9 ms·

Thankfully not as severe as this, but a few years police came to my door and arrested me on suspicion of robbery. I was told they had a forensic evidence that I

by mavdi 11y ago

Thankfully not as severe as this, but a few years police came to my door and arrested me on suspicion of robbery. I was told they had a forensic evidence that I was involved in it. As part of UK Visa procedures, I had to provide my biometric details. They had found my finger prints on a phone book and concluded that I must have done the robbery. They had no other evidence, they hadn't done any background checks or found a motive. The phone book was one of the ones my mom was distributing in her small van. I had helped her loading them up the van. I explained this, they checked with the distribution company and I was freed. But the thought that I had been incredibly lucky to have an explanation never left me. Just imagine a situation like this, maybe you go into a shop, pick up an item and put it back. Someone somewhere gets killed and your forensic information is left on an item in the murder scene. What happened to this guy is terrifying. And I'm sure there are thousands of innocent people in jails because since the introduction of forensics, law enforcements and the courts have become too lazy to analyse the situation. "Evidence is there, must be guilty" mentality.

cmdkeen 11y ago
But that is how arresting in England and Wales is supposed to work. The standard of suspicion to arrest someone is pretty low because it affords the police time to question a suspect, obtain DNA and fingerprint samples, search your house etc. The problem we have is when the investigating officer gets focused on a suspect thanks to forensic evidence to the exclusion of other suspects. The CSI effect is real and strong, in reality in many cases there is little to no useful forensic evidence at all.
- jbattle 11y ago
  How long can they hold you while fishing for evidence?
  - strategichorse 11y ago
    24 hours. Can apply for up to 96 hours for a serious crime. Or 14 days under the Terrorism Act
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Years, according to the New York City Department of Corrections.
  - cmdkeen 11y ago
    In England the justification has to be approved by a Custody Sgt initially that gives up to 24 hours. A more senior officer has to review the continued detention from the 6 hour mark up to 24. A Superintendent or above can authorise up to 36 hours. Beyond that a Magistrate can authorise up to 96 hours in 36 hour blocks. During this time the individual has access to legal advice, where the reasons for continued detention have to be provided and the evidence thus far collected explained (again unless a very senior signs off on why not). Unless you're been arrested for a very serious crime, in which case you're going to be defended for free by a very experienced QC who will tear apart dodgy process, you are likely to be arrested for a handful of hours. The exceptions would be being held overnight, if you're drunk/high and thus incapable of being interviewed etc. Things are slightly different in Scotland where you get detained not arrested, but the principles are broadly the same. UK policing as a whole has been through periods of dodgy processes and huge reforms in the wake of them. There are likely to be very few criminal justice systems in the world I'd rather interact with than the UK one, especially if I were accused of a serious crime. Edit to add - plus the premise of "fishing" implies there is no existing evidence. The initial justifications for the arrest have to be supplied at the start, and "it might have been him" won't pass muster.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      > plus the premise of "fishing" implies there is no existing evidence. I'm not sure where you get that from. I would assume you fish where you expect to find something, and my interpretation of the many places "fishing" is used (or even "phishing" to a lesser degree), is that it's done where you expect some payoff. Maybe you're thinking of the phrase "he's just fishing", which while often used by people to describe someone searching for something, often fruitlessly, generally the person searching is doing it with the expectation they will find something.
      - cmdkeen 11y ago
        In a legal context there is the concept of a "fishing expedition" which is more of a looking for evidence when there isn't sufficient underlying evidence to justify the intrusive methods being asked for.
  - mavdi 11y ago
    They kept me for about 6 hours. Mainly because I phoned up a lawyer and told them I wouldn't be speaking to them unless he arrived. Took the lawyer a few hours to get there.
  - jeffdavis 11y ago
    It's not really fishing. They had forensic evidence for a specific crime, used it to find him (the suspect), conducted their investigation, cleared him of that crime, and let him go. Fishing is where you pick someone first, then go looking for evidence of any crime.
    - spacemanmatt 11y ago
      It's still fishing if the forensic evidence does not justify the investigation. For example, a thumb print on a telephone book, but not on a doorknob or anywhere else that might suggest there's a reason to think the thumb print was any less than casual/innocent.
- dmd 11y ago
  See: http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/
kw71 11y ago
It sounds like you would have been saved a lot of stress, indignation and hassle if they had simply asked you, and spent five minutes checking up on your answer, before arresting you. Considering the number of fingers that may have touched a telephone book during its manufacture and distribution (surely the cops have phone books and knew they weren't sent in the post, or if they had found a post worker's fingerprints on a piece of mail they wouldn't have arrested the postal worker) it seems to me that they may have been reckless in their conclusion.
- mavdi 11y ago
  I was surprised by their conclusion. The only item with finger prints on it was the phone book. So I asked them, would a burglar go about stealing things, then just as he's about to leave the home, he takes off his gloves and checks out a phonebook? And then puts the gloves back on to open the door to leave?
  - Bluestrike2 11y ago
    Isn't that sort of like poking a finger in the lion's eye without being able to run away? You're absolutely right, but while that's logical, it's also the sort of thing that a detective already fixated on you might think of as gloating. Insert new theory of the crime: you weren't helping your mother out of the goodness of your heart, but so you could scope out potential victims. And maybe you did touch the phone book during the crime for the adrenaline rush, content in the belief that it's the last place the police would think to dust for prints. All theories made less crazy because the detective thinks you were a smug SOB. You mentioned that you felt lucky; sad to say, I think you're probably right. What a nightmare of an experience.
    - dave_sullivan 11y ago
      Indeed. "Ah ha! How could you know the burglar was wearing gloves if you weren't at the scene of the crime?" No winning there. Never talk to police without a lawyer is good advice, but that advice literally translates to "Never talk to police without paying someone $300 per hour to do it." Meanwhile, police, at no additional cost to themselves, can essentially compel you to talk to them any time they want. So it's pretty easy to push people around with that dynamic, yet most people I talk to seem to bury their head in the sand on the issue. I'm reminded of: George Aaronow: When I talk to the police I get nervous. Ricky Roma: Yes. You know who doesn't? George Aaronow: Who? Ricky Roma: Thieves.
talmand 11y ago
Did they actually tell you they had concluded you conducted the robbery? Or did they simply treat you as a suspect or person of interest and wanted to discuss it with you? That's two different things. Seems the system worked in your case. You had a plausible reason for the existence of your fingerprint at the scene of the crime. I would imagine they also ran your background information without bothering to inform you and regular police officers don't care about motive. Detectives do when investigating a case but street cops showing up at your door (assuming that's what happened) probably don't. You apparently didn't even have to go to court to explain all this and be set free. Curious, do you know if they caught who actually committed the robbery?
- mavdi 11y ago
  They were suited up detectives. They arrested me on suspicion of robbery. One of them was about to handcuff me but I kindly asked that he shouldn't and he accepted. They then transported me to the police station while my neighbours watched. Standard police stuff then on...
  - talmand 11y ago
    I don't know your local police procedures, but did they "book" you or just take you in for questioning? I apologize for the questioning but I'm interested in your treatment in all this. I find it really interesting that they were willing to not cuff you as they took you away.
    - mavdi 11y ago
      They booked me and detained me in a cell for a few hours. They gave a cup of tea though.
      - talmand 11y ago
        I'm assuming you now have an arrest record because of this? If you do, then that's really screwed up.
alexanderh 11y ago
How did they have your fingerprints to cross reference in the first place?
- lsmod 11y ago
  "As part of UK Visa procedures, I had to provide my biometric details."
- DanBC 11y ago
  Lsmod answers your question, but on top of that the English police force has an extensive fingerprint and DNA database. People who are arressted will have their fingerprints and DNA taken and that's held on file even if the case does not go to court (or goes to court and the defendant is found not guilty).
pdeuchler 11y ago
I'm glad things ended well for you, but please realize that you were freed thanks to luck and not because you were actually innocent. Don't ever talk to police. DON'T EVER TALK TO POLICE. Call a lawyer and allow him to explain the mistake. There's just as much chance that the police could have used your explanation against you if they thought you were lying and you would be in jail right now, wrongfully convicted because you misremembered a small detail in your story. DON'T EVER TALK TO POLICE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXPLICITLY CHARGED WITH A CRIME.
- tim333 11y ago
  I think you may be thinking of the US? In the UK it's pretty rare to prosecute the innocent. If anything things are a bit lenient with a quite a few criminals getting off free.
  - pdeuchler 11y ago
    I don't think human nature changes drastically between politically defined boundaries. Besides, a simple google search shows roughly the same proportion of innocents convicted per trial.
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      Bear in mind that those statistics are enormously skewed by plea bargaining, for both good and bad reasons. Good plea bargaining is where the evidence is extremely strong and the defendant has little criminal history, so admitting guilt and serving a minimal sentence is in everyone's interest. The bad kind is where prosecutors have a weak case but bring so many charges that defendant is facing a horrendously long time in prison, and pleads guilty to a crime that wasn't committed rather than take the risk of extended incarceration.
    - tim333 11y ago
      Human nature's probably much the same but the systems and their incentives seem pretty different.
  - deleted 11y ago

