14 ms·
WA House bill would make it illegal for police to lie during interrogations
- lokar 3y agoNever, ever, talk to the police without a lawyer. They are not your friends.
- IncreasePosts 3y agoI've talked to police a number of times without a lawyer, and it has always been fine.
- mikestew 3y agoI've wired electrical outlets without turning off the breaker, and I'm still here to type this. I would not, however, advise others to do so but rather emphasize the importance of turning off the breaker before doing electrical work. Other than "nice day, eh?" or "No, as a matter of fact I do NOT know why you pulled me over", don't talk to cops without a lawyer.
- bdcravens 3y ago> "No, as a matter of fact I do NOT know why you pulled me over" For bonus points, quote "99 Problems": "Do I learn like a mind reader, sir? I don't know." (that entire verse is quite educational)
- oceanplexian 3y agoIn my experience they will phrase it as “Do you know how fast you were going?” or “Do you know what the speed limit is?”, worded in such a way that ANY answer is incriminating.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agothe least wrong answer is likely "I believe so".
- dekhn 3y agoCan you explain what happens if you answer those? Does that affect the outcome? Is a cop that pulls you over for what looks like a traffic violation trying to get you to make an incriminating statement (I have no idea, I'm just asking. No agenda)? In the few situations where I was pulled over for speeding, I asked the cop to show me the reading and also whether the device was calibrated in the past few years, and they've always obliged (after answering "I know how fast I was going" and "I think the speed limit is...". If they have a calibrated device and they show me the reading, I'm not really sure how my answers to those questions affects the decision tree. What you want to do is avoid creating an unnecessary confrontation by acting adversarial.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agoanswering that you know how fast you were going, combined with data suggesting you were speeding yields the conclusion that you were intentionally breaking the law.
- dekhn 3y agoYes, and? Sorry to be obtuse, but I'm just trying to understand the decision tree here. Of course if I'm speeding I know I'm breaking the law. Does denying that somehow get me out of a ticket? Look at the base rate of speeding. When I drive on 101 in the bay area in clear traffic, I'm doing around 65 (the limit)-75 in the right lane and the majority of people are passing me on the left (or tailgating me because they want me to go faster or drafting or whatever it is that causes people to drive too close behind me when I drive near the speed limit). From what I can tell, unless a cop is actively trying to be punitive, they typically don't stop a car simply because it's going up to about 15MPH over the freeway limit.
- ryandrake 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- klyrs 3y ago> Other than "nice day, eh?" Unless there's a cloud in the sky. Wouldn't wanna lie to an officer...
- IncreasePosts 3y agoSo the last time I talked to a cop was last week, when one knocked on my door. My neighbor's car was stolen overnight, and the officer wanted to know if my security camera was recording and if anything was captured during a certain time frame. Are you telling me that I should have shut the door in his face, and called my lawyer?
- bdcravens 3y agoYou can also drive without a seat belt several times and likely be ok. It only takes one time to be proven wrong, however, and by then, it may be too late to learn the lesson.
- paxys 3y agoIt is always fine until it isn’t.
- IncreasePosts 3y agoBy this logic - Never interact with strangers. It is always fine, until it isn't. I can't believe you would do something so dangerous as to post a message on a message board.
- pixl97 3y agoI mean, most tigers aren't going to eat you, so it's pretty safe being in a cage with one. Both getting in a tigers cage and interacting with the police are things that you have many choices in moderating and making the event safer.
- hangonhn 3y agoA high school friend of mine made the mistake of doing that because in the past he had cooperated with the arresting officer (i.e. snitched). However, what he didn't realize is that may have no bearing on what the officer might do but even more importantly, it's the prosecutor who decides if he's going to pursue the case and they did not care about his past history with that particular officer. The police are not your friends but more importantly they aren't the ones who do the prosecution. They interrogate and they have a job to do.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago(if you are a suspect). there are a multitude of legitimate reasons to talk to police without a lawyer. e.g. you are a victim, you are helping a victim, you are being friendly. The real advice is not to try to talk your way out of a crime because it rarely works.
- jandrese 3y agoHow do you know if you are or aren't a suspect? The cops aren't going to tell you.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoReasonable inference/ common sense. If I called them for a home break IL in at my house, I'm probably not the suspect. If they're asking for a description of a car after I watched a hit-and-run, I'm probably not a suspect
- 20after4 3y agoIf you call them for a break in you 100% are a suspect. They suspect you're up to something. They might even find evidence of another crime while they are investigating the break in.
- gs17 3y agoThe article is about the story of a guy who tried to talk his way out of a crime he didn't commit. He thought he was there ''to help with a case.''
