12 ms·

It’s time for police to stop lying to suspects

198 points by miles 6y ago

VikingCoder 6y ago
This flowchart on how to correctly plead the fifth haunts me. That the courts have allowed the law to get this convoluted is a travesty. https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897
- caturopath 6y ago
  That flow-chart just overcomplicates its information and overall is laid out extremely poorly (probably to make a point). There's very little unintuitive there, and most of the actionable advice is "Say you're not going to answer any questions and that you want a lawyer and then actually shut up."
andrewla 6y ago
Complementary point: It's time for lying to law enforcement to not be a crime. The nice thing is that this is actually possible to achieve.
- iaabtpbtpnn 6y ago
  It's already legal to lie to the police, at least the state police. You can't lie to the FBI, though.
  - miles 6y ago
    > It's already legal to lie to the police Apparently not in Maui County[1]: Stern was arrested for Rules and Orders, pertaining to face mask violation. ... An additional charge of Unsworn Falsification To Authorities was added. [1] https://mauinow.com/2021/01/22/maui-police-respond-to-complaints-of-paʻia-drum-circle-colorado-man-arrested-for-mask-violation/ https://mauinow.com/2021/01/22/maui-police-respond-to-compla...
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    IANAL, but my understanding is that in some jurisdictions, lying to the police is Obstruction of Justice. In addition, lying to the police can be de-facto illegal by being the primary evidence they have that you are guilty of some other crime "Why would s/he lie if s/he weren't guilty?".
    - mc32 6y ago
      They can’t punish you for lying, but they will use your lies against your credibility at trial. Nothing wrong with that. It’s better to stay mum than lie.
  - mc32 6y ago
    The FBI is notoriously bad. They make people lie and then use it against them: See Martha Stewart. I’m neutral on her. But the FBI went way overboard on a peanuts case. It’s like they lose face if they lose. But get Epstein and friends and they let them plea bargain, etc.
    - andrewla 6y ago
      > they lose face if they lose Well, they gain face if they win, and the only way to get ahead in a bureaucracy like the FBIs is to pump up the numbers. As I recall, the agent who was in charge of the Martha Stewart case in particular rose to a significant level of prominence, despite the fact that they never managed to convict her of anything securities-related.
  - jessriedel 6y ago
    It's not legal in California: > Under [California Vehicle Code 31], it is a crime to knowingly give false information to a peace officer while the officer is performing his duties https://www.wklaw.com/providing-false-information-to-a-police-officer https://www.wklaw.com/providing-false-information-to-a-polic... > No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=31 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... Despite being part of the vehicle code, this applies outside of traffic situations as far as I can tell.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Isn't this only about ID?
      - jessriedel 6y ago
        My links? No.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    In many places it's not legal to lie to the police or any government official, in the US other otherwise.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Not just FBI, it’s illegal to lie to any federal agent from any agency. EPA agent asks you if you dumped some wastewater from your companies property into the sewage system. You, unsure of whether it was legal, lie and say no. Later it’s established that your dumping was perfectly legal, but you go to prison for your lie.
duxup 6y ago
>and require courts to evaluate the reliability of confession evidence before allowing it to be used That's an interesting aspect. I like that it naturally addresses the idea confessions can come from innocent people. If the confession is wrong, took place only due to some undue presser / false promises / lies ... it should be considered that it might be false.
cratermoon 6y ago
It's time for police to stop lying, full stop. - Shake shack poisoned cops: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/nypd-shake-shack-poisoned-cops-conspiracy-theory-1015897/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/nypd-shake... - Starbucks put a tampon in a cop's coffee: https://popculture.com/trending/news/target-starbucks-tampon-no-suspicious-behavior-employees/ https://popculture.com/trending/news/target-starbucks-tampon... - McDonald's wrote "pig" on a cop's cup: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/us/police-mcdonalds-coffee.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/us/police-mcdonalds-coffe... - Subway put meth in a cop's drink: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/14/utah-subway-store-sues-police-after-worker-cleared-of-drugging-officer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/1... - protesters hid concrete in ice cream containers: https://popculture.com/trending/news/nypd-called-out-falsely-claiming-protesters-hiding-concrete-ice-cream-containers/ https://popculture.com/trending/news/nypd-called-out-falsely... - Journalist arrested did not identify herself: https://www.foxla.com/news/deputies-arrest-kpcc-reporter-covering-demonstration-in-lynwood-after-compton-lasd-shooting https://www.foxla.com/news/deputies-arrest-kpcc-reporter-cov... - Ballistics don't support AG Cameron's claim Breonna Taylor's boyfriend shot officer: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/27/ballistics-report-dont-support-daniel-cameron-claim-breonna-taylor-boyfriend-shot-louisville-cop/3552007001/ https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-tay... - more: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939zda/how-stupid-do-cops-think-we-are-v27n1 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939zda/how-stupid-do-cops... - cops lie: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jmv94x/testilying-cops-are-liars-who-get-away-with-perjury https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jmv94x/testilying-cops-ar... - OC sheriff’s deputies who lied on reports testify that they didn’t know it was illegal: https://www.ocregister.com/2020/09/25/oc-sheriffs-deputies-who-lied-on-reports-testify-that-they-didnt-know-it-was-illegal/ https://www.ocregister.com/2020/09/25/oc-sheriffs-deputies-w...
- spacemanmatt 6y ago
  I really like your material. Do you have a youtube channel?
wonder_er 6y ago
