10 ms·

Be Careful when Speaking to Federal Agents - 18 U.S.C. Section 1001

390 points by conover 15y ago

Nate75Sanders 15y ago
The most important paragraph if you're not interested in reading the whole thing: Is there an intelligent alternative to lying or telling the truth that we have not yet examined? Yes. In our hypothetical interview, you can politely decline to be interviewed by the FBI agent. Tell the agent that you have an attorney and that "my attorney will be in contact with you." If the agent persists, say that you will not discuss anything without first consulting counsel. Ask for the agent's card, to give to your attorney. If you have not yet hired a lawyer, tell the agent that "I want to consult a lawyer first" or that "an attorney will be in touch with you." The absolutely essential thing to keep in mind is to say nothing of substance about the matter under investigation. It is preferable to do this by politely declining to be interviewed in the absence of counsel. If the agent asks "why do you need an attorney?" or "what do you have to hide?" do not take his bait and directly respond to such questions. (Do not even say that you have nothing to hide.) Simply state that you will not discuss the matter at all without first consulting counsel and that counsel will be in touch with him. If the agent asks for a commitment from you to speak with him after you have consulted or retained counsel, do not oblige him. Just respond that you will consult with your attorney (or "an" attorney) and that the attorney will be in touch. And by all means do not get bullied or panicked into making up a phony reason for refusing to talk. You are not obliged to explain your decision to anyone.
- ugh 15y ago
  These three paragraphs also seem important: “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. Your invocation of counsel, however, cannot be used against you at trial. United States v. McDonald , 620 F.2d 559, 561-64 (5th Cir. 1980). Your refusal to talk substance in the absence of counsel will force the prosecutor to decide whether your information is important enough to justify a grand jury subpoena for your testimony. If the prosecutor responds to your declination by serving you with a grand jury subpoena, this will present you with an interesting range of options such as: 1) testifying; 2) refusing to testify, by invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which broadly applies to anyone , innocent or guilty, facing criminal exposure; 3) testifying (or talking to the government) only after receiving a grant of immunity; or 4) proffering to the government–that is, giving them a sneak preview of what you will tell them if they agree to grant you immunity. The important thing to remember is that declining to speak to the agent in the first place buys you time in which to weigh these alternative strategies with your white-collar criminal defense attorney.” There are no downsides when you decline to talk, it gives you time to take a more considered approach and you can avoid errors you might make in the heat of the moment (when you are most likely stressed and maybe even panicked). I will always decline answering questions, no matter the situation. There might be situations where talking is unproblematic but I don’t want to make that decision on the spot and when I’m stressed. I doubt my abilities to make right decisions in those situations. That’s why I made that decision now, and it’s to take the safest route: I decline.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    You've both missed the most damning sentence in the entire document: To begin with, you are not qualified to know whether you are innocent of wrongdoing under federal criminal law. That's what ought to keep people awake at night.
    - Florin_Andrei 15y ago
      If the law was computer software, at this point it would be a giant unmanageable screwball of spaghetti code that would crash daily and would require patches 3 times a week.
      - jbooth 15y ago
        It does, both of those. Except the patches are driven by lobbyist donations or ideological axe grinding rather than fixing defects, for the most part.
        duggan 15y ago
        So it's exactly like software then :)
      - InclinedPlane 15y ago
        It's worse than that, if the law were software then it wouldn't even run on client machines, it'd only run on specialty hardware in the lab.
      - thehotdon 15y ago
        if ... 1000 dollar fine else if ... 5 months jail else if ... capital punishment else if ... licence suspended else if ... 3 years jail, 20000 dollar fine // handle a few million more cases else you're innocent
        intellection 15y ago
        Programmatically human law may lose ourselves, insofar conceptualizing reasonability. How might IT giveth direct feel? /end upvote
- jpdoctor 15y ago
  But also note: Part of why Bernie Madoff lasted so long was that he arrived for an SEC investigation without a lawyer. Everyone in the room thought he had nothing to hide, so they didn't pursue him. Whether we want to admit it or not: It's ingrained that you are inviting an investigator to hassle you further by invoking a right to counsel. (For the record: I think that sucks too.)
  - teej 15y ago
    I'd rather not take cues from Bernie Madoff on legal matters.
    - jpdoctor 15y ago
      You missed my point: One strategy that should be safe is telling the god's-honest truth. But even with the truth, you invite a whole lotta hassle by bringing a lawyer. Conversely: Even if you're a dishonest crook, you get the feds off your back by omitting a lawyer. This is not how it should be; It is how it is.
      - hyperbovine 15y ago
        This guy was the former chair of NASDAQ and had friends in high places. Your chances of getting the same red carpet treatment from the Feds are effectively zero. Hire a lawyer.
      - VladRussian 15y ago
        You point is : if you're a talented con artist who was able to con $50B out, then you would mislead/charm/fend off a SEC or any other investigator better than a lawyer. I'm completely agree with you here. For the rest of us - talk to your lawyer first.
      - jellicle 15y ago
        There are hundreds of thousands of people in prison right now who arrived for their interview with the authorities without a lawyer. I'm not sure your theory actually pans out. (Madoff wasn't caught when the SEC first investigated because they thought he was front-running orders, not a giant Ponzi scheme. They were looking for the wrong thing.)
- matusz13 15y ago
  I remember seeing this talk some time ago - simply titled 'don't talk to the police'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
  - danvideo 15y ago
    yep that's a fantastic video
  - tealtank 15y ago
    Ah yes I remember that. Thanks for linking it again.
- EGreg 15y ago
  What if they bring you in and detain you for not cooperating with the investigation? Under some reason? Are there laws for that?
  - 3pt14159 15y ago
    Basically they take a risk when they do that, but they can only hold you for 72 hours (at least here in Toronto). There are avenues that you can take to get back at them for that though, such as class action lawsuits. A Hispanic former coworker of mine was wrongfully arrested then beaten with phone books by some thugs at the Toronto police. He got lucky, it was a case of mistaken identity and even though they found a small amount of weed on him they let him go completely and he was given a card with a cops phone number on it. He has had to use it 3 times since. He's an apprentice tradesman and lives in a poor area of Toronto so when I told him to sue, he said "Sue? For what? Damages? I've been beaten up worse before by the people they're trying to catch. I live in a bad neighborhood and the officer who gave me his car and I have an understanding now." Pretty messed up. When you don't look or sound like the people that know these little loopholes in the system you get to deal with what I consider to be a couple steps up from a mob. Some of them are awesome, for example cops have helped me get out of a snow bank before and didn't write me up for a driving infraction. Some of them are generally nice and will smile at you on the street or laugh with you as they give you a ticket, but they have power and some of them, especially those that have to deal with messed up shit in the ghettos abuse it.
