24 ms·

How to Avoid Going to Jail Under 18 U.S.C. For Lying to Government Agents

289 points by gist 10y ago

Animats 10y ago
Also worth noting is that FBI agents are permitted to lie in the course of their duties. So anything they say to you cannot be trusted.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  You should also remember that FBI agents, police officers, et al do NOT have the authority to grant immunity. They can claim things will "go easier" for you, promise you won't be charged, etc but all that counts for nothing. I'm always surprised when watching one of those reality TV detective shows... inevitably there is someone who knows the police have nothing, yet never insists on a signed agreement from the prosecutor before spilling the beans.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    The guys that submit to grueling interviews following their spouses' murder, on things like Dateline, mystifies me. I'm sure there lots of off camera stuff where they make it seem not an interrogation, but...ugh. Get a lawyer, you are the easiest path to closure for the cops. Edit: Dateline does usually speculate that anyone that does ask for a lawyer, or declines a polygraph, etc...is hiding something. It's a shame they do that.
hollander 10y ago
So if you lie to anybody in the US, and this person submits this lie to the government, it could be used to prosecute you? That is creepy!
- praptak 10y ago
  It doesn't even sound like either you or that person needs to be in the US. Pretty funny if you combine it with how some countries are willing to bend over to help Uncle Sam's goons jail anyone they label a criminal.
- mywittyname 10y ago
  I wonder how deep this goes. What if you a mistyped phone number on a bank form that get submitted to government authorities as part of routine compliance? Is that a crime? Is there even a difference between a mistake and intentionally transposing two numbers?
  - eric_h 10y ago
    > difference between a mistake and intentionally transposing two numbers This is slightly rambling/OT: I dated a girl who would do that regularly to guys who were being entirely too aggressive about getting her number. She told me it was a pretty effective tactic to shake them off, and even if they figured out it was the wrong number it could be passed off as an innocent mistake. I'm also fairly certain there's a girl who lives near where I grew up (and likely has a mobile number a short levenshtein distance from mine) who does the same thing, as I have literally no connections to that area, other than my immediate family, who have the same area code and exchange that my mobile number does. Nevertheless, I do occasionally get texts/calls from random guys obviously trying to contact a woman who is not me (this has been happening for almost a decade). But! To add to your point - what if the aggressive dude trying to get your phone number works for a federal LEO? Could they use the system to hold your disinterest in them against you, just out of spite? [edit: words for clarity]
    - praptak 10y ago
      TFA says it needs to influence, or at least have some potential to, their decisions as a government agent. So, no.
rebuilder 10y ago
As a non-US resident potentially wishing to visit the USA, do I want to click this link or will it result in a flag being raised?
- hollander 10y ago
  If you're afraid of that, use a VPN service to browse these pages, or TOR. But really, thinking that reading this article will put you on a list is kind of paranoid, unless you have other reasons to be paranoid.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
    We live in a world with the NSA, a group known to flag individuals based on search history (ex. for TOR) and to share with other branches of government (see: parallel construction). Everyone has reason to be paranoid.
- hollander 10y ago
  See coolsunglasses' reply: https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc
  - rl3 10y ago
    That's the best bet from a practical perspective. VPNs and Tor will just raise more flags if that's the concern.
- tptacek 10y ago
  The TL;DR is simply "decline to be interviewed without a lawyer".
  - hollander 10y ago
    Problem is that the agent doesn't have to identify himself as such. He or she might be dressed casually with no signs of being an FBI agent, he doesn't have to tell you he's an agent, and he may lie as well. He doesn't even have to be an agent. Your employer can submit your lie to an agent. Creepy!
forrestthewoods 10y ago
Obligatory: Don't Talk to Cops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik Everyone should watch this video. It may save your life.
- rconti 10y ago
  Oops, just duplicated your comment in reply to the current-top post because the parent of my comment asked a relevant question. I searched the thread for "police" before posting it, but missed your post because "cops" instead of "police" :)
  - forrestthewoods 10y ago
    It's ok. Your comment is much better and more detailed. Thankfully it's getting lots of upvotes which is what's important.
- Vera527 10y ago
  Thank you for sharing.This video changed my opinion about talking to police.I learned why I should never talk to police ever.I am very glad I got to watch this video.Thank you.
coolsunglasses 10y ago
Hopefully I arranged the images correctly. I've posted an imgur album of the article because a pastebin/gist is trivially haystacked https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc
- hollander 10y ago
  Better use https: https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc
  - coolsunglasses 10y ago
    Changed to https. Sorry about that and thank you for noting it.
- eli 10y ago
  Why?
  - coolsunglasses 10y ago
    >trivially haystacked We already know the State flags people for rigorous, repeated, obnoxious harassment at customs checkpoints and for domestic TSA stuff. Might as well derisk a little.
    - eli 10y ago
      That seems paranoid to me, but if it's a genuine concern than you haven't gone nearly far enough. Wouldn't posting comments on a thread discussing the article be a much stronger signal than clicking the link?
- rhcom2 10y ago
  What does "haystacked" mean in this context?
wehadfun 10y ago
Someone post the youtube video.
tptacek 10y ago
Without getting into the scope of the 1001 statute (I think they're probably mostly right about it), I just want to chime in with a nit about the example they chose: If you take a job at a health provider that you later learn is corrupt, and later knowingly transport false vouchers as part of your job while otherwise avoiding direct participation with the more overtly criminal parts of the enterprise, you are a criminal. What you're doing is wrong. Put into that situation unexpectedly, you must either quit, or immediately report your employer (and, presumably, then quit). You can't knowingly accept a paycheck from a criminal enterprise if doing so requires you to help carry out criminal actions. The law says that's criminal, but even if you don't care about that, so does the social contract. Are you less culpable than the owners? Sure, of course you are. But this article chose I think a really terrible example, one that creates a false sense of what it means for someone to be incidentally and unjustly swept up in a crime they themselves tried to avoid. We in this industry all need to be taking more responsibility for our individual actions and the net impact they have on society.
- CPLX 10y ago
  My read on that anecdote wasn't that the author was implying it wasn't criminal, but rather that he was constructing a narrative that the average reader could identify with. Most people don't consider themselves criminals, but most people could probably imagine finding themselves in the situation described.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Yeah, I get that part, and I agree with you that most people in that situation would not consider themselves a criminal. My point is simply that they would in fact be criminals. It would be a miscarriage of justice (perhaps a small one) if there were no consequences for it.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - wfo 10y ago
