11 ms·

(I have yet to understand why people talk to law enforcement instead of staying silent so as to not implicate themselves.) When the FBI knock at the door you t

by dotBen 5y ago

(I have yet to understand why people talk to law enforcement instead of staying silent so as to not implicate themselves.) When the FBI knock at the door you totally do the whole "no comment/talk to my lawyer" thing. But what happens next if you're actually part of an investigation is they hand you a grand jury subpoena (which they were going to do anyway, even if you just talked willingly, because they have already gone to the trouble of asking a judge to issue one and have it with them by the time they ring your doorbell) That subpoena is likely to require you to hand over any digital records you have related to the investigation (you can't plead 5th on that) and turn up at a time and place to be interviewed (you have to turn up, even if it's on the other side of the country eg in the Southern District of NY in Manhattan and you live in SF Bay Area). BTW I don't think people widely realize the government has the power to compel you to hand over EVERY piece of material you have on a given subject they are investigating - eg search and share anything from every email you have ever received since you signed up for GMail in 2004, etc. You can plead 5th during the interview but if you have material information (or are actually guilty) and knowing they have all of the documentation subpoenaed and whatever other evidence from other subjects/targets/witnesses, it will likely help you at that point to be cooperative via guidance from your attorney. Remaining silent at that point is just going to leave you at the mercy of whatever other witnesses/subjects/targets convey and their own conclusions from the subpoenas. If you are on a visa or green card you almost certainly can't plead the 5th because they can leverage your right to remain in the US. So, that's why people typically talk to the FBI. It's not at the doorstep when they first engage you, it's once you have been compelled to participate. Related/useful: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/you-received-grand-jury-subpoena-what-now https://www.natlawreview.com/article/you-received-grand-jury... Source: happened to me a number of years ago, although I wasn't guilty of anything. Lawyered up, cooperated, no further action. Wasn't pleasant. IANAL, not legal advice

gonehome 5y ago
> "it will likely help you at that point to be cooperative via guidance from your attorney" guidance from your attorney seems to be the critical bit of that - it's okay to talk, but with your lawyer present.
- sneak 5y ago
  Your lawyer will do it in writing, after consulting with you privately.
paxys 5y ago
The difference is that every step after the initial "no comment" can/should be done with explicit guidance from an attorney, and no attorney in the country will have their client blatantly lie in front of the FBI or a grand jury despite there being solid evidence proving otherwise.
- sneak 5y ago
  Most people don't understand that they can't explain themselves out of a legal investigation. LEOs exploit this.
  - stef25 5y ago
    Imagine the simple scenario of "someone who looks like you was spotted in area X doing crime Y" and in your pocket you have a receipt that puts many miles away at that time (or something else that would immediately stop you from being a suspect). In what way would "fuck you talk to my lawyer" be helpful?
    - function_seven 5y ago
      1. You don't have to say it aggressively. Politely say, "I need to talk to my lawyer before answering questions." 2. “The suspect conveniently had a receipt in their pocket placing them elsewhere at the exact time of the Y crime. It was the only receipt in his pocket! Seems suspicious to me. He plainly engineered the alibi.” 3. There's no reason you have to immediately begin demonstrating your innocence. It can wait until you have proper representation. It's rarely the case where a receipt in your pocket is the difference between handcuffs and freedom. I'm sure they exist, but more often the decision to arrest you or not is not hinging on your answers to the cop's questions. It's already been made.
      - stef25 5y ago
        You mistook my assertiveness for aggression :) And let's assume it's not just the only receipt you happen to have in your house. Anyway, real life example - police calls me up saying this number came up in an investigation, who are you and a few more other questions. They were obviously expecting me to cooperate cause they hadn't bothered to do the paperwork to obtain my identity which was tied to the number. First thing I did was say I'll call you back cause I'm driving, what's your name? So I could verify it was an actual cop. When I called them back I said I'm not telling you anything until you tell me what it's about. Cop hesitantly starts giving a few bits of information and we go back and forth until my mother's town comes up (too small a place to be a coincidence) and the whole thing unravels. Turns out my mom had been getting some weird calls at home and when she was out & about by a person who seemed to be following her. Because of her age and absentmindedness she gave the wrong number out of her recent calls list to the police. Hilarity ensues. Cop suggests I check on my mom, we genuinely thought she had some kind of attack of dementia (she was fine, just very embarrassed). Cop also called my mom to saying your kid's a real hard-ass (but polite and correct)! Anyway my point is - don't you think me lawyering up for this would have been absurd?
chriscjcj 5y ago
I think many folks have watched this may be coming from this perspective... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- dotBen 5y ago
  Yup, this is a very important video for everyone to watch, but especially anyone moving to America who doesn't understand the differences to policing in this country vs others. If you have watched this video, you might want to review this highly anticipated follow up several years later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8
- mavhc 5y ago
  Lawyer suggests you always hire a lawyer? Not at all suspicious
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    It isn't suspicious. It has almost no downside other than standing up to a few hours of them harassing you and telling you they'll go a lot easier on you if...
    - mavhc 5y ago
      So lawyers are free? Excellent
      - gonzo 5y ago
        In the US the state have to provide you a lawyer if you can’t afford one (only after you’re arrested though). See Miranda v. Arizona 1966 and the Fifth Amendment.
        hollerith 5y ago
        And a judge determines whether you can afford a lawyer.
CyanLite2 5y ago
Police often give the line, "It'll go better for you if you just tell me the truth now" or "You'll get a better deal if we don't get lawyers involved". This often spooks people into cooperating without lawyers and they end up taking the first deal they get. I'd like see some real legal experts weigh in on the legality of these pre-lawyer offers.
- dotBen 5y ago
  Not an expert but think it through (for US law): only prosecutors have the discretion to decide whether to bring charges and the severity of the charges they will bring. A LEO who says to you that they'll get you a better deal if you talk now is lying to you - which not only are they allowed to do, it's in their training to do so (specifically, investigators are trained to tell you what you need to hear to get you to cooperate). They don't have the authority to waive the rights and privileges of the prosecutor's discretion.
blitzar 5y ago
You left off the bit where they sieze all your assets in a civil forfeiture, and require you to go to court and prove, beyond reasonable doubt, your innocence so you can get your house and bank account back.

by dotBen 5y ago

gonehome 5y ago

> "it will likely help you at that point to be cooperative via guidance from your attorney" guidance from your attorney seems to be the critical bit of that - it's okay to talk, but with your lawyer present.

sneak 5y ago
Your lawyer will do it in writing, after consulting with you privately.

paxys 5y ago

The difference is that every step after the initial "no comment" can/should be done with explicit guidance from an attorney, and no attorney in the country will have their client blatantly lie in front of the FBI or a grand jury despite there being solid evidence proving otherwise.

sneak 5y ago
Most people don't understand that they can't explain themselves out of a legal investigation. LEOs exploit this.
- stef25 5y ago
  Imagine the simple scenario of "someone who looks like you was spotted in area X doing crime Y" and in your pocket you have a receipt that puts many miles away at that time (or something else that would immediately stop you from being a suspect). In what way would "fuck you talk to my lawyer" be helpful?
  - function_seven 5y ago
    1. You don't have to say it aggressively. Politely say, "I need to talk to my lawyer before answering questions." 2. “The suspect conveniently had a receipt in their pocket placing them elsewhere at the exact time of the Y crime. It was the only receipt in his pocket! Seems suspicious to me. He plainly engineered the alibi.” 3. There's no reason you have to immediately begin demonstrating your innocence. It can wait until you have proper representation. It's rarely the case where a receipt in your pocket is the difference between handcuffs and freedom. I'm sure they exist, but more often the decision to arrest you or not is not hinging on your answers to the cop's questions. It's already been made.
    - stef25 5y ago
      You mistook my assertiveness for aggression :) And let's assume it's not just the only receipt you happen to have in your house. Anyway, real life example - police calls me up saying this number came up in an investigation, who are you and a few more other questions. They were obviously expecting me to cooperate cause they hadn't bothered to do the paperwork to obtain my identity which was tied to the number. First thing I did was say I'll call you back cause I'm driving, what's your name? So I could verify it was an actual cop. When I called them back I said I'm not telling you anything until you tell me what it's about. Cop hesitantly starts giving a few bits of information and we go back and forth until my mother's town comes up (too small a place to be a coincidence) and the whole thing unravels. Turns out my mom had been getting some weird calls at home and when she was out & about by a person who seemed to be following her. Because of her age and absentmindedness she gave the wrong number out of her recent calls list to the police. Hilarity ensues. Cop suggests I check on my mom, we genuinely thought she had some kind of attack of dementia (she was fine, just very embarrassed). Cop also called my mom to saying your kid's a real hard-ass (but polite and correct)! Anyway my point is - don't you think me lawyering up for this would have been absurd?

chriscjcj 5y ago

I think many folks have watched this may be coming from this perspective... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

dotBen 5y ago
Yup, this is a very important video for everyone to watch, but especially anyone moving to America who doesn't understand the differences to policing in this country vs others. If you have watched this video, you might want to review this highly anticipated follow up several years later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8
mavhc 5y ago
Lawyer suggests you always hire a lawyer? Not at all suspicious
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  It isn't suspicious. It has almost no downside other than standing up to a few hours of them harassing you and telling you they'll go a lot easier on you if...
  - mavhc 5y ago
    So lawyers are free? Excellent
    - gonzo 5y ago
      In the US the state have to provide you a lawyer if you can’t afford one (only after you’re arrested though). See Miranda v. Arizona 1966 and the Fifth Amendment.
      - hollerith 5y ago
        And a judge determines whether you can afford a lawyer.

CyanLite2 5y ago

Police often give the line, "It'll go better for you if you just tell me the truth now" or "You'll get a better deal if we don't get lawyers involved". This often spooks people into cooperating without lawyers and they end up taking the first deal they get. I'd like see some real legal experts weigh in on the legality of these pre-lawyer offers.

dotBen 5y ago
Not an expert but think it through (for US law): only prosecutors have the discretion to decide whether to bring charges and the severity of the charges they will bring. A LEO who says to you that they'll get you a better deal if you talk now is lying to you - which not only are they allowed to do, it's in their training to do so (specifically, investigators are trained to tell you what you need to hear to get you to cooperate). They don't have the authority to waive the rights and privileges of the prosecutor's discretion.

blitzar 5y ago

You left off the bit where they sieze all your assets in a civil forfeiture, and require you to go to court and prove, beyond reasonable doubt, your innocence so you can get your house and bank account back.