- rjurney 15y ago
  In practice, such people will often threaten you. They are experts at this, and can easily get under most people's skin. This is why most people fold and give up their rights. Out of fear.
- glimcat 15y ago
  "Why do you need an attorney? What do you have to hide?" I need one because it was important enough put in the Constitution. What have you got against the Constitution?
- mmaunder 15y ago
  This is really great advice. I'd just emphasize to be honest about whether you have an attorney or whether "an attorney will be in touch" with him. Awesome article conover, thanks for posting.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
noonespecial 15y ago
Since you have nothing to hide, is it safe to talk? There can still be real danger in speaking to a government agent in these circumstances. To begin with, you are not qualified to know whether you are innocent of wrongdoing under federal criminal law. Critical system failure. There should be red lights blinking and klaxons wailing.
- hvs 15y ago
  "Ignorance of the law excuses no man: Not that all men know the law, but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him." - John Selden I'm not defending the ridiculously complicated U.S. Code but, even if it was much simpler, there is no way you can honestly say, "I know I did nothing illegal."
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    That's a subtly different point. Its ok that ignorance of the law can't be used as a defense. That an honest person who attempts to study the law so that they can comply with it has basically no chance of succeeding is the problem.
    - hvs 15y ago
      An honest person can attempt to do that, and they are called "lawyers." Again, it is way too easy to run afoul of the U.S. Code. I get that. But, even if that wasn't true, it would still not be advisable to speak to law enforcement officers.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        Even a lawyer would have to be superhuman to achieve that, unless we extent his being to include a law library and his colleagues.
      - chc 15y ago
        The definition of "lawyer" is not "a person who earnestly tries to comply with the law." Lawyers have a particular role in the legal system that goes well beyond merely being a law-abiding citizen.
hvs 15y ago
This advice also applies to any situation involving law enforcement officers, not just federal agents. Remember, "Don't Talk to Cops": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
- lurchpop 15y ago
  They should make this required viewing in high school civics classes. do they even have those any more?
  - cosmicman 15y ago
    They're more likely to show you a video saying 'Trust all the cops all the time!'.
- tzs 15y ago
  So let's say a kid goes missing. The cops come around the area she was last seen asking people if they saw her. They are trying to narrow down where and when she disappeared. Everyone else is cooperative, but I'm not. I've now drawn attention to myself and am probably going to be in for a lot of scrutiny, and at some risk for getting into trouble even if I had nothing to do with the girl's disappearance.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    >if I had nothing to do with the girl's disappearance. care to elaborate how your talking would help then?
    - itsadok 15y ago
      First off, the issue is not how it would help them, it is how it would help you. And tzs explained how it would help you: it would keep the investigators from getting suspicious of you, and possibly making your life harder. As an aside, it would also help the investigators, by not distracting them with irrelevant suspicious behavior.
baddox 15y ago
This is an unjust law, period.
- hvs 15y ago
  Now that is the core issue here. Not that there is something wrong with "the system" or that law is "too complicated," but that this law is unjust.
- robertpateii 15y ago
  This law is broader than I'd prefer but I don't see how it's clearly unjust. Do you feel the same way about perjury? If not, what's the dividing line between the two?
  - fr0sty 15y ago
    Perjury requires you to be giving testimony under oath. This law covers any and all conversations however casual. Furthermore perjury requires the act to be willful and the item under question to be of material importance to an investigation. This law requires only that the statement be known by the speaker to be incorrect and however trivial.
  - baddox 15y ago
    Perjury is essentially a violation of a contract (the contract being the sworn oath), so of course it's a legitimate offense. To me, it comes down to the context in which you make your remarks. If you're under arrest or under oath, then I think lying should be prosecutable (because, in these situations you have the right to remain silent and the right to not incriminate yourself, and you obviously know you're talking to legal officials).
  - knorby 15y ago
    Lying is a pretty common reaction of some people to stressful situations, especially when they have something to hide. If you are testifying at a trial, you will have had time to collect your thoughts and prepare yourself for the situation, but that isn't the case if an FBI agents shows up at your door and starts asking questions. The law needs to allow for people to be human.
brianstorms 15y ago
When members of congress lie when speaking to other members of congress, why aren't they held to this law?
- ctdonath 15y ago
  The government, and its agents, are exempt from most laws.
  - ims 15y ago
    How so? I can't think of where that would hold true, aside from certain liability issues and other circumstances where it would be impractical or contrary to the public interest.
    - rdtsc 15y ago
      Because the government is sovereign entity and can only be sued if it allowed itself to be sued. In fact it is exactly the opposite, the government allows itself to be sued in some tort cases (the liability you mention), in some cases involving IP, and even there you don't get a trial by jury -- a federal judge will decide if the federal govt. is guilty or not (yeah I know...).
      - ims 15y ago
        Right but we're not talking about lawsuits. We're talking about criminal law and government agents being bound by laws.
- rbranson 15y ago
  Perhaps because they write the laws?
- piguy314 15y ago
  Article One, Section Six of the constitution protects legislators from prosecution for what they say on the floor of the houses except for sanction by the legislature itself. >and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Compensation_and_legal_protection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_State...
dfranke 15y 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. Is there anything in the law that makes the "pursuant to some regulatory duty" relevant here? For example, if you wrote something on Wikipedia that you knew was inaccurate, and years later a federal official read it and found it somehow relevant to his job, would you theoretically be breaking this law?
- droithomme 15y ago
  IANALOAJ, but yes, technically that would be a crime in those circumstances. It seems unlikely you'd be prosecuted of course but who can say?
- rprasad 15y ago
  Yes. It's not criminally illegal to lie to your employer about hours worked. On the other hand, if you're lying to your employer about hours worked on a government contract, that may be a different story. What most armchair lawyers forget (or never learned) is that intent is a fundemental element for any crime involving more than token (i.e., small fine) punishment. In the example above, if you don't intend to defraud the federal government when lying to your lawyer, it's not a crime.
praptak 15y ago
The most rational strategy for a US citizen is to treat an officer like the worst enemy, a sleazebag who will go out of their way to fuck said citizen over? There is something deeply wrong with this country.
- aidenn0 15y ago
  An officer is trying to gather evidence against someone, whom they have strong reason to believe is guilty. If the most expedient means for this is to threaten to fuck you over, they will do it.