Asking police to stop lying to suspects belies an expectation for police to act contrary to human nature for _many well known reasons_. It's less of a problem that police lie if everyone adopts the very clear advice given by every legal professional: > Never, ever, talk to police.* * You can give them your name, and if they ask "what are you doing", a tolerable answer, but any further questions are to be met with "I have been advised to never speak with police, and I can answer no further questions." Here's an entertaining lecture on the topic, for anyone not convinced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=11s And he wrote a very short (single-sitting) book titled: "You Have The Right To Remain Innocent": https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent-ebook/dp/B01DAD218W/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent-ebook/... Do. Not. Talk. To. Police. They are not your friend. If you're reading this and about to hit the "reply" button explaining why I am wrong, will you please, please say in that comment if you watched _any_ of the lecture by Regent Law Professor James Duane?
- billforsternz 6y ago
  I haven't watched _any_ of the lecture but I don't need to know this blanket Do. Not. Talk. To. The. Police. advice is absurd. For example: What if I need to report a crime?
  - bambax 6y ago
    > I haven't watched _any_ of the lecture Then do.
  - tclancy 6y ago
    If you have this much trouble with context, I would highly suggest hiring an attorney before commenting on the Internet.
    - billforsternz 6y ago
      One time a neighbor knocked on my door. She was concerned. "Can you hear those children screaming?" Stepping outside with her I found I could, just, maybe a few hundred metres away. "We better call the cops" I said. The cops arrived within minutes. It turned out that the local school had invited a farmer to bring some lambs to the school and we could hear the kids squealing in delight. The cops, my neighbor and I had a good laugh about it. This is one of many times I've talked to cops in my life and I've invariably had pleasant and good natured conversations. Perhaps I should mention I don't live in the USA.
dfxm12 6y ago
In Frazier v. Cupp (1969), the Supreme Court made it lawful for the police to present false evidence. “The victim’s blood was found on your pillow,” “You failed the polygraph,”... are some common but brazen lies told. The article goes on to to talk about a NY state bill that is trying to bar police deception in the interrogation room and require courts to evaluate the reliability of confession evidence before allowing it to be used. If you want a justice system more based on finding the truth, you can ask your local politicians to to bring up a similar bill.
- lostcolony 6y ago
  This. Lies like these may pressure someone to create a false confession to get a plea, because it sounds to them like despite not being guilty, they're going to be found guilty. That is a huge issue.
  - nullc 6y ago
    It's often coupled with a setup to get you to explain why the action (which you're now convinced you'll be found guilty of) wasn't really that bad... how it was self-defence, etc.
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  And if I'm not mistaken, can't the cops even testify about how you reacted to this kind of BS in your trial? "I told him the victim's blood was found on his pillow, and he barely even flinched. This guy was really cold-blooded."
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
The cynic in me says that police agencies are only entertaining the idea of these reforms because the dragnet is so good it has mostly supplanted false convictions as the supplier of evidence for otherwise bogus convictions with the added benefit of the police not depending on the suspect for any of it. Regardless, government officials of any agency should not be permitted to lie to people except in the narrowest of circumstances (i.e. undercover cop and little more).
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  Narrowest of circumstances tend to become truck size loopholes.
- galaxyLogic 6y ago
  As an example I think it should be especially illegal for the president to lie to the nation. The job of the president is to lead the nation. But if the president is lying to the nation s/he is misleading the nation. Not kosher. Whereas normal people lying is not such a big deal because they can mislead only a few people. The president can mislead the whole nation.
  - astrange 6y ago
    "Illegal" doesn't apply to the president, who is above the law[1]. Instead, Congress can impeach and remove him for anything they want, whether it's a law or not. [1] although not above DC law https://dcist.com/story/12/10/04/dc-police-once-gave-the-president-a/ https://dcist.com/story/12/10/04/dc-police-once-gave-the-pre...
    - MereInterest 6y ago
      While this is the current policy of the DoJ, to the best of my knowledge it is not explicitly stated in any law, nor is it stated in the Constitution. The President is able to take illegal acts, and it is only the power of the President to obstruct justice that prevents the President from being charged with those illegal acts. Edit:Though I agree that impeachment need not be for crimes on the books, and is solely at the decision of the Senate. The scope of impeachment is wider than the scope of laws, and the President must be answerable to both.
jmann99999 6y ago
Twenty years ago I read the article "Never talk to the police." Later that year, the police came to my girlfriend's apartment and asked questions about a homicide. I was there and when they asked if they could come in, I said "No." There is no upside to allowing them in. "We'll answer any questions here" I remember saying. We didn't have anything to hide, but you never know what law you may've broken. You never know what they may say and how you will react. The system sets up an adversarial relationship. It would be in the best interest of law enforcement to play by the same rules as regular people.
- Justsignedup 6y ago
  Another advice: Always talk to the police -- AFTER GETTING IMMUNITY. Basically first if they ask you anything, say "I will happily comply with any questioning if you give me immunity in writing to this case or anything resulting from my answers." The cop who gave that presentation even mentioned getting an IRS call, and said that, they never called back. Point is, ask for immunity.
  - spacemanmatt 6y ago
    My understanding of the law is, cops don't have the authority to grant immunity. I would want to get that promise from a prosecutor, minimum.
    - DavidAdams 6y ago