      The article also touches on the case where the person is not legally qualified to understand that what they have done is criminal. Or even to understand that what the company is doing is criminal. Unfortunately it's a smaller part in the article and I think it makes a stronger case. What makes an even stronger case is that you can be prosecuted not only without wrongdoing but without any knowledge of wrongdoing. A better case is: you are a healthcare worker. A federal agent asks you about your ex-employer. You always had a bad feeling about that company but you put in your 40 hours for your paycheck and kids' health insurance. Perfectly willing to help the investigation, you answer truthfully. You are asked about a co-worker you slept with after you had met your girlfriend, but before you started dating. Your girlfriend is in the room. Thinking it doesn't matter and not wanting to discuss it with a stranger in front of your girlfriend, you lie. Turns out the co-worker was involved. If the prosecutor decides he doesn't like you, congratulations you are now a federal felon. You don't even need a fun story about a personal relationship: say you misremember something. Or someone else does, and contradicts your truthful story but the feds think you're the one who's lying. Also I'm not sure the label "criminal" is a useful one. It's almost certainly the case that every adult US citizen is a criminal. They simply haven't been caught yet. Every modern US president has admitted in public to being a criminal (drugs). The expanse of laws is so vast, vague, complex, interpretable and arbitrary it's impossible to not break one. If there were consequences for every lawbreaking act, everyone would be in jail and there would be no-one left to prosecute or to do the prosecuting.
bjshepard 10y ago
Maybe don't go to the u.s because it is doing a genocide. It's interesting, too, that whenever I not that the us is doing a genocide people here downvote me because they clearly don't want to acknowledge it, but by the rules of genocide, the u.s is clearly doing genocide against its internally colonized black nation, another thing that people don't want to admit exists either. A sick empire that will not be remembered well by historians and will likely end soon, let us hope, for the sake of the progression of the sciences and arts, as well as the dignity of humanity.
mnm1 10y ago
I don't see it prudent to submit to an interview even when the agents assure you that the interview is only administrative or that they are not investigating you. The agent can lie without penalty. Unless this is something official, in writing, from the AUSA's office that was verified by one's lawyer, it's likely to be a trick. It's a standard tool in any law enforcement officer's arsenal. I always see scenes on TV where in an emergency people talk to the FBI telling them where the perp went or some other details and I think: if this were real life, I would expect the FBI to be turned away every time, even when lives are at risk and people will die because the FBI cannot get the information they need. It's too bad that this is the kind of society we chose to create, one where trying to help law enforcement is simply too risky to oneself.
- rconti 10y ago
  Obligatory "Don't Talk to the Police" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
  - vacri 10y ago
    It's worth noting that outside the US, things are different. Here in Australia, you can't have 'not talking to the police' held against you... unless you were already talking to the police and shut up when they started asking questions. If you were being friendly and shooting the breeze with them, then they starting questions and you shut up, that change in manner can be held against you, for example. If you're not in the US, it's worth checking out what your own local jurisdiction expects - all the items in the Don't Talk to the Police video still stand (because they're about human psychology, not points of law), so it's worth knowing how much you can just shut up around police.
    - kevin_b_er 10y ago
      Unless you're in New South Wales. I suggest you look up the Evidence Amendment Act of 2013. There your silence to any question may be used against you, so long as the question(s) you were silent about are any part of your defense.
aleksei 10y ago
> Furthermore, a private employer can require you to cooperate with a law enforcement or regulatory investigation as a condition of continued employment. .. How on earth is that possible?
- Spooky23 10y ago
  In the absence of a contract, your employment is at will and you can be terminated for almost anything. In many situations where you're covered by a collective bargaining agreement, you're protected by this sort of thing an can have a union attorney involved before this happens.
- omginternets 10y ago
  Because "people who don't want to cooperate with law enforcement" isn't a protected class. Under US law, the default answer to the question of whether your employment can be terminated for <insert cause here> is "yes".
  - aleksei 10y ago
    But how does the employer even find about this? How does the employer determine cooperation? Surely LEO can't blackmail you into cooperation by going to your employer first?
    - omginternets 10y ago
      >But how does the employer even find about this? If he doesn't find out, I guess he can't fire you for it. I'm not sure I understand what the underlying question is... >How does the employer determine cooperation? Completely arbitrarily. You can be fired for just about anything that isn't explicitly prohibited (e.g. being Black). In the case of "at-will" employment, I can fire someone for literally no reason at all. I can wake up on the wrong side of the bed at 7:00 AM, decide Joe Schmoe is responsible (or not... that guy just gets under my skin), shit shave and shower, then roll into the office at 9:00 and give him the ax. So, to answer your question, if the I overhear my neighbors gossiping about how you didn't cooperate with police, that's as good a criterion as any for firing you. >Surely LEO can't blackmail you into cooperation by going to your employer first? Think again. In principle, police can threaten to tell people you didn't cooperate. I don't know how often this happens but it's perfectly legal to do so.
rexf 10y ago
Stepping back a bit, do people have a lawyer on call? I haven't had to use a lawyer for anything, but I don't have a lawyer when it comes to telling someone that they have to talk to my attorney first.
- kemiller2002 10y ago
  It's a tactic to get them to back off. Telling them you want a lawyer present gives you time to find one before they start interrogating you. Even if you are arrested and you need someone else to find one for you, it stops them from being able to pull unethical/illegal tactics to get you to confess to things you shouldn't.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    > It's a tactic to get them to back off. Telling them you want a lawyer present gives you time to find one before they start interrogating you. I don't think that's accurate. It's not a short-term tactic - it's a strategy. And it doesn't give you time before they start interrogating you - it helps ensure that you don't have to be interrogated at all.
  - ghamrick 10y ago
    I would posit that it is a strategy as well, sort of like calling a bluff. If you have committed a crime, let them charge you. If you yell 'lawyer' and they leave, it is likely you are not chargeable, at least at that time. Might want to google 'lawyers' in the interim though....
- lobotryas 10y ago
  You don't need a layer "on call" to tell someone that you will have an attorney get in touch with then. You then go online and find yourself council. This was one of the points of the article.
  - noobhacker 10y ago
    Have you done this before and do you have a sense what's the cost? If it costs $5,000 to have an attorney involved while I'm pretty sure that I'm just a witness, it may not be worth it.
tylercubell 10y ago
The part that sticks out to me is: > It is crucial to note that affirmatively declining to discuss the investigation in the absence of counsel is not the same thing as remaining completely silent. If you are not in custody, your total silence, especially in the face of an accusation, can very possibly be used against you as an adoptive admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence. I thought we had the right to remain silent. Can someone explain this?
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  Not sure if there's case law specifically on this point, thus the hedging from the author with "can very possibly". The Supreme Court has ruled that when in custody, it's not enough to simply remain silent – you must invoke the right. And, it's not an invocation that's valid indefinitely. They can try to interview you again after a reasonable amount of time has passed, so you may need to invoke your right to remain silent every 24 hours.
- desdiv 10y ago
  This document explains it: http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/36-1/RUBER.36.1.pdf http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/36-1/RUBER.36.1.pdf
- xoa 10y ago