  - wanorris 15y ago
    The words "threaten to" are extraneous.
- marshray 15y ago
  It's not the officer personally, but there is a massive impersonal system of wheels and gears turning to result in him contacting you. It's easy for an innocent person to get sucked in and crushed by such machinery.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  What reason is there to assume any differently? For that matter, what advantage is there for you to assume any differently? (tip: there is none.)
  - jackpirate 15y ago
    That's his point. In a well run society, this would not be the case.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      It doesn't matter how fucked up or well run the society is. So long as the justice system is implemented anything like it currently is this will be the case.
jsdalton 15y ago
As interesting as this article may be, it does not belong on HN.
- marshray 15y ago
  People I know who have run internet startups have had contact with federal agents on various occasions. EDIT. This response is getting so many upvotes I'm going to clarify it a bit, particularly for people who may be reading this from other countries: Yes, you can start and run a business in America without ever having direct interaction with the US Federal Government, other than mailing off your taxes. It's not like every business one day gets a visit from the KGB and they tell you to do things a certain way (or else). Nevertheless, if you are for example an ISP or provide messaging, as you grow big enough it's probably a matter of time before you'll end up getting a subscriber who's being investigated. You may have a former employee that goes on to apply for some sort of special security clearance and they follow up on his background (or you go out of your way to hire a talented hacker with a mysterious background). You may simply meet such agents due to ordinary shared interests, like say at a trade show or a conference. Of course, you could also meet them when they are also actually investigating something with the aim of prosecuting people. I don't know which of these situations fall under the law described in the article, possibly all of them do.
  - BrandonM 15y ago
    > if you are for example an ISP or provide messaging, as you grow big enough it's probably a matter of time before you'll end up getting a subscriber who's being investigated That is not what Hacker News is for. If your company is that big, you should have counsel on retainer, and they should be advising you of the proper behavior in the face of potential federal investigation. Moreover, it's our job as American citizens to be aware of our legal exposure and to know the proper way to proceed. It's a shame that this is not taught in our high school Government courses. It is not the role of Hacker News to educate us on these issues. There are other sites for that. You can tell by the quality of the comment thread that it's not something that appeals to "our inner hacker." An article is not HN material simply by appealing to some (or even a majority) of the members here; it must satisfy other criteria, and this one does not.
maxxxxx 15y ago
It saddens me that the best advice for so many situations is "Get a lawyer". Besides the fact that they are expensive I find it frustrating that society has become that adversarial.
- dotBen 15y ago
  No, it's not society that has become adversarial, it is the vague and far-reaching laws.
lambada 15y ago
Does anyone know of a similar quality article for dealing with UK law enforcement?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- whiteduck 15y ago
  Or any other nation's law enforcement?
itsadok 15y ago
what bothers me the most about these kind of articles is the underlying assumption that I can find a good criminal lawyer when the need arises. I'm having enough trouble finding good engineers, and that is something that I am qualified to do, as well as able to spend several months on, under very little pressure. I have very little experience with lawyers, but at least for corporate lawyers, my impression is that the average lawyer doesn't know everything about their field, just like the average programmer doesn't know everything about their field. I wonder how many of these pitfalls are something that an average lawyer wouldn't know to avoid.
- outworlder 15y ago
  My thoughts exactly. However, I just assumed I was being too cynical.
- nobleach 15y ago
  Yeah, no kidding. I just walked (stumbled) through a short-sale turned Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. If I had a dime for every time they told me that I should consult "my attorney", I may have actually had enough dimes to afford one. I finally did ask, "do you actually talk to middle class people like myself that keep attorneys and accountants on retainer?" I mean the whole point of the process is that I could no longer afford to pay for my mortgage, wouldn't it be a little suspect if I were able to afford an attorney???
- jxcole 15y ago
  One thing you can say which the officers are legally obliged to contend with (I think) is that you refuse to make any statements without consulting your state appointed attorney. The government is required by law to provide you an attorney if you can't afford one. (IANAL)
  - rprasad 15y ago
    If you can't afford one and you are make less than a low threshold above the local poverty limit. The test looks at assets and income, ignoring liabilities (except for necessary ongoing medical expenses).
buff-a 15y ago
Does this apply to Congresspersons?
- jxcole 15y ago
  Does this apply to federal agents? In other words, if an officer says something false in a statement that is later read by another officer can they be charged?
arturadib 15y ago
Reminds me of the awesome lecture "Don't talk to the police" by Prof. James Duane (J.D., Harvard Law): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
raldi 15y ago
Wait, so let's say I'm at the post office buying stamps, and I hand the cashier a $20, and she says, "Don't you have anything smaller?" and I say no, even though I do, because I want the change. Could I be convicted under this law?
- ww520 15y ago
  If the cashier is a federal agent.
  - raldi 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure all USPS employees are.
    - ww520 15y ago
      I thought USPS is a "private" company, just heavily regulated. Edit: Never mind. It has a complicate ownership, as a US government-owned corporation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
- jakejake 15y ago
  I think the law is only applied when it's in relation to a crime, but it is an interesting thought and shows how an overly broad law could be easily abused.
- droithomme 15y ago
  It is unlikely you would be convicted, but yes, you have violated that law in the circumstance you describe.
- rprasad 15y ago
  No, nor have you broken the law as it is written. The key factor here is that the statement must be made about a matter in which a federal investigative or regulatory agency has authority to pursue legal actions, i.e., in relation to an investigation into violations of federal laws or regulations. What the discussion on HN ignores (and which the article touches upon but glosses over) is that the lie (about hours) is repeated to a federal agent during an investigation or on court. The repetition is the illegal act. I am a lawyer...and I would really love it if the armchair laywers on HN would stop spreading FUD.
losethos 15y ago
5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. --------------------------------- God says, "set considers collect examiner ministers delivers Begotten delighting surpassest along season uttered pitying manors monstrous psaltery meditations preferred houses likes pointed deed Scriptures recalling distinctly Difficulty renewed Evil thirsts extreme joyfulness tasting forenoon pursued too gladly mysteriously temptations cellar unfeigned reader Am fingers oblation remembrances www Eternity Helpidius allegorically impiety confessing Enter saint destroyers city fixing assistance mentally mindful thousand sail reins gliding theft's foster boundary reviled entrusted struck note doings hears reputed panting flood prison modulation twisted Verily grow faster concerns remain seeth intently forsaken enervated moderate modulation gentleness whereto Psalmody betrothed faces sect doubtful stolen host sufferedst forepassed diffused reinvolved sluggish growth Food quarter lick PARTICULAR nostrils Medea greediness concubinage commiserate three formlessness shifted links delightful ancient Emperor's torture straightening like refer rounds fore infected wisdom credibility Envy steered preaching smell coals owns unbelievers deridedst hearken glorious angels hateful cheered deadly pricks short unconscious Understand kindness exhibited waiting face quitting gathered minded "
