no this advice doesn't apply to mundane things like speeding tickets and the like.
Fully exerting your rights might be a little antagonistic in this situation but you may also wish to give a complete non-answer, like "Yes, but I'm sure you're going to tell me."
Even if you just think you're just a witness to a crime, they might think otherwise. I'd tell people to trust their judgment but prisons are filled with people who trusted their judgment and thought that talking was OK, so clearly that's not always enough.
There's a great point/counter point of the issue from a law school class. It's a bit long, but well worth a watch:
In the criminal sphere, the motto (slogan, who knows what real strength it has, these days) "Innocent until proven guilty" was presented and meant by at least some as a counter-balance to such demands. Presumption of innocence was... well, at least "presumed" to mean that the system would work on your behalf towards an accurate resolution rather than just a convenient one.
Contrary to this, however, note that a validated and often employed legal strategy is to simply spend the opposing party into defeat. (Or, threaten to do so.) This happens in the civil arena. It also happens in the criminal arena, where the State can choose to bring relatively unlimited resources to bear against an individual opponent. (We are, as the general public, increasingly learning just how little oversight and restraint is exercised in how this is employed.)
They may not have to "prove" anything. Employing a litany of court dates, expert witnesses, appeals, etc., they can simply "run out the clock" of their opponent's financial resources (to mix my metaphors). Further, in the criminal sphere, we continue to learn more and to read and hear about just how far off the rails surveillance, unwarranted search, entrapment, interrogation, etc. can go.
Then, we also have the increasing use of forfeiture to peremptorily seize resources with no opportunity for defense. The increasingly broad and inappropriate use of no-knock search warrants that physically threaten well-being. Swat-ification that is turning policing into militarized occupation and further separating the police from the community...
Whose fault is this? Probably all of ours. Regardless, it is turning the legal system, for the general public, from something to respect to something to fear. It is not "our system", anymore, but "theirs". For various values of "theirs".
Not a good recipe for a society "based upon law".
P.S. I should add that I recognize what others say, that the U.S. is still comparatively quite good compared to many other places in the world.
But I worry about the delta. As well as persistent... "outliers" than do not seem to improve nor resolve. And than may be far more extensive than we, the "general public", were once led to believe.
If you see some old lady get robbed, that's not coming back on you.
Also, if the police don't put you under custody, you don't get Miranda rights and you don't get the right to a lawyer necessarily. You'd have to pay one yourself.
Unfortunately, "just use a little sense" may be dangerous advice. Here's a story from earlier this year about a guy who called 911 when he came across an injured person lying in the street. As thanks for his trouble, he was assaulted by police, arrested, and spent twelve hours in jail -- mostly in solitary confinement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7233730
I think most people either don't realize or choose to ignore the fact that calling the police rarely prevents any crime. It can be effective if what you're seeking is retribution or revenge, but once you've been stabbed whether you heal or not doesn't really depend on whether you answer questions from the police.
The news from Ferguson is a reminder that bringing police into a situation can make many situations much worse for everyone. If I find you bleeding in the street I'll help you get medical care and if you want to go to the police that's your decision, not mine.
This is a somewhat absurd argument because what I'd do ultimately depends on the circumstance. If I truly know nothing besides my own name and that I found this person bleeding, I would be wondering where my other memories went and if I were brain damaged.
In the general case, they aren't going to be sending detectives immediately to ask questions because someone called 911. Nor would I stay on the scene longer than I was medically needed to be there. But the "general case" is a useless fiction.
As far as I know this applies for all questioning, regardless of whether you're free to go, being detained, or under arrest. IANAL but I've had plenty of encounters with police.
The key right you're asserting is not a "right to a lawyer" it's the right to remain silent. Asking for a lawyer helps you to do this, because otherwise they have much more latitude to try to convince or trick you into talking. If you said you are remaining silent until you talk to a lawyer, in theory, they have to leave you alone until the lawyer is there.
If you aren't in custody, they don't have to provide an attorney and they can keep asking questions.
And custody can be fairly broad, for example a traffic stop doesn't count.
I've used it a few times (contracts questions, mostly), but I also have a lawyer "on call" if I'm ever arrested or otherwise am in legal trouble. I realize that $17/mo isn't affordable for everyone, but it's worth it to me.
Its a fact that our lives are fully dominated by the laws and regulations of the countries that we live in. If you don't have the time, or wherewithal, to understand all of these legalities (and few of us do, unless we've done law school), then it really pays to have an expert available to do that for you. Its unfortunate, but true: so many times, not knowing what is legal and not legal will get you into trouble - especially if you are entrepreneurial, and want to seriously have an impact on the world around you.