by mavdi 11y ago

cmdkeen 11y ago

But that is how arresting in England and Wales is supposed to work. The standard of suspicion to arrest someone is pretty low because it affords the police time to question a suspect, obtain DNA and fingerprint samples, search your house etc. The problem we have is when the investigating officer gets focused on a suspect thanks to forensic evidence to the exclusion of other suspects. The CSI effect is real and strong, in reality in many cases there is little to no useful forensic evidence at all.

jbattle 11y ago
How long can they hold you while fishing for evidence?
- strategichorse 11y ago
  24 hours. Can apply for up to 96 hours for a serious crime. Or 14 days under the Terrorism Act
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Years, according to the New York City Department of Corrections.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  In England the justification has to be approved by a Custody Sgt initially that gives up to 24 hours. A more senior officer has to review the continued detention from the 6 hour mark up to 24. A Superintendent or above can authorise up to 36 hours. Beyond that a Magistrate can authorise up to 96 hours in 36 hour blocks. During this time the individual has access to legal advice, where the reasons for continued detention have to be provided and the evidence thus far collected explained (again unless a very senior signs off on why not). Unless you're been arrested for a very serious crime, in which case you're going to be defended for free by a very experienced QC who will tear apart dodgy process, you are likely to be arrested for a handful of hours. The exceptions would be being held overnight, if you're drunk/high and thus incapable of being interviewed etc. Things are slightly different in Scotland where you get detained not arrested, but the principles are broadly the same. UK policing as a whole has been through periods of dodgy processes and huge reforms in the wake of them. There are likely to be very few criminal justice systems in the world I'd rather interact with than the UK one, especially if I were accused of a serious crime. Edit to add - plus the premise of "fishing" implies there is no existing evidence. The initial justifications for the arrest have to be supplied at the start, and "it might have been him" won't pass muster.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > plus the premise of "fishing" implies there is no existing evidence. I'm not sure where you get that from. I would assume you fish where you expect to find something, and my interpretation of the many places "fishing" is used (or even "phishing" to a lesser degree), is that it's done where you expect some payoff. Maybe you're thinking of the phrase "he's just fishing", which while often used by people to describe someone searching for something, often fruitlessly, generally the person searching is doing it with the expectation they will find something.
    - cmdkeen 11y ago
      In a legal context there is the concept of a "fishing expedition" which is more of a looking for evidence when there isn't sufficient underlying evidence to justify the intrusive methods being asked for.
- mavdi 11y ago
  They kept me for about 6 hours. Mainly because I phoned up a lawyer and told them I wouldn't be speaking to them unless he arrived. Took the lawyer a few hours to get there.
- jeffdavis 11y ago
  It's not really fishing. They had forensic evidence for a specific crime, used it to find him (the suspect), conducted their investigation, cleared him of that crime, and let him go. Fishing is where you pick someone first, then go looking for evidence of any crime.
  - spacemanmatt 11y ago
    It's still fishing if the forensic evidence does not justify the investigation. For example, a thumb print on a telephone book, but not on a doorknob or anywhere else that might suggest there's a reason to think the thumb print was any less than casual/innocent.
dmd 11y ago
See: http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/

kw71 11y ago

It sounds like you would have been saved a lot of stress, indignation and hassle if they had simply asked you, and spent five minutes checking up on your answer, before arresting you. Considering the number of fingers that may have touched a telephone book during its manufacture and distribution (surely the cops have phone books and knew they weren't sent in the post, or if they had found a post worker's fingerprints on a piece of mail they wouldn't have arrested the postal worker) it seems to me that they may have been reckless in their conclusion.