- s1artibartfast 3y agoSure. Do you think that is representative of the majority of police interaction and a good basis for a universal rule? Does it negate the utility you can get from talking to the police?
- 3y ago
- legitster 3y agoEver? You can talk to the police during normal goings on just fine. They are not going to interrogate you just for asking for directions. It's during an investigation that you should lawyer up.
- bitfilped 3y agoEver.
- grecy 3y agoA friend was an LAPD detective for 30 something years. Now retired. Extremely nice person. He emphatically told me I should never, ever, ever talk to the Police. Even if I witness a hit and run and just happen to be standing there and they walk over to me. Any one of 10,000 scenarios where the Police ask me for something, or want me to give information about something (even if I wasn't there). They are actively searching for someone to blame, and if you happen to say the wrong words while trying your utmost to be helpful, they'll happily pin it on you.
- oglop 3y agoOk, so you know society breaks down at the limit of what you are saying, right? Also the example is ludicrous, you're saying the cops would try to blame someone for a hit and run that isn't even in a car. No, the cops are not that cartoonishly bad. Some cops in some departments may be, and I can almost guess the cities, but the average cop is not a monster, they're just some person like you or me.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agothey won't blame you for the hit and run, but what if a store near there gets robbed an hour after you talk to them, and they decide you're a suspect because you look somewhat like the description and they know you were in the area?
- dekhn 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 3y agoGood. I understand that deception is necessary in cases like undercover investigations, but the practice goes far beyond those scenarios. Not just interrogations, either. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/michigan-case-offers-public-trust-suffers-police-officers-106742095 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/michigan-case-offers-pub... > Brian Chaney says he asked for a supervisor during his arrest in Keego Harbor, Michigan, and Police Officer Richard Lindquist told him that another officer present was in charge. The problem: That second officer was not a supervisor or even a member of the Keego Harbor Police Department. Lindquist was never disciplined and his chief says that while a suspect has the right to request a supervisor, what the officer did was OK.
- jeffbee 3y agoWhy does the subject of an interrogation have the right to request the presence of different cops?
- ceejayoz 3y agoAsk the police chief; I'd imagine their department policy is that you can request one, given he's stating they do indeed have such a right. If he wanted to make a "there's no right to a supervisor" argument, he should have. "You have the right, but we'll fake it" is the worst of both worlds.
- gs17 3y agoIf it exists, it must be a local thing in Keego. I'm from the same county and I've never been given the advice to ask for a supervisor, only to ask for an attorney.
- duskwuff 3y agoThat's not the problem. If the police don't want to comply with a suspect's request for a supervisor, they can say "no". They shouldn't need to lie to the suspect about who they're talking to and what their roles are; that's an abuse of their position.
- darth_avocado 3y ago
- jotato 3y ago> He said he was asked to waive his rights and when he asked police whether he needed an attorney they said no because they were only asking a few questions. He signed the waiver thinking he was going to help, but a few questions turned into a nearly nine-hour interrogation How is it we are able to legally "waive rights"? That should be addressed - under no circumstances should a not-yet-convicted person ever be stripped of rights. Voluntarily or not. Otherwise, what are they? Sure, someone can choose to not exercise them; maybe cooperate with the police, but if at any point they choose they should be available. Am I missing something?
- tekla 3y ago"You Have the Right to Remain Silent" "I killed that person" That's how you waive your rights.
- ceejayoz 3y agoYou have the right to remain silent. You also have the right not to remain silent. Talking after a Miranda warning is taken as a clear waiving of that right to remain silent. You can, of course, stop talking at any time, but they're not going to re-Marandize you after every sentence.
- jotato 3y agoThat is different that signing something and being held to it. You waived a right by saying that but you can choose.l to not speak after. Even if the paper waived an attorney you should be able to change your mind
- ceejayoz 3y agoNo signature on paper can force you to keep talking in police custody. You can stop talking at any time, regardless of what you signed.
- mschuster91 3y ago> No signature on paper can force you to keep talking in police custody. You can stop talking at any time, regardless of what you signed. Cops are very persuasive when they want to get an answer out of you. Say, they arrest you for whatever, and they can just threaten you to remain in custody for a day... no matter if your pet is alone at home and needs to be fed, or your children need to be picked up from school. Sure, you may call a lawyer to arrange for stuff, but we'll keep your house's keys as evidence... The freedom to not say anything is utterly depending on circumstances allowing you to do so.
- jncfhnb 3y agoA loss for television. A gain for criminal justice.
- alex_lav 3y agoCops are scum.