I don't know what you meant exactly by "the western world", but this advice seems to really only apply to a part of it. There are numerous legal traditions (cultures?) around the world, and not all of them require everyone to get legal advice/help.
As an example, any legal culture where precedent isn't as important as in the USA is much more accessible to laypeople — you can actually read the law, understand it, and be reasonably certain that you found all the applicable laws.
As another example, there are places where courts take mostly intent into account, instead of deciding based on how a comma was placed in an agreement. In these jurisdictions the best agreements are short, clear, understandable, to the point, and do not require a lawyer to draft them.
I avoid mentioning specific countries that I know, for two reasons:
a) knee-jerk downvoting based on opinion has recently become widespread on HN,
b) there is always someone who instead of discussing the general point will find a nit to pick with a particular part of one of the examples.
If it's earlier in the arrest- e.g. at the police station- if they want to question you and you don't have a lawyer they need to get you one, and in theory this could be a PD. I don't have first hand experience with that, mostly because there's little point in the police bothering to question anyone who asks for a lawyer in 99.9% of cases. The lawyer will tell their client to not answer anything and the client should heed the advice.
Also, there have recently been court cases where someone accused of a crime didn't immediately VERBALLY exercise their right to remain silent, and that fact was used as evidence. Crazy stuff.
You should say essentially, "I chose to remain silent until I can speak to an attorney."
The act of asking for one gives you protections.
Likewise, the police may read you your Miranda rights and try to get you to sign something saying you know and understand them. You should refuse to sign, stating that you won't sign anything without a lawyer.
Signing it opens the door for further questions and a chance your answers can be used in court. Not signing it will generally lead to them skipping the questions, as there's little point.
[1] edit: to do this you refuse to give any name. DO NOT give a false name like "John Doe" - that's merely what they'll put on the paperwork if you refuse to give a name. Giving a false name is pretty much always a bad idea. Note that generally refusing to not give your name is probable cause for arrest in many jurisdictions and I believe may even be a misdemeanor in some places. I think it's generally only a reasonable route if the arrest was clearly illegal and disclosing your real name might make you a target for other reasons (e.g. immigration status). I do know someone who wasn't a citizen who was arrested while engaging in protected first amendment activities and refused to say a single syllable (lest their accent give away their status) and they were released as a john doe at their arraignment. But yes, YMMV.
1) Be polite. Always. 2) Make it clear that you're both two professionals trying to get through this as quickly as possible, both of you have better things to do. 3) If you must talk to someone, always talk to the person, never the hat.
(The only numbers I can recall offhand are Apple's customer support number from 20 years ago (which is now a phone-sex line), a special/other "in case of kidnapping" number which is an Iraqi cellphone and disconnected or something, and Comcast Business Support. None of which would really help me now.)
no, 800-SOS-APPL is still Apple's old support line. You are dialing S-zero-S, which has always been a phone sex line.
I guess you might end up spending more time in jail than if you can get someone to help get you out, or something like that, but you're not going to be railroaded to trial just because you didn't prepare a lawyer in advance, as long as you assert your right to have one present.
This was listed on HN recently, and as soon as it becomes available, it may be a more viable option for recording video than a smartphone camera or even a GoPro http://www.polaroid.com/cube
It also has no bright screen to draw attention to itself and the small form factor makes it easier to mount in clothing and, if you have enough time to do so, the MicroSD card is easy to remove and conceal/transfer if you need to hand over the camera.
We're living in odd times.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140707/11434227803/rhode...
- "they'll be carrying phones"
What's a phone? Is that some sort of musket?
- "Modern smartphones"
I hope the British don't have those too!
- "encrypted communications channels"
Hey, somebody tell Revere to speak in code while he's shouting that stuff from his horse.
- "social media"
What in the blimey is that?
- "End-to-end encryption does not protect your meta-data."
Hey Jefferson, this looks like one of your convoluted sentences from the first draft. Nobody's gonna understand that stuff.
And see : http://slclip.wikispaces.com/Cryptology+during+the+US+war+of...
There's an interesting article by Lee Taylor on civil war codes and encryption too http://chesapeakesignals.com/encrypt.htm
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/620001568/jackpair-safe...
It's a low-cost alternative to BlackPhone etc.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcri...
* Wear something that you can throw away.
* Don't wear recognizable brands or symbols.
* Hide your face.
* Cover every visible part of your skin.
Protests and riots are all fun and games until you are part of the last roundup and you finally have time to figure out that protesting will never change anything to what you are protesting against.
I'm sure the British said the same thing in 1775.
Deleted comment