      That's true. The cops would have to coordinate with the DA to make that happen. Which they would never bother to do unless they really needed your testimony, which is why it's a good way to get them to buzz off.
    - dmurray 6y ago
      According to the article it's OK for the cops to lie about almost anything. There's not a lot to stop them saying "I have the authority to grant immunity" or "I am an official from the DA's office" or "I just called the DA and he approved the immunity" or "I just called the DA and he approved the immunity and he sent this confirmation by fax". Some of these might not really be de jure OK for the cops to tell you, but would you want to rely on a court upholding that?
mc32 6y ago
This will come true once all criminals stop lying and confess honestly -which is to say the day will never come.
- spacemanmatt 6y ago
  The set of all criminals includes a lot of cops, so maybe your angle here is just a poorly-considered one.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Lying is human nature. You have to work around it.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      One way of working around it is to make it illegal to do in your job.
- ohdannyboy 6y ago
  The problem is that the investigation is about figuring out who is actually the criminal. Cops deal with mostly bad people. Actually innocent people who get caught up in the criminal justice system are relatively rare -- ask any defense lawyer. This makes investigators incredibly jaded and willing to treat everyone as guilty because it's usually right (and even if they didn't do it they did something). This is what makes your take on this question so dangerous. This is not about how cops are allowed to treat people they know are criminals, this is about how the cops are allowed to figure out if someone is a criminal in the first place. Telling an innocent person "we have DNA and video of you committing the crime, just plea down to manslaughter and you'll be out of prison by the time your kid graduates highschool" puts them in a devastating position. They may decide that they've been framed and just confess because they think they either do it today or face mandatory life without parole. Even if the majority of people put in this position actually did the crime it's still wrong. Same goes for beating confessions out of people.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Another symptom of poor executive-power education in our country. Constitutional and civic right literacy should be required for all high school graduates. People must know their rights. Come to think of it, constitutional literacy should also be part of a required knowledge test for all elected officials. Or else we’ll continue down the slow acquiescing of foundational civic rights, and the punishment for infringing on them will get lighter and lighter. By the way, the person who outright lied to the FISA courts to obtain a warrant on an American citizen was sentenced to probation today. Not even a slap on the wrist. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-sentenced-john-durham-probe https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith...
mattzito 6y ago
In the excellent true crime book, "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets", David Simon (future creator of The Wire), talks about the Miranda warning in the context of interrogations. When originally introduced, law enforcement bemoaned that this would hamstring their ability to gain confessions from suspects, because any sensible criminal would simply ask for a lawyer. He then goes on to explain that wily police detectives, instead, were able to use Miranda as a tool - "this is something we have to get out of the way so we can get you home" and "look, you can get a lawyer, but then we can't figure this out right here". He points out that lying to suspects is both a tool and a risk - if you tell a suspect that there was blood found on his shoes, and the suspect knows that he wasn't wearing those shoes during the crime, he knows you have nothing. I highlight this because it's fine and good to ban lying to suspects, but not all lies are strictly untrue, and it's possible to use partially true statements to one's benefit in an interrogation. Simon points out that interrogations, by their very nature, are coercive, and if we really want to protect the rights of suspects, mandating an attorney present at an interview is the only way to ensure that.
- valuearb 6y ago
  I’m fine with cops lying if you’ve been charged with a crime, and established the antagonistic relationship, but not before. When beat cops lie to ordinary citizens about what their rights are, it just builds up an enmity that makes it more difficult for community policing to work.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
It's ALSO time to stop overcharging crimes to get people to plead out, and skip the trial part of due process. Not only is it unethical, it ought to be un-Constitutional.
- analog31 6y ago
  The article suggests that the police should have to prove that the confession is true. I would go further and say that this should apply to guilty pleas and plea bargains as well. The police should have to prove that the plea is justified by the evidence, and disclose all evidence at their disposal to the court. If you're pleading to a reduced charge, the police should have to prove both charges. After the evidence has been presented and shown to be sufficient, then the court decides if the plea is justified, what kind of trial to hold, and what sentence to mete out. It's supposed to be hard to convict people.
ckosidows 6y ago
The Moth presented a story by Prinna Boudreau which is relevant to this topic and well worth a listen if you want some more perspective. https://open.spotify.com/episode/3pGYI4CqJysBVgEDf2qacw?si=zen1Mu_CSr-fVFd3mQCkRQ https://open.spotify.com/episode/3pGYI4CqJysBVgEDf2qacw?si=z...
haspoken 6y ago
http://archive.is/l7loc http://archive.is/l7loc
ranprieur 6y ago
Every time an article says "it's time," it means the right time was far in the past, and the politically possible time is far in the future.
graeme 6y ago
Can anyone in Canada or the UK or other common law jurisdictions comment if “don’t talk to the police without a lawyer” is good policy in those jurisdictions, or is it only good policy in the US where the legal system is deranged? It can be hard to figure out where to take lessons from american advice and where the advice is specific to US idiosyncrasies.
- username90 6y ago
  Canada has similar laws as USA, UK has the same situation as most of Europe where you can lie to the police and they can't lie to you. So I think the advice is mostly for countries like USA and Canada with reverse rights, that is the police has more rights than you. In Europe where you have more rights than the police talking to them is safer than talking to a civilian.
smokey_circles 6y ago
Not an American, but I have some questions * What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't) * Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around? * What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism? * If the purpose of prison is to pay your time to the community, why do you have a box that must be ticked that seems to push people back towards crime? I don't think arguing the police are the problem does anything to address much larger systemic issues that seem to have much more dramatic consequences at scale.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  The jury in 2021 serves the same purpose that it did in the 18th century, especially in criminal trials. A jury means that the government has to prove its case, not just to one person who's employed by the government (the judge), but to some random people off the street. The purpose is to make it harder for the government to just put people away "because we said so" - outside the rule of law. It also can serve as a brake on insane or unjust laws, though it does not always do so. Now, for a complex or technical civil trial (Oracle v Google, say), it has flaws. That I will freely admit. But the businesses in those kinds of trials can choose to have a bench trial (that is, one decided by the judge). When they choose not to, it's because they think they are more likely to be able to snow the jury than the judge. Unfortunately, if I understand correctly it only takes one side to choose a jury trial, and the one with no real case is more likely to do so.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > * What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't) I'm speculating, but I think the idea was to put a check on the authorities by placing the actual decision-making power in the people. I think that's a valid principle. Even if Oracle v Google was a bench trial (e.g. no jury), the judge would still probably have to be educated on the technical issues, just like a jury. IIRC, technically a jury could even decide the law is BS and refuse to convict for that reason alone, but the system puts up a lot of roadblocks to reduce the change of that happening (e.g. the defense counsel can't argue for it or remind them of that option). > * Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around? Because public defenders are underpaid and overworked, and that's because it's an easier sell to the voters to raise taxes to hire police to lower crime than to raise taxes to hire public defenders for fairer government. There's also been a history of "tough on crime" rhetoric/attitudes that makes it even more difficult. Also: the suspects on crime shows are almost always actually guilty (whether successfully convicted or now), which creates the impression that it's the job of defense lawyers to help the guilty go free. > * What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism? I'm not sure who's arguing this, but my guess it's probably someone who benefiting from that industry. My vague recollection was that private prisons were sold as a cost-saving measure, like most privatization schemes.
buffaloo 6y ago
10 years ago, I could get behind the anti-cop bit as things had gone too far police state, but today with dangerous crazed chaos in the streets and the being made to do all the kneeling and feet washing... Anybody who can stand working as a cop deserves a medal.
- moate 6y ago
  Can you spin this thought out a little more? Do you think cops have gotten LESS power over the last 10 years? Do you believe their unions suddenly stopped being some of the strongest political forces? Also, cops make about 15K more than the average job(1) and that's because they're EXTREMELY well compensated in blue-states (presumably where they are made to wash the most feet?). They also still have their qualified immunity, so it's not like it's gotten that much harder to "do the job". Violent crime has been trending down for decades(2). There has not been a massive spike in "crazed chaos in the streets" people just think there is because reasons. Nah dude, hold cops accountable. Just like any other public servant. 1- https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/police-officer-salary-state/?sh=bd8efe2010c4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/polic... 2- https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about...
  - buffaloo 6y ago
    Good point. Crime is down. Sounds like policing is working. Give the boys in blue a raise. Anyone who thinks police are overpaid should apply for the job.
    - moate 6y ago
      Why not the opposite? Crime is down, policing is working: stop expanding police force size, keep budgets in place, and see what happens. We have no idea if it's "more/higher paid cops" that's causing the reduction in crime, or other societal factors. At a certain point it's diminishing returns to continue investing in something to try and move those last couple percentage points. You're never going to have a 0% crime rate, no matter how much money you throw at the problem.
bokohut 6y ago
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Sir John Dalberg-Acton The beauty of the internet is that it does not forget and all the proof one needs it out there if one knows where to look. Many people lack morals and ethics and seek only to better themselves using their ‘power’ and some law enforcement entities are “absolutely” no different. One may believe the law enforcement as well as government is always correct and infallible yet everyone reading this at this very moment in time likely recognizes this fallacy. Each reader can likely provide their own unique individual point of proof as evidence, see my link and provide your own. In my past business endeavors I have personally witnessed a ‘fall from power’ event around someone's pure egotistical narcissistic greed so from my personal experience I would encourage everyone to ALWAYS get it in writing and save EVERY form of communication. You NEVER know when you will need it NOR the value it will make/save you in that future. To prove my point from my words above bringing all this together in the topic at hand you may find great interest in this yt link. youtube.com/watch?v=Qm4LHak5WZY Be honest, be kind, be true, be you! All others will be discovered. Stay Healthy!