scotto 15y ago
I am so glad this article is out and I read it. It may be extreme but as someone who has witnesses this type of thing go down, I live with the knowledge that we are all one false accusation away from complete ruin. EVERYTHING can be made to look malicious and calculated, and we should all, in this context, live in fear of the government. Stay out of their crosshairs and keep your attorney phone number close by.
jxcole 15y ago
Related: overcriminalization. Looks like this story relates to the same statute: http://www.economist.com/node/16636027 http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
ellyagg 15y ago
This is an interesting and useful perspective, and it's not the first time it's come up on HN, but it's unfortunate that it doesn't draw any thoughtful criticism. This advice is best when one is implicated or thinks there's any chance they'd be implicated...but then anyone with the slightest awareness of the legal system learns about this at a pretty young age. This particular advice gets its sensationalism and counterintuitiveness by claiming that it's a universal rule. As a universal rule, it has its downsides. One downside is that, if everyone does this, we make it far harder for law enforcement to do worthwhile investigations. Programmers hate when roadblocks prevent us from iterating quickly during development. Understand, other occupations also suffer from the same crunch on their time that we do and, as a community that's all in this together, we benefit from their work. Another downside is promoting an adversarial role between law enforcement and its citizenry. This is an intangible, but I think its costs are real. Also, you'd better be very confident that the cop(s) will simply respect your rights under the law. I know of situations where that has not been the case. I've seen videos where it wasn't the case. We've all read stories where it wasn't the case. It's easy to fantasize stories about you being wrongfully singled out or, heaven forbid, convicted. We've also all read stories about that. Just like everything in life, then, it's a cost/benefits analysis. But don't pretend that one choice is all benefits and no costs. I think the speed of modern news dissemination is warping our risk assessment software. Things that you'd only hear of rarely are reported several times a day now, because there's 6 billion people having bad things happen to them, the news only cares about those bad things, and our attention for those bad things is the same size as ever. The bad things per attention minute is rising all the time. Partly because of this, and partly because we are the way we are, there's a penchant by some in my geeky, libertarian community to withdraw as citizens, and overestimate downside risk. Yes, you expose yourself to risk by rescuing that drowning man; yes, you expose yourself to risk by finding that lost girl's mom; yes, you expose yourself to risk by cooperating with authorities. And, you know what, I think it should be worth it to you. As a side note, attorneys are very familiar with the system and feel confident about fighting it head on, and many attorneys are willing to lead a high stress, confrontational life style. One should bear that in mind when taking advice about how to lead one's life.
- jbri 15y ago
  > Another downside is promoting an adversarial role between law enforcement and its citizenry. This is an intangible, but I think its costs are real. This is caused by law enforcement/state prosecutors taking an adversarial role against citizens, not citizens responding in kind. It's like the classical prisoner's dilemma. Yes, it would be better for all involved if everyone chose to co-operate. But when one side persistently takes the adversarial approach, it would be stupid for the other side not to do the same. > As a side note, attorneys are very familiar with the system and feel confident about fighting it head on, and many attorneys are willing to lead a high stress, confrontational life style. This is, in fact, why you should always talk to an attorney when it comes to dealing with law enforcement.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
giardini 15y ago
There's a new book out about the complexity of American law. It's titled "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" by Harvey Silverglate http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
lucraft 15y ago
What's the situation in the UK on this whole Dont Talk to Cops thing? Does anyone know of any equivalent legal advice?
Loic 15y ago
The terrible point in the complete article is that basically, you need first to assume that the authorities will screw you and not help you. For me, the "todos in this case" are just a cure for a dead man, because if you cannot trust the authorities anymore the basic assumptions of a working judiciary system are broken.
js2 15y ago
Tangentially related - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?pag... In March 2009, still unsatisfied, Mr. Nordlander persuaded his superiors to send an attractive female undercover agent, Ellen Burrows, to meet Mr. Engle and see if she could get him to say something incriminating. In the course of several flirtatious encounters, she asked him about his investments. After acknowledging that he had been speculating in real estate during the bubble to help support his running, he said, according to Mr. Nordlander’s grand jury testimony, “I had a couple of good liar loans out there, you know, which my mortgage broker didn’t mind writing down, you know, that I was making four hundred thousand grand a year when he knew I wasn’t.” Mr. Engle added, “Everybody was doing it because it was simply the way it was done. That doesn’t make me proud of the fact that I am at least a small part of the problem.” Unbeknownst to Mr. Engle, Ms. Burrows was wearing a wire.
horseracer999 15y ago
It's a shame that this sort of thing is true.
sylax 15y ago
Would be curious to see this sort of thing for other countries.
keyboarder 15y ago
I think this could well apply to any government worker.
arcanebook 15y ago
I wish this weren't true.
redrising1 15y ago
It seems the police are held to lower standards than normal citizens when they should actually be held to higher standards.
deathmatch 15y ago
I'm really grateful that you posted this.
ghostshield11 15y ago
It's unfortunate to see what our police force has become.
silverbax88 15y ago
Just reading this makes me nervous.
gildedsuit 15y ago
This is excellent. Thank you for posting this.
ShawnJG 15y ago
I assume that most people who post here are smarter than the average citizen or at least more informed. The real "spaghetti code" problem here is that this obscure statute can easily be violated in advance of being told your rights. And you only get ready your rights a.k.a. mirandized when you're bordering on already in trouble with the law. Coupled with the fact that this is a federal statute it only applies to federal agents not city or state. And since you can lie to city or state officials up until you are under oath (which most people know) you might be inclined to believe he can do it to federal agent until it's too late. Which means their first encounter with a federal agent will be a crash course in the finer points of the law. One which they will unlikely be able to walk away from. I believe the spirit of v. Miranda is being violated the statute, I believe the beginning of any contacts with the law enforcement official should begin with the reading of your rights which should now include information on statute 18 sec 1001.

