8 ms·

You don't need to have a lawyer, or the name of a lawyer, to ask to speak to your lawyer. The act of asking for one gives you protections: it is improper for t

You don't need to have a lawyer, or the name of a lawyer, to ask to speak to your lawyer. The act of asking for one gives you protections: it is improper for the police to question you after you've asked for one before a lawyer is there. If you've been arrested, you'll consult with a state appointed lawyer before your arraignment, but generally arraignments are purely procedural and after one you'll either be released (and you'll get a public defender or have to hire one depending on your means) or have the opportunity to hire a private one via the phone or a proxy. You ask for one because: 1. Talking to the police is almost never in your interest, and you have very little chance of recognizing when it is in your interest without assistance of counsel 2. Asking for one will stop the interrogation attempts until a lawyer is there. If they want to keep questioning you in custody it's on them, and not you, to get you a lawyer. 3. You gain protections you didn't have by asking. There is no reason not to refuse questioning without a lawyer present.

DamnYuppie 12y ago
Pay heed to this advice. Never consent to be questioned by an officer of the law without a lawyer if they suspect you of wrong doing. Even if you are innocent no good can come of it. I am not advocating getting a lawyer if you are a witness to a crime. Simply if they have it in their minds you have done something wrong politely tell them you will gladly answer all of their questions once you have proper legal counsel. An no this advice doesn't apply to mundane things like speeding tickets and the like.
- dannypgh 12y ago
  Actually I think the advice does apply to mundane things like speeding tickets. If a cop pulls you over for speeding and asks "do you know how fast you were going" if you are even thinking about contesting the ticket, many answers to this question would be a mistake. Fully exerting your rights might be a little antagonistic in this situation but you may also wish to give a complete non-answer, like "Yes, but I'm sure you're going to tell me." Even if you just think you're just a witness to a crime, they might think otherwise. I'd tell people to trust their judgment but prisons are filled with people who trusted their judgment and thought that talking was OK, so clearly that's not always enough.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Assuming you can afford it (a big assumption, but probably the case for most people here), would it not be wise to have a lawyer present when talking to the police even if you're just a witness? The legal system is complicated and you can go from "witness" to "suspect" real quick if you're unlucky.
  - pasbesoin 12y ago
    I'm going to expand upon this sub-thread to comment upon what I observed as one of the tyrannies of the U.S. legal system. Many are poorly able to or unable to afford the legal counsel they would need to competently navigate it. In the criminal sphere, the motto (slogan, who knows what real strength it has, these days) "Innocent until proven guilty" was presented and meant by at least some as a counter-balance to such demands. Presumption of innocence was... well, at least "presumed" to mean that the system would work on your behalf towards an accurate resolution rather than just a convenient one. Contrary to this, however, note that a validated and often employed legal strategy is to simply spend the opposing party into defeat. (Or, threaten to do so.) This happens in the civil arena. It also happens in the criminal arena, where the State can choose to bring relatively unlimited resources to bear against an individual opponent. (We are, as the general public, increasingly learning just how little oversight and restraint is exercised in how this is employed.) They may not have to "prove" anything. Employing a litany of court dates, expert witnesses, appeals, etc., they can simply "run out the clock" of their opponent's financial resources (to mix my metaphors). Further, in the criminal sphere, we continue to learn more and to read and hear about just how far off the rails surveillance, unwarranted search, entrapment, interrogation, etc. can go. Then, we also have the increasing use of forfeiture to peremptorily seize resources with no opportunity for defense. The increasingly broad and inappropriate use of no-knock search warrants that physically threaten well-being. Swat-ification that is turning policing into militarized occupation and further separating the police from the community... Whose fault is this? Probably all of ours. Regardless, it is turning the legal system, for the general public, from something to respect to something to fear. It is not "our system", anymore, but "theirs". For various values of "theirs". Not a good recipe for a society "based upon law". P.S. I should add that I recognize what others say, that the U.S. is still comparatively quite good compared to many other places in the world. But I worry about the delta. As well as persistent... "outliers" than do not seem to improve nor resolve. And than may be far more extensive than we, the "general public", were once led to believe.
- tghw 12y ago
  I'd go even further and say don't say more than you have to ever. There's a great point/counter point of the issue from a law school class. It's a bit long, but well worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

DamnYuppie 12y ago

Pay heed to this advice. Never consent to be questioned by an officer of the law without a lawyer if they suspect you of wrong doing. Even if you are innocent no good can come of it. I am not advocating getting a lawyer if you are a witness to a crime. Simply if they have it in their minds you have done something wrong politely tell them you will gladly answer all of their questions once you have proper legal counsel. An no this advice doesn't apply to mundane things like speeding tickets and the like.

dannypgh 12y ago
Actually I think the advice does apply to mundane things like speeding tickets. If a cop pulls you over for speeding and asks "do you know how fast you were going" if you are even thinking about contesting the ticket, many answers to this question would be a mistake. Fully exerting your rights might be a little antagonistic in this situation but you may also wish to give a complete non-answer, like "Yes, but I'm sure you're going to tell me." Even if you just think you're just a witness to a crime, they might think otherwise. I'd tell people to trust their judgment but prisons are filled with people who trusted their judgment and thought that talking was OK, so clearly that's not always enough.
mikeash 12y ago
Assuming you can afford it (a big assumption, but probably the case for most people here), would it not be wise to have a lawyer present when talking to the police even if you're just a witness? The legal system is complicated and you can go from "witness" to "suspect" real quick if you're unlucky.
- pasbesoin 12y ago
  I'm going to expand upon this sub-thread to comment upon what I observed as one of the tyrannies of the U.S. legal system. Many are poorly able to or unable to afford the legal counsel they would need to competently navigate it. In the criminal sphere, the motto (slogan, who knows what real strength it has, these days) "Innocent until proven guilty" was presented and meant by at least some as a counter-balance to such demands. Presumption of innocence was... well, at least "presumed" to mean that the system would work on your behalf towards an accurate resolution rather than just a convenient one. Contrary to this, however, note that a validated and often employed legal strategy is to simply spend the opposing party into defeat. (Or, threaten to do so.) This happens in the civil arena. It also happens in the criminal arena, where the State can choose to bring relatively unlimited resources to bear against an individual opponent. (We are, as the general public, increasingly learning just how little oversight and restraint is exercised in how this is employed.) They may not have to "prove" anything. Employing a litany of court dates, expert witnesses, appeals, etc., they can simply "run out the clock" of their opponent's financial resources (to mix my metaphors). Further, in the criminal sphere, we continue to learn more and to read and hear about just how far off the rails surveillance, unwarranted search, entrapment, interrogation, etc. can go. Then, we also have the increasing use of forfeiture to peremptorily seize resources with no opportunity for defense. The increasingly broad and inappropriate use of no-knock search warrants that physically threaten well-being. Swat-ification that is turning policing into militarized occupation and further separating the police from the community... Whose fault is this? Probably all of ours. Regardless, it is turning the legal system, for the general public, from something to respect to something to fear. It is not "our system", anymore, but "theirs". For various values of "theirs". Not a good recipe for a society "based upon law". P.S. I should add that I recognize what others say, that the U.S. is still comparatively quite good compared to many other places in the world. But I worry about the delta. As well as persistent... "outliers" than do not seem to improve nor resolve. And than may be far more extensive than we, the "general public", were once led to believe.
tghw 12y ago
I'd go even further and say don't say more than you have to ever. There's a great point/counter point of the issue from a law school class. It's a bit long, but well worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc