7 ms·

Just an FYI Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Most of those claims were BS but you have to call their bluff to find out. He didn't have to a

Just an FYI Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Most of those claims were BS but you have to call their bluff to find out. He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords, and they will always tell you that you have to Edit: "allowed to" as in there's no consequences because of how difficult it is to prosecute them. It's intentionally ignored

jasonjayr 3y ago
Is the "detained without a lawyer" thing actually true in the UK? It was my understanding in the US, that's a pretty concrete feature, and law enforcement can't actually compel you to do anything without a trip through the courts.
- gerikson 3y ago
  My understanding is that Schedule 7 applies at points of entry to the UK, where you have limited rights even as a citizen. Edit more info from the Scottish police (the institution in question): https://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/how-we-do-it/schedule-7-of-the-terrorism-act-2000-data/ https://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/how-we-do-it/schedul...
- lucozade 3y ago
  Under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act you can be detained for up to an hour without access to legal advice. That's very likely why they were so diligent in keeping it to an hour.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> enforcement can't actually compel you to do anything without a trip through the courts. In theory, but there are so many exceptions that it isn't really a thing in practice. Driving a car? You have to identify yourself. Crossing a boarder? You are open to total inspection. Using a credit card, your transaction is open to inspection and you need to identify. Called as a witness? You have to participate by answering questions. You can even be imprisoned, for years, as a "material witness" without any hint of accusation. They sometimes do need a "trip through the courts" but that doesn't mean you are going to be part of that trip, or even know about it until after the warrants have been issued. The list of exemptions from the default rules allowing silence are so long as to make them meaningless.
- fullarr 3y ago
  Google Chicago PD blacksites It's a feature they aren't afraid of ignoring
  - twic 3y ago
    If the UK authorities are extraordinarily rendering people to Chicago, that would be quite something. Rwanda was bad enough.
    - formerly_proven 3y ago
      Take him to detroit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Yes, in the UK you can be detained for 36 hours without the right to a lawyer, or 48 hours for suspected terrorism cases. During that time, you can be questioned, and if you do not answer, then your lack of answer can be used by a court to infer guilt ("why did you not say you were just out walking your dog when first asked?").
  - semanticist 3y ago
    "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." (The 'Police Caution', see: https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights ) This is, as I understand it, very different to the US right against self-incrimination where the courts are specifically not allowed to infer guilt from silence. (Although I suspect many juries may be influenced negatively by someone remaining silent, despite direction.)
    - mnw21cam 3y ago
      Except (as I hear it) that's not even true in the US. Apparently, it's not enough to stay silent - you actually have to say that you are exercising the right to be silent, otherwise they are allowed to infer guilt from silence. In a very similar way, if I were ever detained in this manner in the UK, I'd be very likely to say "I am not refusing right now to answer your questions. However, since I cannot trust you to tell me the truth about my rights and responsibilities, and because of the power imbalance, I will wait until I have independent legal advice before participating any further in this interview".
      - zardo 3y ago
        Even the right to a lawyer has been denied because a judge chose to endorse a police interpretation of "I want a lawyer dawg" as a nonsense request for a dog-attourney.
      - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        I think you can politely stick to "I'd like to wait for a lawyer please." Less is more. Except if questioned under schedule 7 of the terrorism act of 2000, maybe. IANAL. Ask an actual lawyer for advice!
londons_explore 3y ago
> He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 requires that if you know the information required and refuse to provide it, you can be sentenced to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment. However, the notice must be given properly in writing. So, while these officers perhaps were deceitful in asking verbally for passwords rather than giving a written notice, the meaning of what they were saying was still correct - there is a legal requirement to hand over passwords.
- op00to 3y ago
  Man, I totally forgot my password. Over the last 3 weeks I started forgetting passwords, only passwords. (Make note to mention this offhand to my dr at next appointment)
  - gambiting 3y ago