390 points by conover 15y ago

The most important paragraph if you're not interested in reading the whole thing: Is there an intelligent alternative to lying or telling the truth that we have not yet examined? Yes. In our hypothetical interview, you can politely decline to be interviewed by the FBI agent. Tell the agent that you have an attorney and that "my attorney will be in contact with you." If the agent persists, say that you will not discuss anything without first consulting counsel. Ask for the agent's card, to give to your attorney. If you have not yet hired a lawyer, tell the agent that "I want to consult a lawyer first" or that "an attorney will be in touch with you." The absolutely essential thing to keep in mind is to say nothing of substance about the matter under investigation. It is preferable to do this by politely declining to be interviewed in the absence of counsel. If the agent asks "why do you need an attorney?" or "what do you have to hide?" do not take his bait and directly respond to such questions. (Do not even say that you have nothing to hide.) Simply state that you will not discuss the matter at all without first consulting counsel and that counsel will be in touch with him. If the agent asks for a commitment from you to speak with him after you have consulted or retained counsel, do not oblige him. Just respond that you will consult with your attorney (or "an" attorney) and that the attorney will be in touch. And by all means do not get bullied or panicked into making up a phony reason for refusing to talk. You are not obliged to explain your decision to anyone.

ugh 15y ago
These three paragraphs also seem important: “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. Your invocation of counsel, however, cannot be used against you at trial. United States v. McDonald , 620 F.2d 559, 561-64 (5th Cir. 1980). Your refusal to talk substance in the absence of counsel will force the prosecutor to decide whether your information is important enough to justify a grand jury subpoena for your testimony. If the prosecutor responds to your declination by serving you with a grand jury subpoena, this will present you with an interesting range of options such as: 1) testifying; 2) refusing to testify, by invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which broadly applies to anyone , innocent or guilty, facing criminal exposure; 3) testifying (or talking to the government) only after receiving a grant of immunity; or 4) proffering to the government–that is, giving them a sneak preview of what you will tell them if they agree to grant you immunity. The important thing to remember is that declining to speak to the agent in the first place buys you time in which to weigh these alternative strategies with your white-collar criminal defense attorney.” There are no downsides when you decline to talk, it gives you time to take a more considered approach and you can avoid errors you might make in the heat of the moment (when you are most likely stressed and maybe even panicked). I will always decline answering questions, no matter the situation. There might be situations where talking is unproblematic but I don’t want to make that decision on the spot and when I’m stressed. I doubt my abilities to make right decisions in those situations. That’s why I made that decision now, and it’s to take the safest route: I decline.
- Natsu 15y ago
  You've both missed the most damning sentence in the entire document: To begin with, you are not qualified to know whether you are innocent of wrongdoing under federal criminal law. That's what ought to keep people awake at night.
  - Florin_Andrei 15y ago
    If the law was computer software, at this point it would be a giant unmanageable screwball of spaghetti code that would crash daily and would require patches 3 times a week.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      It does, both of those. Except the patches are driven by lobbyist donations or ideological axe grinding rather than fixing defects, for the most part.
      - duggan 15y ago
        So it's exactly like software then :)
    - InclinedPlane 15y ago
      It's worse than that, if the law were software then it wouldn't even run on client machines, it'd only run on specialty hardware in the lab.
    - thehotdon 15y ago
      if ... 1000 dollar fine else if ... 5 months jail else if ... capital punishment else if ... licence suspended else if ... 3 years jail, 20000 dollar fine // handle a few million more cases else you're innocent
      - intellection 15y ago
        Programmatically human law may lose ourselves, insofar conceptualizing reasonability. How might IT giveth direct feel? /end upvote
jpdoctor 15y ago
But also note: Part of why Bernie Madoff lasted so long was that he arrived for an SEC investigation without a lawyer. Everyone in the room thought he had nothing to hide, so they didn't pursue him. Whether we want to admit it or not: It's ingrained that you are inviting an investigator to hassle you further by invoking a right to counsel. (For the record: I think that sucks too.)
- teej 15y ago
  I'd rather not take cues from Bernie Madoff on legal matters.
  - jpdoctor 15y ago
    You missed my point: One strategy that should be safe is telling the god's-honest truth. But even with the truth, you invite a whole lotta hassle by bringing a lawyer. Conversely: Even if you're a dishonest crook, you get the feds off your back by omitting a lawyer. This is not how it should be; It is how it is.
    - hyperbovine 15y ago
      This guy was the former chair of NASDAQ and had friends in high places. Your chances of getting the same red carpet treatment from the Feds are effectively zero. Hire a lawyer.
    - VladRussian 15y ago
      You point is : if you're a talented con artist who was able to con $50B out, then you would mislead/charm/fend off a SEC or any other investigator better than a lawyer. I'm completely agree with you here. For the rest of us - talk to your lawyer first.
    - jellicle 15y ago
      There are hundreds of thousands of people in prison right now who arrived for their interview with the authorities without a lawyer. I'm not sure your theory actually pans out. (Madoff wasn't caught when the SEC first investigated because they thought he was front-running orders, not a giant Ponzi scheme. They were looking for the wrong thing.)
matusz13 15y ago
I remember seeing this talk some time ago - simply titled 'don't talk to the police'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- danvideo 15y ago
  yep that's a fantastic video
- tealtank 15y ago
  Ah yes I remember that. Thanks for linking it again.
EGreg 15y ago
What if they bring you in and detain you for not cooperating with the investigation? Under some reason? Are there laws for that?
- 3pt14159 15y ago
  Basically they take a risk when they do that, but they can only hold you for 72 hours (at least here in Toronto). There are avenues that you can take to get back at them for that though, such as class action lawsuits. A Hispanic former coworker of mine was wrongfully arrested then beaten with phone books by some thugs at the Toronto police. He got lucky, it was a case of mistaken identity and even though they found a small amount of weed on him they let him go completely and he was given a card with a cops phone number on it. He has had to use it 3 times since. He's an apprentice tradesman and lives in a poor area of Toronto so when I told him to sue, he said "Sue? For what? Damages? I've been beaten up worse before by the people they're trying to catch. I live in a bad neighborhood and the officer who gave me his car and I have an understanding now." Pretty messed up. When you don't look or sound like the people that know these little loopholes in the system you get to deal with what I consider to be a couple steps up from a mob. Some of them are awesome, for example cops have helped me get out of a snow bank before and didn't write me up for a driving infraction. Some of them are generally nice and will smile at you on the street or laugh with you as they give you a ticket, but they have power and some of them, especially those that have to deal with messed up shit in the ghettos abuse it.
rjurney 15y ago
In practice, such people will often threaten you. They are experts at this, and can easily get under most people's skin. This is why most people fold and give up their rights. Out of fear.
glimcat 15y ago
"Why do you need an attorney? What do you have to hide?" I need one because it was important enough put in the Constitution. What have you got against the Constitution?
mmaunder 15y ago
This is really great advice. I'd just emphasize to be honest about whether you have an attorney or whether "an attorney will be in touch" with him. Awesome article conover, thanks for posting.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