  desdiv's document is a great read. If you're referring to Miranda specifically though, I think a key part there might be "If you are not in custody[...]". The Miranda v. Arizona 1966 SCOTUS ruling had to do with violation of 5th/6th Amendment rights against compelled testimony and right to counsel. If you are arrested and interrogated, obviously you are under the government's direct power by definition, and if law enforcement fails to make clear to those arrested that testimony is not something they can actually coerce then anything they gain might get tossed on constitutional grounds. It's as much for the protection of prosecution as anything actually. But nothing in the Constitution prevents you from volunteering whatever the heck you want to anyone, including someone from the government, even if it would a completely stupid decision to do so. If an agent/officer just asks you a question that doesn't mean you're in custody. They can legally draw inferences from any of your resulting answers/non-answers, just as they could from 3rd party witnesses, though how well any of those hold up in court is a different question of course. Affirmative assertion of rights is the neutral course there, it doesn't mean anything except that you recognize the situation is serious and want counsel to help you navigate it. It's not an admission of anything, it puts things on hold.
bradleyjg 10y ago
To summarize: "Tell the agent that you have an attorney and that 'my attorney will be in contact with you.'" "Simply state that you will not discuss the matter at all without first consulting counsel and that counsel will be in touch with him." "Just respond that you will consult with your attorney (or 'an' attorney) and that the attorney will be in touch." "Simply repeat your mantra that you will not discuss the matter with him in the absence of counsel."
- lobotryas 10y ago
  Even more importantly: never say ANYTHING else. Not whether you have something to hide and not excuses as for why you can't talk right now. The sentence regarding "my attorney will be in touch with you" should be the only thing you say.
- tlogan 10y ago
  And the most important point is: "You are not qualified to determine whether you have committed some crime or not" I think this is the most important part. It could be that you did something but you thought it is not illegal at all.
- TerminalJunkie 10y ago
  Probably a daft question but I'm curious as to what others have to say. If this happens, what kind of attorney or lawyer should you contact? Is simply googling "attorney's near me" and reaching out to the first result good enough? The lawyers I work with are all corporate contract lawyers, not the kind that deal with criminal law.
  - bradleyjg 10y ago
    If the FBI wanted to interview you, your best bet would probably be to ask one of the corporate contract lawyers for a white collar criminal defense lawyer. If you couldn't do that for whatever reason your next best bet would be to shake your network to find another lawyer and ask him for a recommendation for a white collar criminal defense lawyer.
  - 10y ago
xoa 10y ago
Ken White, a criminal defense attorney and former US prosecutor at Popehat.com, writes about these subjects, and has an entire series devoted to this sort of thing under the what-it-says-on-the-tin tag of Shut Up: https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/ https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/ His writing makes for accessible, knowledgeable and amusing posts on a very serious topic and are extremely well worth a read. But the summary version is pretty straight forward: there is no such thing as an out-of-the-blue innocent visit from Law Enforcement, ever. This is kind of common sense when you stop think about it: agents are not free and budget is not infinite. If they are actually devoting an actual warm body to talk to you, particularly a warm body to visit you, it is always, always potentially serious. It is not on a lark, they did not roll some dice and have your number come up for a community chat. They're talking to you for a reason and given their fundamental purpose that reason may be quite bad for you, whether you did anything wrong or not. The true super power of government is patience and grinding, relentless inertia. By the time they talk to you odds are high that they have already done their research, extensively. They have a legal theory and narrative already in mind. If the Feds are knocking it's time to get a lawyer, period, particularly if you're fully innocent.
- derefr 10y ago
  If the police are at your door, and, 1. you know a crime happened around you recently; 2. you saw/heard something; 3. you either feel some sense of moral responsibility in helping to catch the criminal, or you just feel unsafe in your home and want to feel safe again; then I don't see what's wrong with taking part in a conversation with a police officer that goes specifically along the lines of "we know you were at [place] at [time]" or "[crime] happened in your building", followed by "did you see or hear anyone or anything suspicious?" Sure, if the conversation goes anywhere else, lawyer up. But is there any risk in providing the same statement when the police come to you, that you'd have willingly provided by actively going down to the police station to give a witness statement? (Which is, after all, the majority of the interviews the police do. For every one person the police speak to under suspicion, they speak to 5+ other people—witnesses—to figure out who to suspect. This is exactly the "research" you mention above.)
  - 10y ago
mpweiher 10y ago
"But why, you may ask, should law-abiding citizens be alarmed about this statute? Don't the feds only pick on big-league liars?" That's the definition of a police state. "Police state is a term denoting a government that exercises power arbitrarily through the power of the police force." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
- dllthomas 10y ago
  It's not arbitrary, to whatever degree there is consistency in determining what makes a liar "big-league". That may or may not make it better.
  - kilotaras 10y ago
    Consistent selective law-enforcement doesn't make it better.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      That seems to depend on how it's consistent. If it consistently consolidates the power of the police, it's probably worse than inconsistent. (And I find it weird calling it "less of a police state", despite the deviation from the provided definition...) If it is consistent in always acting against those doing the most harm, with "the most harm" determined in line with the intent of the laws being broken, that seems substantially better - probably even desirable, given limited resources.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
zeveb 10y ago
> Without getting into the scope of the 1001 statute (I think they're probably mostly right about it), I just want to chime in with a nit about the example they chose: He. Solomon L. Wisenberg is a man: http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1362810_1 http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1362810_1 > If you take a job at a health provider that you later learn is corrupt, and later knowingly transport false vouchers as part of your job while otherwise avoiding direct participation with the more overtly criminal parts of the enterprise, you are a criminal. > We in this industry all need to be taking more responsibility for our individual actions and the net impact they have on society. Yes, you're correct in an absolute sense, much as the prosecutor who indicted Martha Stewart was correct in an absolute sense. But you're incorrect in a different sense, much as the prosecutor who indicted Martha Stewart was incorrect in that same sense.
- tptacek 10y ago
  In English, the singular "they" is gender-neutral.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    Additionally, it has a longer history than the grammar pedants give it credit for. It has been part of the English language since the 14th century. Meaning it's just as valid as the word "succeed", which was inherited from French in the same time period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
    - tptacek 10y ago
      For Language Log or Geoffrey Pullum fans, here's a more fun link: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/sing_they_sli.pdf http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/sing_they_sli.pdf
      - jdmichal 10y ago
        I'll have to keep that link around for reference! I love all the quotes from literary references... I want to see the mental knots that are tied trying to address that cognitive dissonance.
Overtonwindow 10y ago