    As I said in another comment - even though obviously there is no objective way to prove it, like many other things in the justice system it's about what the judge/jury will believe. If they pull up logs that show you've used your password just before your interrogation then you can bet you'll be found guilty even if you really forgot the password.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      Those are the kinds of cases that should be handled through jury nullification - too bad it's a crime to explain that right and how it should be used to jurors.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    "Don't worry, we'll keep you imprisoned until you remember or manage to brute force it. We also don't care what you told your doctor..." See how power works?
    - renonce 3y ago
skrebbel 3y ago
> Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?
- fullarr 3y ago
  This is universal lmao And it's not just a current events thing
  - diggan 3y ago
    > This is universal lmao It is not universal. Not sure why you'd claim so unless you've looked up the laws for every country. One example, Sweden: > 23 kap. 12 § rättegångsbalken (https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K23P12S1 https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K23P12S1) > Under förhör må ej i syfte att framkalla bekännelse eller uttalande i viss riktning användas medvetet oriktiga uppgifter, löften eller förespeglingar om särskilda förmåner, hot, tvång, uttröttning eller andra otillbörliga åtgärder [...] Meaning, the one who is doing the interrogation is not allowed to "use deliberate misrepresentation, promises or promises of special benefits, threats, coercion, hardship or other improper measures.", basically not allowed to lie. How it works usually works out in practice, is most likely different though. I've only been to one interrogation with Swedish police and they definitely lied about a bunch of stuff. I'm sure there are other countries where the police isn't allowed to lie either.
    - fullarr 3y ago
      We are talking past each other. There are two truths: 1. It is forbidden by law in many places (including the US). 2. They will get away with it regardless, in nearly every case. So often that practically speaking it's allowed
      - skrebbel 3y ago
        Was it so hard just to lead with this?
        3y ago
robaato 3y ago
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1088709/Schedule_7_Code_of_Practice_-_July_2022.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Conducting an examination 34. The examining officer must explain their role to the person and that Schedule 7 is a part of counter-terrorism policing at the port/UK border, but that this does not mean that they are suspected of being involved in terrorism. The purpose of the examination is to determine whether the person appears to be someone who is or who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. If requested, the examining officer must provide sufficient information, such as an identification number and location, to the person or his or her representative to enable the officer to be identified in the event of any query or complaint. 35. The examining officer will explain how the examination will be conducted and must offer a Schedule 7 Public Information Leaflet. The Public Information Leaflet is available in multiple languages, and outlines the purpose and provisions of Schedule 7, duties under Schedule 7, key points of the code of practice, including an individual’s rights, and relevant contact details (including those needed to provide feedback or make a complaint). 39. Where an officer decides it is necessary to examine a person for longer than an hour, then questioning under paragraph 2 and 3 of Schedule 7 may only continue beyond the hour point if the person has been detained under paragraph 6 of Schedule 7. Any period of examination, including detention, must not exceed six hours from the commencement of the examination.
- breakpointalpha 3y ago
  Last sentence of section 39 makes it look like all you have to do is remain silent for 6 hours to be released. I'm not a lawyer.
  - midasuni 3y ago
    Nor would you be allowed a lawyer
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    Refusing to answer the questions is a crime. Once you've committed a crime, the examination part can give way to the "You're under arrest" part.
Roark66 3y ago
>Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Is that actually true in the UK though? I was once "detained" in far less intimidating circumstances. I had a meeting in Bradford(UK) at 9am at some business client's place and I arrived by car half an hour early so I parked my car in an empty parking lot overlooking one of the main streets and I was sitting there waiting. Then a policewoman appears out of nowhere and asks me what am I doing there etc. I answered, and next she's asking if I have any id. When I asked what for, she used that phrase that "I was detained (but I forgot the reason why, something about assessing what I'm doing there)".Fine,I gave her my drivers license. She wrote the details down and then filled and gave me a piece of paper with various things along the lines of "you were detained today for the following reason..., you can complain here if you want etc.". She said thank you and walked away. Later I learned some important person was visiting Bradford and they were doing security in advance. I wonder if they had a right to stop people like that prior to the" terrorist act".