- mrangle 3y ago[flagged]
- alex_lav 3y agoTomato tomato :) I would also assert that it's in fact _worse_ to be employed to protect and serve and instead do...whatever they claim they're doing...I have no expectation any random person on the street will be safe or lawful. I pay the salaries of police in exchange for the expectation that they'll be safe and lawful. And yet, they sure aren't. So nope, I would definitely say cops are worse than criminals in this regard.
- swagasaurus-rex 3y agoThe bill in question would increase police accountability. Calling them bad names doesn’t.
- alex_lav 3y agoFalse dichotomy. I can call them bad names _and also_ demand increased accountability. Stop defending abusers.
- swagasaurus-rex 3y agoYou're actually just lumping all police into a single category of "abusers". It's similar to lumping people by their ethnicity or their religion and at its core is prejudiced. Some people love saying "All cops are bad", but that sort of rhetoric is a lie and alienates the good cops, do which exist, and whose help you ought to be enlisting. Also, calling people bad names isn't something to be proud of. Society isn't better for you doing so.
- jandrese 3y agoThis is going to be very unpopular with prosecutors. How are they going to secure convictions against the innocent if they can't lie to them? If it is illegal to say "We have all of the proof we need to convict you, you are going away for life, but if you confess we'll shorten your sentence" when they have no proof at all it's going to put a heavy burden on the prosecutor to get that person in jail.
- mrangle 3y ago> If it is illegal to say "We have all of the proof we need to convict you, you are going away for life, but if you confess we'll shorten your sentence" when they have no proof at all it's going to put a heavy burden on the prosecutor to get that person in jail. That's not a realistic scenario. All actual evidence is disclosed as a matter of course in the justice process. Any bottom barrel attorney assures this, to whom the defendant has a right.
- legitster 3y agoSure, but the actual evidence is much easier to collect after you have a confession.
- mrangle 3y agoWhat?
- jandrese 3y agoWhy would they need evidence if they have a confession? The cops aren't going to do extra work they don't need to.
- ceejayoz 3y agoA confession may make other evidence easier to get at. If you suspect wrongdoing, but don't have probable cause to search the car/house, and the suspect says "oh yeah I've got a dead body in there", you're potentially about to be in posession of some serious new evidence you didn't have a right to get at previously.
- jp191919 3y agoThis reminded me of this absolute gem, outstanding advice for anyone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- sgift 3y agoAnd the abridged version for those in a hurry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkN4duV4ia0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkN4duV4ia0 (The link by jp191919 is gold though, I'd recommend to watch it at least once if you can find the time)
- sethammons 3y agothe first time I saw this, years ago, I went down a youtube rabbit hole for hours. TL;DR - the video is a lawyer and a cop both saying don't talk to police, even to be helpful, and they back it up. You should watch it. Your loved ones should watch it. Your friends should watch it.
- IncandescentGas 3y agoWe already have purjury law, which are so routinely broken by the police there's a common term for it. Testilying. Purjury is supposed to be serious. But it's not enforced against police officers. Other misconduct like prosecutors hiding exculpatory evidence is also rarely if ever punished even when blatently proven and widely publicided. So why should I believe, if this law passes, anybody in the justice system will enforce it? What happened to Ted Bradford is awful. The fact he actually eventually was exenorated was like winning the lottery. For most falsely convicted, a statistical impossibility.
- gs17 3y ago>But it's not enforced against police officers. That's true for a lot of laws.
- 20after4 3y agoAlmost all of the laws, most of the time.
- jacquesm 3y agoPerjury.
- prometheus76 3y agoI think this is a separate issue, where officers routinely lie in interrogations to steer the person being questioned. This isn't perjury, because it doesn't happen in court.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoIsn't the problem with perjury that you don't need to prove what you say in court is true, but to prove someone committed perjury you have to prove what they said was a lie? It's not easy to prove someone lied. Yet we find it easy to believe what people say is true (even for juries in court).
- qingcharles 3y ago
- karaterobot 3y agoI feel like I don't know enough about interrogations to form an opinion on this. All I know comes from TV and movies. It feels like it's either obviously a good idea, or obviously a bad idea, but I honestly don't know which one.
- gs17 3y agoIt depends on which you'd rather have come out of the police: false negatives or false positives. Both can potentially ruin someone's life.
- sethammons 3y agoI don't recall which program it was, but likely something on Netflix like "making a murderer" or similar. There was interrogation video of cops berating a mentally challenged teenager into admitting guilt. It was truly disgusting. Watch a couple minutes of that, and it'd be hard to not form an opinion on cops lying.