mavdi 11y ago
I was surprised by their conclusion. The only item with finger prints on it was the phone book. So I asked them, would a burglar go about stealing things, then just as he's about to leave the home, he takes off his gloves and checks out a phonebook? And then puts the gloves back on to open the door to leave?
- Bluestrike2 11y ago
  Isn't that sort of like poking a finger in the lion's eye without being able to run away? You're absolutely right, but while that's logical, it's also the sort of thing that a detective already fixated on you might think of as gloating. Insert new theory of the crime: you weren't helping your mother out of the goodness of your heart, but so you could scope out potential victims. And maybe you did touch the phone book during the crime for the adrenaline rush, content in the belief that it's the last place the police would think to dust for prints. All theories made less crazy because the detective thinks you were a smug SOB. You mentioned that you felt lucky; sad to say, I think you're probably right. What a nightmare of an experience.
  - dave_sullivan 11y ago
    Indeed. "Ah ha! How could you know the burglar was wearing gloves if you weren't at the scene of the crime?" No winning there. Never talk to police without a lawyer is good advice, but that advice literally translates to "Never talk to police without paying someone $300 per hour to do it." Meanwhile, police, at no additional cost to themselves, can essentially compel you to talk to them any time they want. So it's pretty easy to push people around with that dynamic, yet most people I talk to seem to bury their head in the sand on the issue. I'm reminded of: George Aaronow: When I talk to the police I get nervous. Ricky Roma: Yes. You know who doesn't? George Aaronow: Who? Ricky Roma: Thieves.

talmand 11y ago

Did they actually tell you they had concluded you conducted the robbery? Or did they simply treat you as a suspect or person of interest and wanted to discuss it with you? That's two different things. Seems the system worked in your case. You had a plausible reason for the existence of your fingerprint at the scene of the crime. I would imagine they also ran your background information without bothering to inform you and regular police officers don't care about motive. Detectives do when investigating a case but street cops showing up at your door (assuming that's what happened) probably don't. You apparently didn't even have to go to court to explain all this and be set free. Curious, do you know if they caught who actually committed the robbery?

mavdi 11y ago
They were suited up detectives. They arrested me on suspicion of robbery. One of them was about to handcuff me but I kindly asked that he shouldn't and he accepted. They then transported me to the police station while my neighbours watched. Standard police stuff then on...
- talmand 11y ago
  I don't know your local police procedures, but did they "book" you or just take you in for questioning? I apologize for the questioning but I'm interested in your treatment in all this. I find it really interesting that they were willing to not cuff you as they took you away.
  - mavdi 11y ago
    They booked me and detained me in a cell for a few hours. They gave a cup of tea though.
    - talmand 11y ago
      I'm assuming you now have an arrest record because of this? If you do, then that's really screwed up.

alexanderh 11y ago

How did they have your fingerprints to cross reference in the first place?

lsmod 11y ago
"As part of UK Visa procedures, I had to provide my biometric details."
DanBC 11y ago
Lsmod answers your question, but on top of that the English police force has an extensive fingerprint and DNA database. People who are arressted will have their fingerprints and DNA taken and that's held on file even if the case does not go to court (or goes to court and the defendant is found not guilty).

pdeuchler 11y ago

I'm glad things ended well for you, but please realize that you were freed thanks to luck and not because you were actually innocent. Don't ever talk to police. DON'T EVER TALK TO POLICE. Call a lawyer and allow him to explain the mistake. There's just as much chance that the police could have used your explanation against you if they thought you were lying and you would be in jail right now, wrongfully convicted because you misremembered a small detail in your story. DON'T EVER TALK TO POLICE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXPLICITLY CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

tim333 11y ago
I think you may be thinking of the US? In the UK it's pretty rare to prosecute the innocent. If anything things are a bit lenient with a quite a few criminals getting off free.
- pdeuchler 11y ago
  I don't think human nature changes drastically between politically defined boundaries. Besides, a simple google search shows roughly the same proportion of innocents convicted per trial.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Bear in mind that those statistics are enormously skewed by plea bargaining, for both good and bad reasons. Good plea bargaining is where the evidence is extremely strong and the defendant has little criminal history, so admitting guilt and serving a minimal sentence is in everyone's interest. The bad kind is where prosecutors have a weak case but bring so many charges that defendant is facing a horrendously long time in prison, and pleads guilty to a crime that wasn't committed rather than take the risk of extended incarceration.
  - tim333 11y ago
    Human nature's probably much the same but the systems and their incentives seem pretty different.
- deleted 11y ago