This is really excellent advice. I work in legislative affairs with lobbyists and lawyers. After 12 years working in DC with and for congress, I can say unequivocally there is absolutely nothing good that can come from voluntarily cooperating with the police. You should avoid them at all cost. Do not volunteer. Speak through your lawyer if you speak at all, and never allow yourself to get trapped. It's nice to think prosecutors won't go after small fish, but to them you are worth nothing, and they will hang you out to dry if it gets them even the most remote, minor, or inconsequential conviction.
geekamongus 10y ago
I thought the answer would be: run for office.
trhway 10y ago
no wonder what so many non-college educated people get imprisoned. It is like a minefield.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  College education has almost nothing to do with this. It teaches most people nothing about this subject. I'm actually somewhat surprised that more people don't learn how to properly not attract the attention of cops while in college. College campuses are full of cause-less traffic stops that escalate into full on searches, money (fines) to be made from underage drinking and drugs all of which increase people's contact with law enforcement. Pretty much everyone at knows someone who's been mistreated in a petty way by the cops or done something dumb and then compounded it by playing straight into their tactics or not STUFing. College provides ample opportunity to experience or become aware of fairly tame instances of many of the things we as a society don't like about law enforcement. You have to have your head firmly buried in the sand to not at least learn a little bit about how to conduct one's self during an interaction with law enforcement.
  - belenos46 10y ago
    College definitely has something to do with it --for all the reasons you just rattled off. We get fucked once on, say, a misdemeanor, and then we learn this FUCK out of how to handle cops. And a fed is just a cop with better shoes.
    - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
      I'm saying that despite that environment the number of college educated people who don't know to STFU is low enough that the impact of college is negligible.
colanderman 10y ago
> Whether you speak, what you say and how and when you say it can have a profound effect on your future when you find yourself involved in a white-collar criminal investigation. It is very disturbing that we live in a society with laws so obscure to the common person. Unless you know this "one weird trick to avoid indictment under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001", your life is held potentially at the whim of some random prosecutor. Such detachment of one's legal fate from one's actions has no place in modern lawful society. Information asymmetry is one of the primary sources of power disparity. Dividing those subject to whimsical prosecution into the "in-the-knows" and "know-nots" – whether through this law, civil forfeiture, the obscure tax code, or pay-to-play building codes – is a progenitor of the police state. Free society requires transparent law.
alexbecker 10y ago
I wonder what bug resulted in the string "government226128147that" being inserted. Clearly something to do with signed integer arithmetic, but where would that be happening?
- 3JPLW 10y ago
  More likely shoddy unicode handling. I'd wager that the author intended for an emdash at that point (—). ... I was close. It's an en-dash. It's a triple of bytes, in decimal representation: julia> b = UInt8[226, 128, 147] 3-element Array{UInt8,1}: 0xe2 0x80 0x93 julia> String(b) "–" julia> ans[1] '–': Unicode U+2013 (category Pd: Punctuation, dash)
draw_down 10y ago
God, fuck this.
- sctb 10y ago
  Really, please stop! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
a3n 10y ago
> and if the agent promises you that nothing will happen to you if you tell the truth I thought law enforcement is allowed to lie to you. Could they lie about this? IANAL.
- evan_ 10y ago
  not only are they allowed to lie, a law enforcement officer has no authority to offer you this kind of deal, and they know it; so they can't say this without lying about it.
ghufran_syed 10y ago
Extremely relevant and important video on the same subject "Don't talk to the police" by a law school professor. https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
- mtempleton 10y ago
  I've travelled to many countries and the US is the only country I've been to where citizens have a legitimate and real fear of their government using force against them for something that most people would define as 'not doing anything wrong.' Perhaps, in America, we should stop putting people in jail for not doing anything wrong.[1][2][3][4] [1]-https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-snowden-with-espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ch... [2]-https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/locked-up-for-seeking-asylum.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/locked-up-... [3]-https://melmagazine.com/i-won-104-million-for-blowing-the-whistle-on-my-company-but-somehow-i-was-the-only-one-who-went-to-7ed8a808d50c https://melmagazine.com/i-won-104-million-for-blowing-the-wh... [4]-http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/01/the-spy-who-said-too-much http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/01/the-spy-who-sai... [5]-http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/16/arizona-governor-drop-charges-against-guy-giving-free-haircuts-to-homeless/ http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/16/arizona-governor-drop-ch...
gonzo 10y ago
tl;dr: lawyer up, and don't talk to the feds until you do.
ryanmarsh 10y ago
This and other reasons are why I've drilled into my children "never, under any circumstances, talk to the police". It's a shame it has to be this way.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  I hope you made clear that "don't talk to" ≠ "ignore or evade"...
  - ryanmarsh 10y ago
    In the article the language you should use is made clear.
    - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
      No I mean, if you just tell a child "don't ever talk to the police", you're really putting them in danger because they might think it means "avoid or run from the police as if they were dangerous strangers" which can obviously result in tragic outcomes. Also what if they're the victim of a crime or some other emergency situation and really should talk to the police? If you really absolutize and drill them to "never ever talk to the police", you're setting them up for a worse outcome in that instance too.
dmacedo 10y ago
Why doesn't the US federal government publish a "your rights" like the UK does: https://www.gov.uk/browse/justice/rights https://www.gov.uk/browse/justice/rights First thing I looked at when moving to the UK in case I get pulled over and know how to comply to law enforcement powers whilst understanding the limitations and my rights... Are these published in the US, on a state level at least?
- valar_m 10y ago
  > Why doesn't the US federal government publish a "your rights" like the UK does Because they don't want you to know.
ternaryoperator 10y ago
An attorney once added to the info in this article that if law enforcement come to your home and asks, "May we come in?" the answer is always "no." Step outside, pull the front door shut, and then tell them you won't speak without your attorney. If you consent to let them in the house, anything they see of interest is something they can act on.
andrewflnr 10y ago
Is it normal for people to just have a lawyer they can call? I don't. I wouldn't know how to find a lawyer for this sort of situation, or even what kind to look for. Am I looking for a criminal defense lawyer?
Kenji 10y ago
>How to Avoid Going to Jail Under 18 U.S.C. For Lying to Government Agents Step 1: Belong to the political elite.
pc86 10y ago
> For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable. This blows my mind. I have a pretty dim view of lying in general - I've railed on HN against "padding" one's resume in any way, but I for one had no idea you could lie to your employer (decidedly not a criminal act), then through no action of your own your employer could turn around and make you subject to Federal prosecution.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > but I for one had no idea you could lie to your employer (decidedly not a criminal act) Lying to your employer on your time and attendance records is potentially fraud, which is a criminal offence. I agree that it's weird for it to suddenly elevate to a federal crime just because your employer submits those records to somewhere else.
  - pc86 10y ago
    You are right I probably generalized it a little more than I should have. Lying in order to beef up your paycheck or increase billables is very likely criminal fraud.