- TurkishPoptart 3y agoGood, now implement this at a federal level so we can get correct information from the F.B.I. about January 6th
- Lord-Jobo 3y agoGood. These kinds of measures are necessary for the restoration of the balance of power in the justice system between prosecution and defense. it should (at the very minimum) be 50-50 every time, then hinge on the facts/evidence to push either over the edge. thats the only way an adversarial system works. But we are very very very far from that at the moment, with a 98% plea bargain rate (https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim...). This bypasses nearly every single baked in advantage that the defense has, with most existing at the trial stages. Lots of ways to balance those scales, this is a good measure in my opinion. What we have at the moment its a system backsliding towards something that looks similar to post-soviet law like the current Russian system. Its not a good look, even if we probably still have a legal system in the top 10 least fucked.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe 98% plea bargain rate isn't quite as bad as it seems, though; prosecutors drop marginal (i.e. your 50/50) cases entirely so they can brag about their high conviction rates when it comes time for reelection.
- greedo 3y agoDo they drop them or pile on charges in the hopes of a lesser plea?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- qingcharles 3y agoThe latter. I can think of a very small handful of cases where the prosecution drop marginal cases. I've seen cases where there is zero evidence be taken all the way to the day of trial in order to try and get a plea. I see a great number of cases dropped on day of trial when the defendant won't plead out. Source: 11 years experience in the criminal justice system.
- 3y ago
- inglor_cz 3y agoFrankly, US states need agencies that exclusively investigate wrongdoings of law enforcement officers. The Czech GIBS could serve as a blueprint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Inspection_of_Security_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Inspection_of_Security...
- qingcharles 3y agoThey tried that in Chicago. They never prosecuted anyone. So they dismiss the unit and create a new one under a new name. This goes on every few years. It reads like the insanity it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_oversight_in_Chicago#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_oversight_in_Chicago#Hi...
- qingcharles 3y agoIllinois already made it illegal for cops to lie to children during interrogations: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=070504050K5-401.6 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=0... "...if, during the custodial interrogation, a law enforcement officer or juvenile officer knowingly engages in deception." Hopefully they extend it to adult interrogations. I just did 10 years in jail waiting for trial before the charges were dropped, partially due to a bogus interrogation (that was ruled unconstitutional by the court) where I refused to talk and they badgered me for 45 minutes after that telling me I couldn't use that right and then threatened my family. That's the point you break, not when the cops hit you with a wrench, but when they threaten people you love.
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoThat's quite the story. Any news reporting on your case?
- qingcharles 3y agoThere will be once it's all finally resolved at the end of this year (I hope). Still going through the tail end of it.
- candiodari 3y agoHow is this supposed to work: " ... if you say that X is wrong we throw you in youth care, you get put in a place little better than a summer camp, among criminal youngsters, with 2 adults per 30 kids that don't bring you to school, don't help with homework, where all your stuff is stolen, and we use the police to arrest you if you ever decide to leave until you're 18, when you'll likely have failed all your schooling and be thrown into the street ... " You cannot be honest to kids about youth services the way it currently exists in the US, in any state. That's just absurd.
- qingcharles 3y agoEverything I've heard about the institutions for criminal children is pretty horrific. Nearly everyone I spent my time with in jail was in and out of those youth jails/homes as kids and they all sound like mad-houses.
- swozey 3y agoBeware, Denver got rid of qualified immunity which everyone rants about ruining policing. Guess what happened, now our police do literally nothing.
- ksenzee 3y agoAs it happens, Washington put some reasonable-sounding rules in place after the 2020 protests (https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/07/what-new-wa-police-accountability-laws-do-and-dont-do https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/07/what-new-wa-police-acc...), and our police reacted in the same way yours did: they do nothing. Or as little as possible. So since they already do nothing, we might as well get the laws tightened up.
- ceejayoz 3y ago> Guess what happened, now our police do literally nothing. That may be better! https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proacti... "When New York police officers temporarily reduced their 'proactive policing' efforts on low-level offenses, major-crime reports in the city actually fell, according to a study based on New York Police Department crime statistics." "'In their efforts to increase civilian compliance, certain policing tactics may inadvertently contribute to serious criminal activity,' the researchers wrote. 'The implications for understanding policing in a democratic society should not be understated.'"
- swozey 3y agoGood point. All they seem to do here is homeless sweeps.
- cupcakecommons 3y agoDespite my knee-jerk reaction to assume any policy changes coming out of Seattle are self-destructive; this seems very reasonable especially if there's precedent in other countries [1]. [1] https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/84483/is-it-generally-legally-allowed-for-uk-police-to-lie-to-people-in-the-regular-co https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/84483/is-it-generall...