198 points by miles 6y ago

This flowchart on how to correctly plead the fifth haunts me. That the courts have allowed the law to get this convoluted is a travesty. https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897

caturopath 6y ago
That flow-chart just overcomplicates its information and overall is laid out extremely poorly (probably to make a point). There's very little unintuitive there, and most of the actionable advice is "Say you're not going to answer any questions and that you want a lawyer and then actually shut up."

andrewla 6y ago

Complementary point: It's time for lying to law enforcement to not be a crime. The nice thing is that this is actually possible to achieve.

iaabtpbtpnn 6y ago
It's already legal to lie to the police, at least the state police. You can't lie to the FBI, though.
- miles 6y ago
  > It's already legal to lie to the police Apparently not in Maui County[1]: Stern was arrested for Rules and Orders, pertaining to face mask violation. ... An additional charge of Unsworn Falsification To Authorities was added. [1] https://mauinow.com/2021/01/22/maui-police-respond-to-complaints-of-paʻia-drum-circle-colorado-man-arrested-for-mask-violation/ https://mauinow.com/2021/01/22/maui-police-respond-to-compla...
- aidenn0 6y ago
  IANAL, but my understanding is that in some jurisdictions, lying to the police is Obstruction of Justice. In addition, lying to the police can be de-facto illegal by being the primary evidence they have that you are guilty of some other crime "Why would s/he lie if s/he weren't guilty?".
  - mc32 6y ago
    They can’t punish you for lying, but they will use your lies against your credibility at trial. Nothing wrong with that. It’s better to stay mum than lie.
- mc32 6y ago
  The FBI is notoriously bad. They make people lie and then use it against them: See Martha Stewart. I’m neutral on her. But the FBI went way overboard on a peanuts case. It’s like they lose face if they lose. But get Epstein and friends and they let them plea bargain, etc.
  - andrewla 6y ago
    > they lose face if they lose Well, they gain face if they win, and the only way to get ahead in a bureaucracy like the FBIs is to pump up the numbers. As I recall, the agent who was in charge of the Martha Stewart case in particular rose to a significant level of prominence, despite the fact that they never managed to convict her of anything securities-related.
- jessriedel 6y ago
  It's not legal in California: > Under [California Vehicle Code 31], it is a crime to knowingly give false information to a peace officer while the officer is performing his duties https://www.wklaw.com/providing-false-information-to-a-police-officer https://www.wklaw.com/providing-false-information-to-a-polic... > No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=31 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... Despite being part of the vehicle code, this applies outside of traffic situations as far as I can tell.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Isn't this only about ID?
    - jessriedel 6y ago
      My links? No.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  In many places it's not legal to lie to the police or any government official, in the US other otherwise.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Not just FBI, it’s illegal to lie to any federal agent from any agency. EPA agent asks you if you dumped some wastewater from your companies property into the sewage system. You, unsure of whether it was legal, lie and say no. Later it’s established that your dumping was perfectly legal, but you go to prison for your lie.

duxup 6y ago

>and require courts to evaluate the reliability of confession evidence before allowing it to be used That's an interesting aspect. I like that it naturally addresses the idea confessions can come from innocent people. If the confession is wrong, took place only due to some undue presser / false promises / lies ... it should be considered that it might be false.

cratermoon 6y ago

It's time for police to stop lying, full stop. - Shake shack poisoned cops: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/nypd-shake-shack-poisoned-cops-conspiracy-theory-1015897/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/nypd-shake... - Starbucks put a tampon in a cop's coffee: https://popculture.com/trending/news/target-starbucks-tampon-no-suspicious-behavior-employees/ https://popculture.com/trending/news/target-starbucks-tampon... - McDonald's wrote "pig" on a cop's cup: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/us/police-mcdonalds-coffee.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/us/police-mcdonalds-coffe... - Subway put meth in a cop's drink: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/14/utah-subway-store-sues-police-after-worker-cleared-of-drugging-officer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/1... - protesters hid concrete in ice cream containers: https://popculture.com/trending/news/nypd-called-out-falsely-claiming-protesters-hiding-concrete-ice-cream-containers/ https://popculture.com/trending/news/nypd-called-out-falsely... - Journalist arrested did not identify herself: https://www.foxla.com/news/deputies-arrest-kpcc-reporter-covering-demonstration-in-lynwood-after-compton-lasd-shooting https://www.foxla.com/news/deputies-arrest-kpcc-reporter-cov... - Ballistics don't support AG Cameron's claim Breonna Taylor's boyfriend shot officer: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/27/ballistics-report-dont-support-daniel-cameron-claim-breonna-taylor-boyfriend-shot-louisville-cop/3552007001/ https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-tay... - more: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939zda/how-stupid-do-cops-think-we-are-v27n1 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939zda/how-stupid-do-cops... - cops lie: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jmv94x/testilying-cops-are-liars-who-get-away-with-perjury https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jmv94x/testilying-cops-ar... - OC sheriff’s deputies who lied on reports testify that they didn’t know it was illegal: https://www.ocregister.com/2020/09/25/oc-sheriffs-deputies-who-lied-on-reports-testify-that-they-didnt-know-it-was-illegal/ https://www.ocregister.com/2020/09/25/oc-sheriffs-deputies-w...