289 points by gist 10y ago

Also worth noting is that FBI agents are permitted to lie in the course of their duties. So anything they say to you cannot be trusted.

xenadu02 10y ago
You should also remember that FBI agents, police officers, et al do NOT have the authority to grant immunity. They can claim things will "go easier" for you, promise you won't be charged, etc but all that counts for nothing. I'm always surprised when watching one of those reality TV detective shows... inevitably there is someone who knows the police have nothing, yet never insists on a signed agreement from the prosecutor before spilling the beans.
- tyingq 10y ago
  The guys that submit to grueling interviews following their spouses' murder, on things like Dateline, mystifies me. I'm sure there lots of off camera stuff where they make it seem not an interrogation, but...ugh. Get a lawyer, you are the easiest path to closure for the cops. Edit: Dateline does usually speculate that anyone that does ask for a lawyer, or declines a polygraph, etc...is hiding something. It's a shame they do that.

hollander 10y ago

So if you lie to anybody in the US, and this person submits this lie to the government, it could be used to prosecute you? That is creepy!

praptak 10y ago
It doesn't even sound like either you or that person needs to be in the US. Pretty funny if you combine it with how some countries are willing to bend over to help Uncle Sam's goons jail anyone they label a criminal.
mywittyname 10y ago
I wonder how deep this goes. What if you a mistyped phone number on a bank form that get submitted to government authorities as part of routine compliance? Is that a crime? Is there even a difference between a mistake and intentionally transposing two numbers?
- eric_h 10y ago
  > difference between a mistake and intentionally transposing two numbers This is slightly rambling/OT: I dated a girl who would do that regularly to guys who were being entirely too aggressive about getting her number. She told me it was a pretty effective tactic to shake them off, and even if they figured out it was the wrong number it could be passed off as an innocent mistake. I'm also fairly certain there's a girl who lives near where I grew up (and likely has a mobile number a short levenshtein distance from mine) who does the same thing, as I have literally no connections to that area, other than my immediate family, who have the same area code and exchange that my mobile number does. Nevertheless, I do occasionally get texts/calls from random guys obviously trying to contact a woman who is not me (this has been happening for almost a decade). But! To add to your point - what if the aggressive dude trying to get your phone number works for a federal LEO? Could they use the system to hold your disinterest in them against you, just out of spite? [edit: words for clarity]
  - praptak 10y ago
    TFA says it needs to influence, or at least have some potential to, their decisions as a government agent. So, no.

rebuilder 10y ago

As a non-US resident potentially wishing to visit the USA, do I want to click this link or will it result in a flag being raised?

hollander 10y ago
If you're afraid of that, use a VPN service to browse these pages, or TOR. But really, thinking that reading this article will put you on a list is kind of paranoid, unless you have other reasons to be paranoid.
- yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
  We live in a world with the NSA, a group known to flag individuals based on search history (ex. for TOR) and to share with other branches of government (see: parallel construction). Everyone has reason to be paranoid.
hollander 10y ago
See coolsunglasses' reply: https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc
- rl3 10y ago
  That's the best bet from a practical perspective. VPNs and Tor will just raise more flags if that's the concern.
tptacek 10y ago
The TL;DR is simply "decline to be interviewed without a lawyer".
- hollander 10y ago
  Problem is that the agent doesn't have to identify himself as such. He or she might be dressed casually with no signs of being an FBI agent, he doesn't have to tell you he's an agent, and he may lie as well. He doesn't even have to be an agent. Your employer can submit your lie to an agent. Creepy!

forrestthewoods 10y ago

Obligatory: Don't Talk to Cops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik Everyone should watch this video. It may save your life.

rconti 10y ago
Oops, just duplicated your comment in reply to the current-top post because the parent of my comment asked a relevant question. I searched the thread for "police" before posting it, but missed your post because "cops" instead of "police" :)
- forrestthewoods 10y ago
  It's ok. Your comment is much better and more detailed. Thankfully it's getting lots of upvotes which is what's important.
Vera527 10y ago
Thank you for sharing.This video changed my opinion about talking to police.I learned why I should never talk to police ever.I am very glad I got to watch this video.Thank you.

coolsunglasses 10y ago

Hopefully I arranged the images correctly. I've posted an imgur album of the article because a pastebin/gist is trivially haystacked https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc

hollander 10y ago
Better use https: https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc
- coolsunglasses 10y ago
  Changed to https. Sorry about that and thank you for noting it.
eli 10y ago
Why?
- coolsunglasses 10y ago
  >trivially haystacked We already know the State flags people for rigorous, repeated, obnoxious harassment at customs checkpoints and for domestic TSA stuff. Might as well derisk a little.
  - eli 10y ago
    That seems paranoid to me, but if it's a genuine concern than you haven't gone nearly far enough. Wouldn't posting comments on a thread discussing the article be a much stronger signal than clicking the link?
rhcom2 10y ago
What does "haystacked" mean in this context?

wehadfun 10y ago

Someone post the youtube video.

tptacek 10y ago

Without getting into the scope of the 1001 statute (I think they're probably mostly right about it), I just want to chime in with a nit about the example they chose: If you take a job at a health provider that you later learn is corrupt, and later knowingly transport false vouchers as part of your job while otherwise avoiding direct participation with the more overtly criminal parts of the enterprise, you are a criminal. What you're doing is wrong. Put into that situation unexpectedly, you must either quit, or immediately report your employer (and, presumably, then quit). You can't knowingly accept a paycheck from a criminal enterprise if doing so requires you to help carry out criminal actions. The law says that's criminal, but even if you don't care about that, so does the social contract. Are you less culpable than the owners? Sure, of course you are. But this article chose I think a really terrible example, one that creates a false sense of what it means for someone to be incidentally and unjustly swept up in a crime they themselves tried to avoid. We in this industry all need to be taking more responsibility for our individual actions and the net impact they have on society.