- bobthepanda 3y agoI would imagine that this is supposed to protect against cases like this. https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/seattle-police-officer-disciplined-after-lie-about-hit-and-run-leads-suspects-suicide/3KJ7TPKG5RAUFKA7NN2YVWJM4U/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/seattle-police-officer-d... > SEATTLE — A Seattle police officer who unnecessarily used a ruse to locate a hit-and-run suspect in May 2018 has been suspended for six days after a watchdog agency found that the lie caused the man to take his own life. > The unnamed officer sent word to the man through a friend -- the complainant in the case -- that a woman injured in the crash was in critical condition and might not survive her injuries. > In reality, the crash was a minor fender bender and no one was injured, according to the Office of Police Accountability, an independent investigative office within the Seattle Police Department. Andrew Myerberg, the civilian director of the watchdog, authored the November report on the findings. > The driver, who friends said “was despondent about the fact that he may have killed someone,” died by suicide less than a week later. > “Notably, the night before he took his own life, he directly told his roommate that the incident was causing him to feel suicidal feelings,” the OPA report stated. Seattle PD is also notoriously not well behaved even by police standards.
- cupcakecommons 3y agoGotta be careful negligently and irresponsibly toying with peoples lives in a city that gets so few sunshine hours. Six days of suspension is laughable.
- bobthepanda 3y agoI mean if you think that's bad, no one has been suspended or prosecuted for this: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/seattle-police-body-cam-video-discussing-woman-hit-by-officer-rcna104618 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/seattle-police-body-cam... > Seattle police union rank-and-file leaders are under investigation after an officer was recorded on his body camera appearing to make light of the death of a woman who was killed by another officer this year, saying that she “had limited value.” > Auderer left his body camera on after responding to the South Lake Union neighborhood, where a marked patrol vehicle driven by another officer struck and killed Jaahnavi Kandula on Jan. 23. That officer had been responding to a “priority one call,” police said a day after the incident, when he hit Kandula, 23, who had been in a crosswalk. > In the brief clip, Auderer, who is vice president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, is driving and can be heard discussing details of the incident in a call with the guild’s president, Mike Solan. > Auderer said that the officer whose vehicle struck Kandula had been “going 50” and that “that’s not out of control.” According to a police investigation report that was referred to prosecutors for review last month, the officer had been driving at 74 mph and Kandula was thrown more than 100 feet. > “That’s not reckless for a trained driver,” Auderer also said in the video, adding that he doesn’t believe “she was thrown 40 feet either.” > “But she is dead,” he said. He later laughs and says, “No, it’s a regular person.” Only Auderer’s statements are audible in the video. > "Yeah, just write a check," he also said and laughed again. “Eleven thousand dollars. She was 26 anyway,” Auderer said, misstating Kandula’s age. “She had limited value.”
- FuriouslyAdrift 3y agoFine as long as 18 U.S.C. § 1001 becomes the law of the land for all interactions with police (felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment for making a false statement).
- tomcam 3y agoIt would be awesome if the WA house made it illegal for the WA house to lie.
- briffle 3y agoAs a quick reminder, in most police departments, because of their Union Agreements, Police officers cannot be questioned unless they have their lawyer present (they HAVE to be present), and a union rep, and have to be shown ALL video evidence that has been collected before they can make a statement. Nice to see the good ol rules for me, not for thee still exists..
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- efitz 3y agoMaybe we should make confessions illegal unless done in front of a judge (with prosecution and defense attorneys present. The judge can advise the suspect of their rights and ask if they've been promised leniency or any other accommodation, etc. And maybe all evidence from interrogations should be inadmissible unless video recorded beginning-to-end with no interruptions. Then everyone could see if the suspect was browbeaten into a confession or if statements were taken out of context.
- mrandish 3y agoWhile I haven't read the actual wording of the proposed bill, in general, addressing this is a very good idea. There are simply too many examples of police manipulation of vulnerable people during questioning. In fact, the police routinely get trained on how to manipulate and coerce people during questioning because they consider it so "effective" (from the perspective of their metrics). The odd thing is that most often it's not even necessary. Thanks to TV shows, movies, books and a handful of rare cases which get featured in the media, people assume a significant number of police questionings are like some cagey chess match with a criminal mastermind. In reality the vast majority of criminal suspects brought in for questioning are caught red-handed or with strong evidence of guilt. Because of this most convictions are plea bargains and the few convicted at trial are not close judgements. If we strengthen these protections, IMHO, it will change the conviction rates very, very little.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- silexia 3y agoIt should also be illegal to lie to students about history. So much of what is taught now is "reinterpreted" from what actually happened. A history book about what happened in the past is more likely to be accurate the closer it is to the actual events.