spacemanmatt 6y ago
I really like your material. Do you have a youtube channel?

wonder_er 6y ago

Asking police to stop lying to suspects belies an expectation for police to act contrary to human nature for _many well known reasons_. It's less of a problem that police lie if everyone adopts the very clear advice given by every legal professional: > Never, ever, talk to police.* * You can give them your name, and if they ask "what are you doing", a tolerable answer, but any further questions are to be met with "I have been advised to never speak with police, and I can answer no further questions." Here's an entertaining lecture on the topic, for anyone not convinced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=11s And he wrote a very short (single-sitting) book titled: "You Have The Right To Remain Innocent": https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent-ebook/dp/B01DAD218W/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent-ebook/... Do. Not. Talk. To. Police. They are not your friend. If you're reading this and about to hit the "reply" button explaining why I am wrong, will you please, please say in that comment if you watched _any_ of the lecture by Regent Law Professor James Duane?

billforsternz 6y ago
I haven't watched _any_ of the lecture but I don't need to know this blanket Do. Not. Talk. To. The. Police. advice is absurd. For example: What if I need to report a crime?
- bambax 6y ago
  > I haven't watched _any_ of the lecture Then do.
- tclancy 6y ago
  If you have this much trouble with context, I would highly suggest hiring an attorney before commenting on the Internet.
  - billforsternz 6y ago
    One time a neighbor knocked on my door. She was concerned. "Can you hear those children screaming?" Stepping outside with her I found I could, just, maybe a few hundred metres away. "We better call the cops" I said. The cops arrived within minutes. It turned out that the local school had invited a farmer to bring some lambs to the school and we could hear the kids squealing in delight. The cops, my neighbor and I had a good laugh about it. This is one of many times I've talked to cops in my life and I've invariably had pleasant and good natured conversations. Perhaps I should mention I don't live in the USA.

dfxm12 6y ago

In Frazier v. Cupp (1969), the Supreme Court made it lawful for the police to present false evidence. “The victim’s blood was found on your pillow,” “You failed the polygraph,”... are some common but brazen lies told. The article goes on to to talk about a NY state bill that is trying to bar police deception in the interrogation room and require courts to evaluate the reliability of confession evidence before allowing it to be used. If you want a justice system more based on finding the truth, you can ask your local politicians to to bring up a similar bill.

lostcolony 6y ago
This. Lies like these may pressure someone to create a false confession to get a plea, because it sounds to them like despite not being guilty, they're going to be found guilty. That is a huge issue.
- nullc 6y ago
  It's often coupled with a setup to get you to explain why the action (which you're now convinced you'll be found guilty of) wasn't really that bad... how it was self-defence, etc.
cool_dude85 6y ago
And if I'm not mistaken, can't the cops even testify about how you reacted to this kind of BS in your trial? "I told him the victim's blood was found on his pillow, and he barely even flinched. This guy was really cold-blooded."

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

The cynic in me says that police agencies are only entertaining the idea of these reforms because the dragnet is so good it has mostly supplanted false convictions as the supplier of evidence for otherwise bogus convictions with the added benefit of the police not depending on the suspect for any of it. Regardless, government officials of any agency should not be permitted to lie to people except in the narrowest of circumstances (i.e. undercover cop and little more).

adamcstephens 6y ago
Narrowest of circumstances tend to become truck size loopholes.
galaxyLogic 6y ago
As an example I think it should be especially illegal for the president to lie to the nation. The job of the president is to lead the nation. But if the president is lying to the nation s/he is misleading the nation. Not kosher. Whereas normal people lying is not such a big deal because they can mislead only a few people. The president can mislead the whole nation.
- astrange 6y ago
  "Illegal" doesn't apply to the president, who is above the law[1]. Instead, Congress can impeach and remove him for anything they want, whether it's a law or not. [1] although not above DC law https://dcist.com/story/12/10/04/dc-police-once-gave-the-president-a/ https://dcist.com/story/12/10/04/dc-police-once-gave-the-pre...
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    While this is the current policy of the DoJ, to the best of my knowledge it is not explicitly stated in any law, nor is it stated in the Constitution. The President is able to take illegal acts, and it is only the power of the President to obstruct justice that prevents the President from being charged with those illegal acts. Edit:Though I agree that impeachment need not be for crimes on the books, and is solely at the decision of the Senate. The scope of impeachment is wider than the scope of laws, and the President must be answerable to both.

jmann99999 6y ago

Twenty years ago I read the article "Never talk to the police." Later that year, the police came to my girlfriend's apartment and asked questions about a homicide. I was there and when they asked if they could come in, I said "No." There is no upside to allowing them in. "We'll answer any questions here" I remember saying. We didn't have anything to hide, but you never know what law you may've broken. You never know what they may say and how you will react. The system sets up an adversarial relationship. It would be in the best interest of law enforcement to play by the same rules as regular people.