CPLX 10y ago
My read on that anecdote wasn't that the author was implying it wasn't criminal, but rather that he was constructing a narrative that the average reader could identify with. Most people don't consider themselves criminals, but most people could probably imagine finding themselves in the situation described.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Yeah, I get that part, and I agree with you that most people in that situation would not consider themselves a criminal. My point is simply that they would in fact be criminals. It would be a miscarriage of justice (perhaps a small one) if there were no consequences for it.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - wfo 10y ago
    The article also touches on the case where the person is not legally qualified to understand that what they have done is criminal. Or even to understand that what the company is doing is criminal. Unfortunately it's a smaller part in the article and I think it makes a stronger case. What makes an even stronger case is that you can be prosecuted not only without wrongdoing but without any knowledge of wrongdoing. A better case is: you are a healthcare worker. A federal agent asks you about your ex-employer. You always had a bad feeling about that company but you put in your 40 hours for your paycheck and kids' health insurance. Perfectly willing to help the investigation, you answer truthfully. You are asked about a co-worker you slept with after you had met your girlfriend, but before you started dating. Your girlfriend is in the room. Thinking it doesn't matter and not wanting to discuss it with a stranger in front of your girlfriend, you lie. Turns out the co-worker was involved. If the prosecutor decides he doesn't like you, congratulations you are now a federal felon. You don't even need a fun story about a personal relationship: say you misremember something. Or someone else does, and contradicts your truthful story but the feds think you're the one who's lying. Also I'm not sure the label "criminal" is a useful one. It's almost certainly the case that every adult US citizen is a criminal. They simply haven't been caught yet. Every modern US president has admitted in public to being a criminal (drugs). The expanse of laws is so vast, vague, complex, interpretable and arbitrary it's impossible to not break one. If there were consequences for every lawbreaking act, everyone would be in jail and there would be no-one left to prosecute or to do the prosecuting.

bjshepard 10y ago

Maybe don't go to the u.s because it is doing a genocide. It's interesting, too, that whenever I not that the us is doing a genocide people here downvote me because they clearly don't want to acknowledge it, but by the rules of genocide, the u.s is clearly doing genocide against its internally colonized black nation, another thing that people don't want to admit exists either. A sick empire that will not be remembered well by historians and will likely end soon, let us hope, for the sake of the progression of the sciences and arts, as well as the dignity of humanity.

mnm1 10y ago

I don't see it prudent to submit to an interview even when the agents assure you that the interview is only administrative or that they are not investigating you. The agent can lie without penalty. Unless this is something official, in writing, from the AUSA's office that was verified by one's lawyer, it's likely to be a trick. It's a standard tool in any law enforcement officer's arsenal. I always see scenes on TV where in an emergency people talk to the FBI telling them where the perp went or some other details and I think: if this were real life, I would expect the FBI to be turned away every time, even when lives are at risk and people will die because the FBI cannot get the information they need. It's too bad that this is the kind of society we chose to create, one where trying to help law enforcement is simply too risky to oneself.

rconti 10y ago
Obligatory "Don't Talk to the Police" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- vacri 10y ago
  It's worth noting that outside the US, things are different. Here in Australia, you can't have 'not talking to the police' held against you... unless you were already talking to the police and shut up when they started asking questions. If you were being friendly and shooting the breeze with them, then they starting questions and you shut up, that change in manner can be held against you, for example. If you're not in the US, it's worth checking out what your own local jurisdiction expects - all the items in the Don't Talk to the Police video still stand (because they're about human psychology, not points of law), so it's worth knowing how much you can just shut up around police.
  - kevin_b_er 10y ago
    Unless you're in New South Wales. I suggest you look up the Evidence Amendment Act of 2013. There your silence to any question may be used against you, so long as the question(s) you were silent about are any part of your defense.

aleksei 10y ago

> Furthermore, a private employer can require you to cooperate with a law enforcement or regulatory investigation as a condition of continued employment. .. How on earth is that possible?

Spooky23 10y ago
In the absence of a contract, your employment is at will and you can be terminated for almost anything. In many situations where you're covered by a collective bargaining agreement, you're protected by this sort of thing an can have a union attorney involved before this happens.
omginternets 10y ago
Because "people who don't want to cooperate with law enforcement" isn't a protected class. Under US law, the default answer to the question of whether your employment can be terminated for <insert cause here> is "yes".
- aleksei 10y ago
  But how does the employer even find about this? How does the employer determine cooperation? Surely LEO can't blackmail you into cooperation by going to your employer first?
  - omginternets 10y ago
    >But how does the employer even find about this? If he doesn't find out, I guess he can't fire you for it. I'm not sure I understand what the underlying question is... >How does the employer determine cooperation? Completely arbitrarily. You can be fired for just about anything that isn't explicitly prohibited (e.g. being Black). In the case of "at-will" employment, I can fire someone for literally no reason at all. I can wake up on the wrong side of the bed at 7:00 AM, decide Joe Schmoe is responsible (or not... that guy just gets under my skin), shit shave and shower, then roll into the office at 9:00 and give him the ax. So, to answer your question, if the I overhear my neighbors gossiping about how you didn't cooperate with police, that's as good a criterion as any for firing you. >Surely LEO can't blackmail you into cooperation by going to your employer first? Think again. In principle, police can threaten to tell people you didn't cooperate. I don't know how often this happens but it's perfectly legal to do so.

rexf 10y ago

Stepping back a bit, do people have a lawyer on call? I haven't had to use a lawyer for anything, but I don't have a lawyer when it comes to telling someone that they have to talk to my attorney first.

kemiller2002 10y ago
It's a tactic to get them to back off. Telling them you want a lawyer present gives you time to find one before they start interrogating you. Even if you are arrested and you need someone else to find one for you, it stops them from being able to pull unethical/illegal tactics to get you to confess to things you shouldn't.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > It's a tactic to get them to back off. Telling them you want a lawyer present gives you time to find one before they start interrogating you. I don't think that's accurate. It's not a short-term tactic - it's a strategy. And it doesn't give you time before they start interrogating you - it helps ensure that you don't have to be interrogated at all.
- ghamrick 10y ago
  I would posit that it is a strategy as well, sort of like calling a bluff. If you have committed a crime, let them charge you. If you yell 'lawyer' and they leave, it is likely you are not chargeable, at least at that time. Might want to google 'lawyers' in the interim though....
lobotryas 10y ago
You don't need a layer "on call" to tell someone that you will have an attorney get in touch with then. You then go online and find yourself council. This was one of the points of the article.
- noobhacker 10y ago
  Have you done this before and do you have a sense what's the cost? If it costs $5,000 to have an attorney involved while I'm pretty sure that I'm just a witness, it may not be worth it.

tylercubell 10y ago

The part that sticks out to me is: > It is crucial to note that affirmatively declining to discuss the investigation in the absence of counsel is not the same thing as remaining completely silent. If you are not in custody, your total silence, especially in the face of an accusation, can very possibly be used against you as an adoptive admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence. I thought we had the right to remain silent. Can someone explain this?