noonespecial 15y ago

Since you have nothing to hide, is it safe to talk? There can still be real danger in speaking to a government agent in these circumstances. To begin with, you are not qualified to know whether you are innocent of wrongdoing under federal criminal law. Critical system failure. There should be red lights blinking and klaxons wailing.

hvs 15y ago
"Ignorance of the law excuses no man: Not that all men know the law, but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him." - John Selden I'm not defending the ridiculously complicated U.S. Code but, even if it was much simpler, there is no way you can honestly say, "I know I did nothing illegal."
- Symmetry 15y ago
  That's a subtly different point. Its ok that ignorance of the law can't be used as a defense. That an honest person who attempts to study the law so that they can comply with it has basically no chance of succeeding is the problem.
  - hvs 15y ago
    An honest person can attempt to do that, and they are called "lawyers." Again, it is way too easy to run afoul of the U.S. Code. I get that. But, even if that wasn't true, it would still not be advisable to speak to law enforcement officers.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Even a lawyer would have to be superhuman to achieve that, unless we extent his being to include a law library and his colleagues.
    - chc 15y ago
      The definition of "lawyer" is not "a person who earnestly tries to comply with the law." Lawyers have a particular role in the legal system that goes well beyond merely being a law-abiding citizen.

hvs 15y ago

This advice also applies to any situation involving law enforcement officers, not just federal agents. Remember, "Don't Talk to Cops": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

lurchpop 15y ago
They should make this required viewing in high school civics classes. do they even have those any more?
- cosmicman 15y ago
  They're more likely to show you a video saying 'Trust all the cops all the time!'.
tzs 15y ago
So let's say a kid goes missing. The cops come around the area she was last seen asking people if they saw her. They are trying to narrow down where and when she disappeared. Everyone else is cooperative, but I'm not. I've now drawn attention to myself and am probably going to be in for a lot of scrutiny, and at some risk for getting into trouble even if I had nothing to do with the girl's disappearance.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >if I had nothing to do with the girl's disappearance. care to elaborate how your talking would help then?
  - itsadok 15y ago
    First off, the issue is not how it would help them, it is how it would help you. And tzs explained how it would help you: it would keep the investigators from getting suspicious of you, and possibly making your life harder. As an aside, it would also help the investigators, by not distracting them with irrelevant suspicious behavior.

baddox 15y ago

This is an unjust law, period.

hvs 15y ago
Now that is the core issue here. Not that there is something wrong with "the system" or that law is "too complicated," but that this law is unjust.
robertpateii 15y ago
This law is broader than I'd prefer but I don't see how it's clearly unjust. Do you feel the same way about perjury? If not, what's the dividing line between the two?
- fr0sty 15y ago
  Perjury requires you to be giving testimony under oath. This law covers any and all conversations however casual. Furthermore perjury requires the act to be willful and the item under question to be of material importance to an investigation. This law requires only that the statement be known by the speaker to be incorrect and however trivial.
- baddox 15y ago
  Perjury is essentially a violation of a contract (the contract being the sworn oath), so of course it's a legitimate offense. To me, it comes down to the context in which you make your remarks. If you're under arrest or under oath, then I think lying should be prosecutable (because, in these situations you have the right to remain silent and the right to not incriminate yourself, and you obviously know you're talking to legal officials).
- knorby 15y ago
  Lying is a pretty common reaction of some people to stressful situations, especially when they have something to hide. If you are testifying at a trial, you will have had time to collect your thoughts and prepare yourself for the situation, but that isn't the case if an FBI agents shows up at your door and starts asking questions. The law needs to allow for people to be human.

brianstorms 15y ago

When members of congress lie when speaking to other members of congress, why aren't they held to this law?

ctdonath 15y ago
The government, and its agents, are exempt from most laws.
- ims 15y ago
  How so? I can't think of where that would hold true, aside from certain liability issues and other circumstances where it would be impractical or contrary to the public interest.
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    Because the government is sovereign entity and can only be sued if it allowed itself to be sued. In fact it is exactly the opposite, the government allows itself to be sued in some tort cases (the liability you mention), in some cases involving IP, and even there you don't get a trial by jury -- a federal judge will decide if the federal govt. is guilty or not (yeah I know...).
    - ims 15y ago
      Right but we're not talking about lawsuits. We're talking about criminal law and government agents being bound by laws.
rbranson 15y ago
Perhaps because they write the laws?
piguy314 15y ago
Article One, Section Six of the constitution protects legislators from prosecution for what they say on the floor of the houses except for sanction by the legislature itself. >and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Compensation_and_legal_protection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_State...

dfranke 15y 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. Is there anything in the law that makes the "pursuant to some regulatory duty" relevant here? For example, if you wrote something on Wikipedia that you knew was inaccurate, and years later a federal official read it and found it somehow relevant to his job, would you theoretically be breaking this law?

droithomme 15y ago
IANALOAJ, but yes, technically that would be a crime in those circumstances. It seems unlikely you'd be prosecuted of course but who can say?
rprasad 15y ago
Yes. It's not criminally illegal to lie to your employer about hours worked. On the other hand, if you're lying to your employer about hours worked on a government contract, that may be a different story. What most armchair lawyers forget (or never learned) is that intent is a fundemental element for any crime involving more than token (i.e., small fine) punishment. In the example above, if you don't intend to defraud the federal government when lying to your lawyer, it's not a crime.

praptak 15y ago

The most rational strategy for a US citizen is to treat an officer like the worst enemy, a sleazebag who will go out of their way to fuck said citizen over? There is something deeply wrong with this country.

aidenn0 15y ago
An officer is trying to gather evidence against someone, whom they have strong reason to believe is guilty. If the most expedient means for this is to threaten to fuck you over, they will do it.
- wanorris 15y ago
  The words "threaten to" are extraneous.
marshray 15y ago
It's not the officer personally, but there is a massive impersonal system of wheels and gears turning to result in him contacting you. It's easy for an innocent person to get sucked in and crushed by such machinery.
burgerbrain 15y ago
What reason is there to assume any differently? For that matter, what advantage is there for you to assume any differently? (tip: there is none.)
- jackpirate 15y ago
  That's his point. In a well run society, this would not be the case.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    It doesn't matter how fucked up or well run the society is. So long as the justice system is implemented anything like it currently is this will be the case.

jsdalton 15y ago

As interesting as this article may be, it does not belong on HN.

marshray 15y ago
People I know who have run internet startups have had contact with federal agents on various occasions. EDIT. This response is getting so many upvotes I'm going to clarify it a bit, particularly for people who may be reading this from other countries: Yes, you can start and run a business in America without ever having direct interaction with the US Federal Government, other than mailing off your taxes. It's not like every business one day gets a visit from the KGB and they tell you to do things a certain way (or else). Nevertheless, if you are for example an ISP or provide messaging, as you grow big enough it's probably a matter of time before you'll end up getting a subscriber who's being investigated. You may have a former employee that goes on to apply for some sort of special security clearance and they follow up on his background (or you go out of your way to hire a talented hacker with a mysterious background). You may simply meet such agents due to ordinary shared interests, like say at a trade show or a conference. Of course, you could also meet them when they are also actually investigating something with the aim of prosecuting people. I don't know which of these situations fall under the law described in the article, possibly all of them do.
- BrandonM 15y ago
  > if you are for example an ISP or provide messaging, as you grow big enough it's probably a matter of time before you'll end up getting a subscriber who's being investigated That is not what Hacker News is for. If your company is that big, you should have counsel on retainer, and they should be advising you of the proper behavior in the face of potential federal investigation. Moreover, it's our job as American citizens to be aware of our legal exposure and to know the proper way to proceed. It's a shame that this is not taught in our high school Government courses. It is not the role of Hacker News to educate us on these issues. There are other sites for that. You can tell by the quality of the comment thread that it's not something that appeals to "our inner hacker." An article is not HN material simply by appealing to some (or even a majority) of the members here; it must satisfy other criteria, and this one does not.

maxxxxx 15y ago

It saddens me that the best advice for so many situations is "Get a lawyer". Besides the fact that they are expensive I find it frustrating that society has become that adversarial.

dotBen 15y ago
No, it's not society that has become adversarial, it is the vague and far-reaching laws.

lambada 15y ago

Does anyone know of a similar quality article for dealing with UK law enforcement?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
whiteduck 15y ago
Or any other nation's law enforcement?

itsadok 15y ago

what bothers me the most about these kind of articles is the underlying assumption that I can find a good criminal lawyer when the need arises. I'm having enough trouble finding good engineers, and that is something that I am qualified to do, as well as able to spend several months on, under very little pressure. I have very little experience with lawyers, but at least for corporate lawyers, my impression is that the average lawyer doesn't know everything about their field, just like the average programmer doesn't know everything about their field. I wonder how many of these pitfalls are something that an average lawyer wouldn't know to avoid.

outworlder 15y ago
My thoughts exactly. However, I just assumed I was being too cynical.
nobleach 15y ago
Yeah, no kidding. I just walked (stumbled) through a short-sale turned Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. If I had a dime for every time they told me that I should consult "my attorney", I may have actually had enough dimes to afford one. I finally did ask, "do you actually talk to middle class people like myself that keep attorneys and accountants on retainer?" I mean the whole point of the process is that I could no longer afford to pay for my mortgage, wouldn't it be a little suspect if I were able to afford an attorney???
jxcole 15y ago
One thing you can say which the officers are legally obliged to contend with (I think) is that you refuse to make any statements without consulting your state appointed attorney. The government is required by law to provide you an attorney if you can't afford one. (IANAL)
- rprasad 15y ago
  If you can't afford one and you are make less than a low threshold above the local poverty limit. The test looks at assets and income, ignoring liabilities (except for necessary ongoing medical expenses).

buff-a 15y ago

Does this apply to Congresspersons?

jxcole 15y ago
Does this apply to federal agents? In other words, if an officer says something false in a statement that is later read by another officer can they be charged?

arturadib 15y ago

Reminds me of the awesome lecture "Don't talk to the police" by Prof. James Duane (J.D., Harvard Law): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

raldi 15y ago

Wait, so let's say I'm at the post office buying stamps, and I hand the cashier a $20, and she says, "Don't you have anything smaller?" and I say no, even though I do, because I want the change. Could I be convicted under this law?

ww520 15y ago
If the cashier is a federal agent.
- raldi 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure all USPS employees are.
  - ww520 15y ago
    I thought USPS is a "private" company, just heavily regulated. Edit: Never mind. It has a complicate ownership, as a US government-owned corporation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
jakejake 15y ago
I think the law is only applied when it's in relation to a crime, but it is an interesting thought and shows how an overly broad law could be easily abused.
droithomme 15y ago
It is unlikely you would be convicted, but yes, you have violated that law in the circumstance you describe.
rprasad 15y ago
No, nor have you broken the law as it is written. The key factor here is that the statement must be made about a matter in which a federal investigative or regulatory agency has authority to pursue legal actions, i.e., in relation to an investigation into violations of federal laws or regulations. What the discussion on HN ignores (and which the article touches upon but glosses over) is that the lie (about hours) is repeated to a federal agent during an investigation or on court. The repetition is the illegal act. I am a lawyer...and I would really love it if the armchair laywers on HN would stop spreading FUD.