Justsignedup 6y ago
Another advice: Always talk to the police -- AFTER GETTING IMMUNITY. Basically first if they ask you anything, say "I will happily comply with any questioning if you give me immunity in writing to this case or anything resulting from my answers." The cop who gave that presentation even mentioned getting an IRS call, and said that, they never called back. Point is, ask for immunity.
- spacemanmatt 6y ago
  My understanding of the law is, cops don't have the authority to grant immunity. I would want to get that promise from a prosecutor, minimum.
  - DavidAdams 6y ago
    That's true. The cops would have to coordinate with the DA to make that happen. Which they would never bother to do unless they really needed your testimony, which is why it's a good way to get them to buzz off.
  - dmurray 6y ago
    According to the article it's OK for the cops to lie about almost anything. There's not a lot to stop them saying "I have the authority to grant immunity" or "I am an official from the DA's office" or "I just called the DA and he approved the immunity" or "I just called the DA and he approved the immunity and he sent this confirmation by fax". Some of these might not really be de jure OK for the cops to tell you, but would you want to rely on a court upholding that?

mc32 6y ago

This will come true once all criminals stop lying and confess honestly -which is to say the day will never come.

spacemanmatt 6y ago
The set of all criminals includes a lot of cops, so maybe your angle here is just a poorly-considered one.
- mc32 6y ago
  Lying is human nature. You have to work around it.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    One way of working around it is to make it illegal to do in your job.
ohdannyboy 6y ago
The problem is that the investigation is about figuring out who is actually the criminal. Cops deal with mostly bad people. Actually innocent people who get caught up in the criminal justice system are relatively rare -- ask any defense lawyer. This makes investigators incredibly jaded and willing to treat everyone as guilty because it's usually right (and even if they didn't do it they did something). This is what makes your take on this question so dangerous. This is not about how cops are allowed to treat people they know are criminals, this is about how the cops are allowed to figure out if someone is a criminal in the first place. Telling an innocent person "we have DNA and video of you committing the crime, just plea down to manslaughter and you'll be out of prison by the time your kid graduates highschool" puts them in a devastating position. They may decide that they've been framed and just confess because they think they either do it today or face mandatory life without parole. Even if the majority of people put in this position actually did the crime it's still wrong. Same goes for beating confessions out of people.
TheCoelacanth 6y ago

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

Another symptom of poor executive-power education in our country. Constitutional and civic right literacy should be required for all high school graduates. People must know their rights. Come to think of it, constitutional literacy should also be part of a required knowledge test for all elected officials. Or else we’ll continue down the slow acquiescing of foundational civic rights, and the punishment for infringing on them will get lighter and lighter. By the way, the person who outright lied to the FISA courts to obtain a warrant on an American citizen was sentenced to probation today. Not even a slap on the wrist. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-sentenced-john-durham-probe https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith...

mattzito 6y ago

In the excellent true crime book, "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets", David Simon (future creator of The Wire), talks about the Miranda warning in the context of interrogations. When originally introduced, law enforcement bemoaned that this would hamstring their ability to gain confessions from suspects, because any sensible criminal would simply ask for a lawyer. He then goes on to explain that wily police detectives, instead, were able to use Miranda as a tool - "this is something we have to get out of the way so we can get you home" and "look, you can get a lawyer, but then we can't figure this out right here". He points out that lying to suspects is both a tool and a risk - if you tell a suspect that there was blood found on his shoes, and the suspect knows that he wasn't wearing those shoes during the crime, he knows you have nothing. I highlight this because it's fine and good to ban lying to suspects, but not all lies are strictly untrue, and it's possible to use partially true statements to one's benefit in an interrogation. Simon points out that interrogations, by their very nature, are coercive, and if we really want to protect the rights of suspects, mandating an attorney present at an interview is the only way to ensure that.

valuearb 6y ago
I’m fine with cops lying if you’ve been charged with a crime, and established the antagonistic relationship, but not before. When beat cops lie to ordinary citizens about what their rights are, it just builds up an enmity that makes it more difficult for community policing to work.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

TheRealDunkirk 6y ago

It's ALSO time to stop overcharging crimes to get people to plead out, and skip the trial part of due process. Not only is it unethical, it ought to be un-Constitutional.

analog31 6y ago
The article suggests that the police should have to prove that the confession is true. I would go further and say that this should apply to guilty pleas and plea bargains as well. The police should have to prove that the plea is justified by the evidence, and disclose all evidence at their disposal to the court. If you're pleading to a reduced charge, the police should have to prove both charges. After the evidence has been presented and shown to be sufficient, then the court decides if the plea is justified, what kind of trial to hold, and what sentence to mete out. It's supposed to be hard to convict people.

ckosidows 6y ago

The Moth presented a story by Prinna Boudreau which is relevant to this topic and well worth a listen if you want some more perspective. https://open.spotify.com/episode/3pGYI4CqJysBVgEDf2qacw?si=zen1Mu_CSr-fVFd3mQCkRQ https://open.spotify.com/episode/3pGYI4CqJysBVgEDf2qacw?si=z...

haspoken 6y ago

http://archive.is/l7loc http://archive.is/l7loc

ranprieur 6y ago

Every time an article says "it's time," it means the right time was far in the past, and the politically possible time is far in the future.