GavinMcG 10y ago
Not sure if there's case law specifically on this point, thus the hedging from the author with "can very possibly". The Supreme Court has ruled that when in custody, it's not enough to simply remain silent – you must invoke the right. And, it's not an invocation that's valid indefinitely. They can try to interview you again after a reasonable amount of time has passed, so you may need to invoke your right to remain silent every 24 hours.
desdiv 10y ago
This document explains it: http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/36-1/RUBER.36.1.pdf http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/36-1/RUBER.36.1.pdf
xoa 10y ago
desdiv's document is a great read. If you're referring to Miranda specifically though, I think a key part there might be "If you are not in custody[...]". The Miranda v. Arizona 1966 SCOTUS ruling had to do with violation of 5th/6th Amendment rights against compelled testimony and right to counsel. If you are arrested and interrogated, obviously you are under the government's direct power by definition, and if law enforcement fails to make clear to those arrested that testimony is not something they can actually coerce then anything they gain might get tossed on constitutional grounds. It's as much for the protection of prosecution as anything actually. But nothing in the Constitution prevents you from volunteering whatever the heck you want to anyone, including someone from the government, even if it would a completely stupid decision to do so. If an agent/officer just asks you a question that doesn't mean you're in custody. They can legally draw inferences from any of your resulting answers/non-answers, just as they could from 3rd party witnesses, though how well any of those hold up in court is a different question of course. Affirmative assertion of rights is the neutral course there, it doesn't mean anything except that you recognize the situation is serious and want counsel to help you navigate it. It's not an admission of anything, it puts things on hold.

bradleyjg 10y ago

To summarize: "Tell the agent that you have an attorney and that 'my attorney will be in contact with you.'" "Simply state that you will not discuss the matter at all without first consulting counsel and that counsel will be in touch with him." "Just respond that you will consult with your attorney (or 'an' attorney) and that the attorney will be in touch." "Simply repeat your mantra that you will not discuss the matter with him in the absence of counsel."

lobotryas 10y ago
Even more importantly: never say ANYTHING else. Not whether you have something to hide and not excuses as for why you can't talk right now. The sentence regarding "my attorney will be in touch with you" should be the only thing you say.
tlogan 10y ago
And the most important point is: "You are not qualified to determine whether you have committed some crime or not" I think this is the most important part. It could be that you did something but you thought it is not illegal at all.
TerminalJunkie 10y ago
Probably a daft question but I'm curious as to what others have to say. If this happens, what kind of attorney or lawyer should you contact? Is simply googling "attorney's near me" and reaching out to the first result good enough? The lawyers I work with are all corporate contract lawyers, not the kind that deal with criminal law.
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  If the FBI wanted to interview you, your best bet would probably be to ask one of the corporate contract lawyers for a white collar criminal defense lawyer. If you couldn't do that for whatever reason your next best bet would be to shake your network to find another lawyer and ask him for a recommendation for a white collar criminal defense lawyer.
- 10y ago

xoa 10y ago

Ken White, a criminal defense attorney and former US prosecutor at Popehat.com, writes about these subjects, and has an entire series devoted to this sort of thing under the what-it-says-on-the-tin tag of Shut Up: https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/ https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/ His writing makes for accessible, knowledgeable and amusing posts on a very serious topic and are extremely well worth a read. But the summary version is pretty straight forward: there is no such thing as an out-of-the-blue innocent visit from Law Enforcement, ever. This is kind of common sense when you stop think about it: agents are not free and budget is not infinite. If they are actually devoting an actual warm body to talk to you, particularly a warm body to visit you, it is always, always potentially serious. It is not on a lark, they did not roll some dice and have your number come up for a community chat. They're talking to you for a reason and given their fundamental purpose that reason may be quite bad for you, whether you did anything wrong or not. The true super power of government is patience and grinding, relentless inertia. By the time they talk to you odds are high that they have already done their research, extensively. They have a legal theory and narrative already in mind. If the Feds are knocking it's time to get a lawyer, period, particularly if you're fully innocent.

derefr 10y ago
If the police are at your door, and, 1. you know a crime happened around you recently; 2. you saw/heard something; 3. you either feel some sense of moral responsibility in helping to catch the criminal, or you just feel unsafe in your home and want to feel safe again; then I don't see what's wrong with taking part in a conversation with a police officer that goes specifically along the lines of "we know you were at [place] at [time]" or "[crime] happened in your building", followed by "did you see or hear anyone or anything suspicious?" Sure, if the conversation goes anywhere else, lawyer up. But is there any risk in providing the same statement when the police come to you, that you'd have willingly provided by actively going down to the police station to give a witness statement? (Which is, after all, the majority of the interviews the police do. For every one person the police speak to under suspicion, they speak to 5+ other people—witnesses—to figure out who to suspect. This is exactly the "research" you mention above.)
- 10y ago

mpweiher 10y ago

"But why, you may ask, should law-abiding citizens be alarmed about this statute? Don't the feds only pick on big-league liars?" That's the definition of a police state. "Police state is a term denoting a government that exercises power arbitrarily through the power of the police force." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

dllthomas 10y ago
It's not arbitrary, to whatever degree there is consistency in determining what makes a liar "big-league". That may or may not make it better.
- kilotaras 10y ago
  Consistent selective law-enforcement doesn't make it better.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    That seems to depend on how it's consistent. If it consistently consolidates the power of the police, it's probably worse than inconsistent. (And I find it weird calling it "less of a police state", despite the deviation from the provided definition...) If it is consistent in always acting against those doing the most harm, with "the most harm" determined in line with the intent of the laws being broken, that seems substantially better - probably even desirable, given limited resources.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

zeveb 10y ago

> Without getting into the scope of the 1001 statute (I think they're probably mostly right about it), I just want to chime in with a nit about the example they chose: He. Solomon L. Wisenberg is a man: http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1362810_1 http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1362810_1 > If you take a job at a health provider that you later learn is corrupt, and later knowingly transport false vouchers as part of your job while otherwise avoiding direct participation with the more overtly criminal parts of the enterprise, you are a criminal. > We in this industry all need to be taking more responsibility for our individual actions and the net impact they have on society. Yes, you're correct in an absolute sense, much as the prosecutor who indicted Martha Stewart was correct in an absolute sense. But you're incorrect in a different sense, much as the prosecutor who indicted Martha Stewart was incorrect in that same sense.

tptacek 10y ago
In English, the singular "they" is gender-neutral.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  Additionally, it has a longer history than the grammar pedants give it credit for. It has been part of the English language since the 14th century. Meaning it's just as valid as the word "succeed", which was inherited from French in the same time period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
  - tptacek 10y ago
    For Language Log or Geoffrey Pullum fans, here's a more fun link: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/sing_they_sli.pdf http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/sing_they_sli.pdf
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      I'll have to keep that link around for reference! I love all the quotes from literary references... I want to see the mental knots that are tied trying to address that cognitive dissonance.