losethos 15y ago

5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. --------------------------------- God says, "set considers collect examiner ministers delivers Begotten delighting surpassest along season uttered pitying manors monstrous psaltery meditations preferred houses likes pointed deed Scriptures recalling distinctly Difficulty renewed Evil thirsts extreme joyfulness tasting forenoon pursued too gladly mysteriously temptations cellar unfeigned reader Am fingers oblation remembrances www Eternity Helpidius allegorically impiety confessing Enter saint destroyers city fixing assistance mentally mindful thousand sail reins gliding theft's foster boundary reviled entrusted struck note doings hears reputed panting flood prison modulation twisted Verily grow faster concerns remain seeth intently forsaken enervated moderate modulation gentleness whereto Psalmody betrothed faces sect doubtful stolen host sufferedst forepassed diffused reinvolved sluggish growth Food quarter lick PARTICULAR nostrils Medea greediness concubinage commiserate three formlessness shifted links delightful ancient Emperor's torture straightening like refer rounds fore infected wisdom credibility Envy steered preaching smell coals owns unbelievers deridedst hearken glorious angels hateful cheered deadly pricks short unconscious Understand kindness exhibited waiting face quitting gathered minded "

scotto 15y ago

I am so glad this article is out and I read it. It may be extreme but as someone who has witnesses this type of thing go down, I live with the knowledge that we are all one false accusation away from complete ruin. EVERYTHING can be made to look malicious and calculated, and we should all, in this context, live in fear of the government. Stay out of their crosshairs and keep your attorney phone number close by.

jxcole 15y ago

Related: overcriminalization. Looks like this story relates to the same statute: http://www.economist.com/node/16636027 http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

ellyagg 15y ago

This is an interesting and useful perspective, and it's not the first time it's come up on HN, but it's unfortunate that it doesn't draw any thoughtful criticism. This advice is best when one is implicated or thinks there's any chance they'd be implicated...but then anyone with the slightest awareness of the legal system learns about this at a pretty young age. This particular advice gets its sensationalism and counterintuitiveness by claiming that it's a universal rule. As a universal rule, it has its downsides. One downside is that, if everyone does this, we make it far harder for law enforcement to do worthwhile investigations. Programmers hate when roadblocks prevent us from iterating quickly during development. Understand, other occupations also suffer from the same crunch on their time that we do and, as a community that's all in this together, we benefit from their work. Another downside is promoting an adversarial role between law enforcement and its citizenry. This is an intangible, but I think its costs are real. Also, you'd better be very confident that the cop(s) will simply respect your rights under the law. I know of situations where that has not been the case. I've seen videos where it wasn't the case. We've all read stories where it wasn't the case. It's easy to fantasize stories about you being wrongfully singled out or, heaven forbid, convicted. We've also all read stories about that. Just like everything in life, then, it's a cost/benefits analysis. But don't pretend that one choice is all benefits and no costs. I think the speed of modern news dissemination is warping our risk assessment software. Things that you'd only hear of rarely are reported several times a day now, because there's 6 billion people having bad things happen to them, the news only cares about those bad things, and our attention for those bad things is the same size as ever. The bad things per attention minute is rising all the time. Partly because of this, and partly because we are the way we are, there's a penchant by some in my geeky, libertarian community to withdraw as citizens, and overestimate downside risk. Yes, you expose yourself to risk by rescuing that drowning man; yes, you expose yourself to risk by finding that lost girl's mom; yes, you expose yourself to risk by cooperating with authorities. And, you know what, I think it should be worth it to you. As a side note, attorneys are very familiar with the system and feel confident about fighting it head on, and many attorneys are willing to lead a high stress, confrontational life style. One should bear that in mind when taking advice about how to lead one's life.

jbri 15y ago
> Another downside is promoting an adversarial role between law enforcement and its citizenry. This is an intangible, but I think its costs are real. This is caused by law enforcement/state prosecutors taking an adversarial role against citizens, not citizens responding in kind. It's like the classical prisoner's dilemma. Yes, it would be better for all involved if everyone chose to co-operate. But when one side persistently takes the adversarial approach, it would be stupid for the other side not to do the same. > As a side note, attorneys are very familiar with the system and feel confident about fighting it head on, and many attorneys are willing to lead a high stress, confrontational life style. This is, in fact, why you should always talk to an attorney when it comes to dealing with law enforcement.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

giardini 15y ago

There's a new book out about the complexity of American law. It's titled "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" by Harvey Silverglate http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...

lucraft 15y ago

What's the situation in the UK on this whole Dont Talk to Cops thing? Does anyone know of any equivalent legal advice?

Loic 15y ago

The terrible point in the complete article is that basically, you need first to assume that the authorities will screw you and not help you. For me, the "todos in this case" are just a cure for a dead man, because if you cannot trust the authorities anymore the basic assumptions of a working judiciary system are broken.

js2 15y ago

Tangentially related - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?pag... In March 2009, still unsatisfied, Mr. Nordlander persuaded his superiors to send an attractive female undercover agent, Ellen Burrows, to meet Mr. Engle and see if she could get him to say something incriminating. In the course of several flirtatious encounters, she asked him about his investments. After acknowledging that he had been speculating in real estate during the bubble to help support his running, he said, according to Mr. Nordlander’s grand jury testimony, “I had a couple of good liar loans out there, you know, which my mortgage broker didn’t mind writing down, you know, that I was making four hundred thousand grand a year when he knew I wasn’t.” Mr. Engle added, “Everybody was doing it because it was simply the way it was done. That doesn’t make me proud of the fact that I am at least a small part of the problem.” Unbeknownst to Mr. Engle, Ms. Burrows was wearing a wire.

horseracer999 15y ago

It's a shame that this sort of thing is true.

sylax 15y ago

Would be curious to see this sort of thing for other countries.

keyboarder 15y ago

I think this could well apply to any government worker.

arcanebook 15y ago

I wish this weren't true.

redrising1 15y ago

It seems the police are held to lower standards than normal citizens when they should actually be held to higher standards.

deathmatch 15y ago

I'm really grateful that you posted this.

ghostshield11 15y ago

It's unfortunate to see what our police force has become.

silverbax88 15y ago

Just reading this makes me nervous.

gildedsuit 15y ago

This is excellent. Thank you for posting this.

ShawnJG 15y ago

I assume that most people who post here are smarter than the average citizen or at least more informed. The real "spaghetti code" problem here is that this obscure statute can easily be violated in advance of being told your rights. And you only get ready your rights a.k.a. mirandized when you're bordering on already in trouble with the law. Coupled with the fact that this is a federal statute it only applies to federal agents not city or state. And since you can lie to city or state officials up until you are under oath (which most people know) you might be inclined to believe he can do it to federal agent until it's too late. Which means their first encounter with a federal agent will be a crash course in the finer points of the law. One which they will unlikely be able to walk away from. I believe the spirit of v. Miranda is being violated the statute, I believe the beginning of any contacts with the law enforcement official should begin with the reading of your rights which should now include information on statute 18 sec 1001.