jasonjayr 3y ago

Is the "detained without a lawyer" thing actually true in the UK? It was my understanding in the US, that's a pretty concrete feature, and law enforcement can't actually compel you to do anything without a trip through the courts.

gerikson 3y ago
My understanding is that Schedule 7 applies at points of entry to the UK, where you have limited rights even as a citizen. Edit more info from the Scottish police (the institution in question): https://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/how-we-do-it/schedule-7-of-the-terrorism-act-2000-data/ https://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/how-we-do-it/schedul...
lucozade 3y ago
Under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act you can be detained for up to an hour without access to legal advice. That's very likely why they were so diligent in keeping it to an hour.
sandworm101 3y ago
>> enforcement can't actually compel you to do anything without a trip through the courts. In theory, but there are so many exceptions that it isn't really a thing in practice. Driving a car? You have to identify yourself. Crossing a boarder? You are open to total inspection. Using a credit card, your transaction is open to inspection and you need to identify. Called as a witness? You have to participate by answering questions. You can even be imprisoned, for years, as a "material witness" without any hint of accusation. They sometimes do need a "trip through the courts" but that doesn't mean you are going to be part of that trip, or even know about it until after the warrants have been issued. The list of exemptions from the default rules allowing silence are so long as to make them meaningless.
fullarr 3y ago
Google Chicago PD blacksites It's a feature they aren't afraid of ignoring
- twic 3y ago
  If the UK authorities are extraordinarily rendering people to Chicago, that would be quite something. Rwanda was bad enough.
  - formerly_proven 3y ago
    Take him to detroit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo
londons_explore 3y ago
Yes, in the UK you can be detained for 36 hours without the right to a lawyer, or 48 hours for suspected terrorism cases. During that time, you can be questioned, and if you do not answer, then your lack of answer can be used by a court to infer guilt ("why did you not say you were just out walking your dog when first asked?").
- semanticist 3y ago
  "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." (The 'Police Caution', see: https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights ) This is, as I understand it, very different to the US right against self-incrimination where the courts are specifically not allowed to infer guilt from silence. (Although I suspect many juries may be influenced negatively by someone remaining silent, despite direction.)
  - mnw21cam 3y ago
    Except (as I hear it) that's not even true in the US. Apparently, it's not enough to stay silent - you actually have to say that you are exercising the right to be silent, otherwise they are allowed to infer guilt from silence. In a very similar way, if I were ever detained in this manner in the UK, I'd be very likely to say "I am not refusing right now to answer your questions. However, since I cannot trust you to tell me the truth about my rights and responsibilities, and because of the power imbalance, I will wait until I have independent legal advice before participating any further in this interview".
    - zardo 3y ago
      Even the right to a lawyer has been denied because a judge chose to endorse a police interpretation of "I want a lawyer dawg" as a nonsense request for a dog-attourney.
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      I think you can politely stick to "I'd like to wait for a lawyer please." Less is more. Except if questioned under schedule 7 of the terrorism act of 2000, maybe. IANAL. Ask an actual lawyer for advice!

londons_explore 3y ago

> He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 requires that if you know the information required and refuse to provide it, you can be sentenced to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment. However, the notice must be given properly in writing. So, while these officers perhaps were deceitful in asking verbally for passwords rather than giving a written notice, the meaning of what they were saying was still correct - there is a legal requirement to hand over passwords.

op00to 3y ago
Man, I totally forgot my password. Over the last 3 weeks I started forgetting passwords, only passwords. (Make note to mention this offhand to my dr at next appointment)
- gambiting 3y ago
  As I said in another comment - even though obviously there is no objective way to prove it, like many other things in the justice system it's about what the judge/jury will believe. If they pull up logs that show you've used your password just before your interrogation then you can bet you'll be found guilty even if you really forgot the password.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Those are the kinds of cases that should be handled through jury nullification - too bad it's a crime to explain that right and how it should be used to jurors.
- coldtea 3y ago
  "Don't worry, we'll keep you imprisoned until you remember or manage to brute force it. We also don't care what you told your doctor..." See how power works?
  - renonce 3y ago

skrebbel 3y ago

> Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?