Overtonwindow 10y ago

This is really excellent advice. I work in legislative affairs with lobbyists and lawyers. After 12 years working in DC with and for congress, I can say unequivocally there is absolutely nothing good that can come from voluntarily cooperating with the police. You should avoid them at all cost. Do not volunteer. Speak through your lawyer if you speak at all, and never allow yourself to get trapped. It's nice to think prosecutors won't go after small fish, but to them you are worth nothing, and they will hang you out to dry if it gets them even the most remote, minor, or inconsequential conviction.

geekamongus 10y ago

I thought the answer would be: run for office.

trhway 10y ago

no wonder what so many non-college educated people get imprisoned. It is like a minefield.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
College education has almost nothing to do with this. It teaches most people nothing about this subject. I'm actually somewhat surprised that more people don't learn how to properly not attract the attention of cops while in college. College campuses are full of cause-less traffic stops that escalate into full on searches, money (fines) to be made from underage drinking and drugs all of which increase people's contact with law enforcement. Pretty much everyone at knows someone who's been mistreated in a petty way by the cops or done something dumb and then compounded it by playing straight into their tactics or not STUFing. College provides ample opportunity to experience or become aware of fairly tame instances of many of the things we as a society don't like about law enforcement. You have to have your head firmly buried in the sand to not at least learn a little bit about how to conduct one's self during an interaction with law enforcement.
- belenos46 10y ago
  College definitely has something to do with it --for all the reasons you just rattled off. We get fucked once on, say, a misdemeanor, and then we learn this FUCK out of how to handle cops. And a fed is just a cop with better shoes.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    I'm saying that despite that environment the number of college educated people who don't know to STFU is low enough that the impact of college is negligible.

colanderman 10y ago

> Whether you speak, what you say and how and when you say it can have a profound effect on your future when you find yourself involved in a white-collar criminal investigation. It is very disturbing that we live in a society with laws so obscure to the common person. Unless you know this "one weird trick to avoid indictment under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001", your life is held potentially at the whim of some random prosecutor. Such detachment of one's legal fate from one's actions has no place in modern lawful society. Information asymmetry is one of the primary sources of power disparity. Dividing those subject to whimsical prosecution into the "in-the-knows" and "know-nots" – whether through this law, civil forfeiture, the obscure tax code, or pay-to-play building codes – is a progenitor of the police state. Free society requires transparent law.

alexbecker 10y ago

I wonder what bug resulted in the string "government226128147that" being inserted. Clearly something to do with signed integer arithmetic, but where would that be happening?

3JPLW 10y ago
More likely shoddy unicode handling. I'd wager that the author intended for an emdash at that point (—). ... I was close. It's an en-dash. It's a triple of bytes, in decimal representation: julia> b = UInt8[226, 128, 147] 3-element Array{UInt8,1}: 0xe2 0x80 0x93 julia> String(b) "–" julia> ans[1] '–': Unicode U+2013 (category Pd: Punctuation, dash)

draw_down 10y ago

God, fuck this.

sctb 10y ago
Really, please stop! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

a3n 10y ago

> and if the agent promises you that nothing will happen to you if you tell the truth I thought law enforcement is allowed to lie to you. Could they lie about this? IANAL.

evan_ 10y ago
not only are they allowed to lie, a law enforcement officer has no authority to offer you this kind of deal, and they know it; so they can't say this without lying about it.

ghufran_syed 10y ago

Extremely relevant and important video on the same subject "Don't talk to the police" by a law school professor. https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

mtempleton 10y ago
I've travelled to many countries and the US is the only country I've been to where citizens have a legitimate and real fear of their government using force against them for something that most people would define as 'not doing anything wrong.' Perhaps, in America, we should stop putting people in jail for not doing anything wrong.[1][2][3][4] [1]-https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-snowden-with-espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ch... [2]-https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/locked-up-for-seeking-asylum.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/locked-up-... [3]-https://melmagazine.com/i-won-104-million-for-blowing-the-whistle-on-my-company-but-somehow-i-was-the-only-one-who-went-to-7ed8a808d50c https://melmagazine.com/i-won-104-million-for-blowing-the-wh... [4]-http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/01/the-spy-who-said-too-much http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/01/the-spy-who-sai... [5]-http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/16/arizona-governor-drop-charges-against-guy-giving-free-haircuts-to-homeless/ http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/16/arizona-governor-drop-ch...

gonzo 10y ago

tl;dr: lawyer up, and don't talk to the feds until you do.

ryanmarsh 10y ago

This and other reasons are why I've drilled into my children "never, under any circumstances, talk to the police". It's a shame it has to be this way.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
I hope you made clear that "don't talk to" ≠ "ignore or evade"...
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  In the article the language you should use is made clear.
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    No I mean, if you just tell a child "don't ever talk to the police", you're really putting them in danger because they might think it means "avoid or run from the police as if they were dangerous strangers" which can obviously result in tragic outcomes. Also what if they're the victim of a crime or some other emergency situation and really should talk to the police? If you really absolutize and drill them to "never ever talk to the police", you're setting them up for a worse outcome in that instance too.

dmacedo 10y ago

Why doesn't the US federal government publish a "your rights" like the UK does: https://www.gov.uk/browse/justice/rights https://www.gov.uk/browse/justice/rights First thing I looked at when moving to the UK in case I get pulled over and know how to comply to law enforcement powers whilst understanding the limitations and my rights... Are these published in the US, on a state level at least?

valar_m 10y ago
> Why doesn't the US federal government publish a "your rights" like the UK does Because they don't want you to know.

ternaryoperator 10y ago

An attorney once added to the info in this article that if law enforcement come to your home and asks, "May we come in?" the answer is always "no." Step outside, pull the front door shut, and then tell them you won't speak without your attorney. If you consent to let them in the house, anything they see of interest is something they can act on.

andrewflnr 10y ago

Is it normal for people to just have a lawyer they can call? I don't. I wouldn't know how to find a lawyer for this sort of situation, or even what kind to look for. Am I looking for a criminal defense lawyer?

Kenji 10y ago

>How to Avoid Going to Jail Under 18 U.S.C. For Lying to Government Agents Step 1: Belong to the political elite.

pc86 10y ago

> For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable. This blows my mind. I have a pretty dim view of lying in general - I've railed on HN against "padding" one's resume in any way, but I for one had no idea you could lie to your employer (decidedly not a criminal act), then through no action of your own your employer could turn around and make you subject to Federal prosecution.

DanBC 10y ago
> but I for one had no idea you could lie to your employer (decidedly not a criminal act) Lying to your employer on your time and attendance records is potentially fraud, which is a criminal offence. I agree that it's weird for it to suddenly elevate to a federal crime just because your employer submits those records to somewhere else.
- pc86 10y ago
  You are right I probably generalized it a little more than I should have. Lying in order to beef up your paycheck or increase billables is very likely criminal fraud.