graeme 6y ago

Can anyone in Canada or the UK or other common law jurisdictions comment if “don’t talk to the police without a lawyer” is good policy in those jurisdictions, or is it only good policy in the US where the legal system is deranged? It can be hard to figure out where to take lessons from american advice and where the advice is specific to US idiosyncrasies.

username90 6y ago
Canada has similar laws as USA, UK has the same situation as most of Europe where you can lie to the police and they can't lie to you. So I think the advice is mostly for countries like USA and Canada with reverse rights, that is the police has more rights than you. In Europe where you have more rights than the police talking to them is safer than talking to a civilian.

smokey_circles 6y ago

Not an American, but I have some questions * What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't) * Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around? * What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism? * If the purpose of prison is to pay your time to the community, why do you have a box that must be ticked that seems to push people back towards crime? I don't think arguing the police are the problem does anything to address much larger systemic issues that seem to have much more dramatic consequences at scale.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
The jury in 2021 serves the same purpose that it did in the 18th century, especially in criminal trials. A jury means that the government has to prove its case, not just to one person who's employed by the government (the judge), but to some random people off the street. The purpose is to make it harder for the government to just put people away "because we said so" - outside the rule of law. It also can serve as a brake on insane or unjust laws, though it does not always do so. Now, for a complex or technical civil trial (Oracle v Google, say), it has flaws. That I will freely admit. But the businesses in those kinds of trials can choose to have a bench trial (that is, one decided by the judge). When they choose not to, it's because they think they are more likely to be able to snow the jury than the judge. Unfortunately, if I understand correctly it only takes one side to choose a jury trial, and the one with no real case is more likely to do so.
ardy42 6y ago
> * What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't) I'm speculating, but I think the idea was to put a check on the authorities by placing the actual decision-making power in the people. I think that's a valid principle. Even if Oracle v Google was a bench trial (e.g. no jury), the judge would still probably have to be educated on the technical issues, just like a jury. IIRC, technically a jury could even decide the law is BS and refuse to convict for that reason alone, but the system puts up a lot of roadblocks to reduce the change of that happening (e.g. the defense counsel can't argue for it or remind them of that option). > * Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around? Because public defenders are underpaid and overworked, and that's because it's an easier sell to the voters to raise taxes to hire police to lower crime than to raise taxes to hire public defenders for fairer government. There's also been a history of "tough on crime" rhetoric/attitudes that makes it even more difficult. Also: the suspects on crime shows are almost always actually guilty (whether successfully convicted or now), which creates the impression that it's the job of defense lawyers to help the guilty go free. > * What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism? I'm not sure who's arguing this, but my guess it's probably someone who benefiting from that industry. My vague recollection was that private prisons were sold as a cost-saving measure, like most privatization schemes.

buffaloo 6y ago

10 years ago, I could get behind the anti-cop bit as things had gone too far police state, but today with dangerous crazed chaos in the streets and the being made to do all the kneeling and feet washing... Anybody who can stand working as a cop deserves a medal.

moate 6y ago
Can you spin this thought out a little more? Do you think cops have gotten LESS power over the last 10 years? Do you believe their unions suddenly stopped being some of the strongest political forces? Also, cops make about 15K more than the average job(1) and that's because they're EXTREMELY well compensated in blue-states (presumably where they are made to wash the most feet?). They also still have their qualified immunity, so it's not like it's gotten that much harder to "do the job". Violent crime has been trending down for decades(2). There has not been a massive spike in "crazed chaos in the streets" people just think there is because reasons. Nah dude, hold cops accountable. Just like any other public servant. 1- https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/police-officer-salary-state/?sh=bd8efe2010c4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/polic... 2- https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about...
- buffaloo 6y ago
  Good point. Crime is down. Sounds like policing is working. Give the boys in blue a raise. Anyone who thinks police are overpaid should apply for the job.
  - moate 6y ago
    Why not the opposite? Crime is down, policing is working: stop expanding police force size, keep budgets in place, and see what happens. We have no idea if it's "more/higher paid cops" that's causing the reduction in crime, or other societal factors. At a certain point it's diminishing returns to continue investing in something to try and move those last couple percentage points. You're never going to have a 0% crime rate, no matter how much money you throw at the problem.

bokohut 6y ago

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Sir John Dalberg-Acton The beauty of the internet is that it does not forget and all the proof one needs it out there if one knows where to look. Many people lack morals and ethics and seek only to better themselves using their ‘power’ and some law enforcement entities are “absolutely” no different. One may believe the law enforcement as well as government is always correct and infallible yet everyone reading this at this very moment in time likely recognizes this fallacy. Each reader can likely provide their own unique individual point of proof as evidence, see my link and provide your own. In my past business endeavors I have personally witnessed a ‘fall from power’ event around someone's pure egotistical narcissistic greed so from my personal experience I would encourage everyone to ALWAYS get it in writing and save EVERY form of communication. You NEVER know when you will need it NOR the value it will make/save you in that future. To prove my point from my words above bringing all this together in the topic at hand you may find great interest in this yt link. youtube.com/watch?v=Qm4LHak5WZY Be honest, be kind, be true, be you! All others will be discovered. Stay Healthy!