fullarr 3y ago
This is universal lmao And it's not just a current events thing
- diggan 3y ago
  > This is universal lmao It is not universal. Not sure why you'd claim so unless you've looked up the laws for every country. One example, Sweden: > 23 kap. 12 § rättegångsbalken (https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K23P12S1 https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K23P12S1) > Under förhör må ej i syfte att framkalla bekännelse eller uttalande i viss riktning användas medvetet oriktiga uppgifter, löften eller förespeglingar om särskilda förmåner, hot, tvång, uttröttning eller andra otillbörliga åtgärder [...] Meaning, the one who is doing the interrogation is not allowed to "use deliberate misrepresentation, promises or promises of special benefits, threats, coercion, hardship or other improper measures.", basically not allowed to lie. How it works usually works out in practice, is most likely different though. I've only been to one interrogation with Swedish police and they definitely lied about a bunch of stuff. I'm sure there are other countries where the police isn't allowed to lie either.
  - fullarr 3y ago
    We are talking past each other. There are two truths: 1. It is forbidden by law in many places (including the US). 2. They will get away with it regardless, in nearly every case. So often that practically speaking it's allowed
    - skrebbel 3y ago
      Was it so hard just to lead with this?
      - 3y ago

robaato 3y ago

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1088709/Schedule_7_Code_of_Practice_-_July_2022.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Conducting an examination 34. The examining officer must explain their role to the person and that Schedule 7 is a part of counter-terrorism policing at the port/UK border, but that this does not mean that they are suspected of being involved in terrorism. The purpose of the examination is to determine whether the person appears to be someone who is or who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. If requested, the examining officer must provide sufficient information, such as an identification number and location, to the person or his or her representative to enable the officer to be identified in the event of any query or complaint. 35. The examining officer will explain how the examination will be conducted and must offer a Schedule 7 Public Information Leaflet. The Public Information Leaflet is available in multiple languages, and outlines the purpose and provisions of Schedule 7, duties under Schedule 7, key points of the code of practice, including an individual’s rights, and relevant contact details (including those needed to provide feedback or make a complaint). 39. Where an officer decides it is necessary to examine a person for longer than an hour, then questioning under paragraph 2 and 3 of Schedule 7 may only continue beyond the hour point if the person has been detained under paragraph 6 of Schedule 7. Any period of examination, including detention, must not exceed six hours from the commencement of the examination.

breakpointalpha 3y ago
Last sentence of section 39 makes it look like all you have to do is remain silent for 6 hours to be released. I'm not a lawyer.
- midasuni 3y ago
  Nor would you be allowed a lawyer
- lucubratory 3y ago
  Refusing to answer the questions is a crime. Once you've committed a crime, the examination part can give way to the "You're under arrest" part.

Roark66 3y ago

>Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Is that actually true in the UK though? I was once "detained" in far less intimidating circumstances. I had a meeting in Bradford(UK) at 9am at some business client's place and I arrived by car half an hour early so I parked my car in an empty parking lot overlooking one of the main streets and I was sitting there waiting. Then a policewoman appears out of nowhere and asks me what am I doing there etc. I answered, and next she's asking if I have any id. When I asked what for, she used that phrase that "I was detained (but I forgot the reason why, something about assessing what I'm doing there)".Fine,I gave her my drivers license. She wrote the details down and then filled and gave me a piece of paper with various things along the lines of "you were detained today for the following reason..., you can complain here if you want etc.". She said thank you and walked away. Later I learned some important person was visiting Bradford and they were doing security in advance. I wonder if they had a right to stop people like that prior to the" terrorist act".