Law School Lecture: "Don't ever talk to police!"

[trampledamage]

The problem is, that as far as the press and the public are concerned "lawyering up" actually makes you look guilty. JonBenet Ramsey's parents were vilified for not talking until they had a lawyer present.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Okay, so I finished watching the video. It made some excellent points. I'm glad that the police officer made it a point to say that he doesn't want to send innocent people to prison. That's one of the things that made me wait as long as I did, before I watched the video: I was afraid it would turn into some abusive "fuck da police" kind of thing. Obviously that was not the case. Fine. I get that.

But my original question remains: If you are in the room being interviewed, and you DO say nothing at all, how long can they keep you there before they have to let you go?

 

[StarshipDefiant]

Okay, so I finished watching the video. It made some excellent points. I'm glad that the police officer made it a point to say that he doesn't want to send innocent people to prison. That's one of the things that made me wait as long as I did, before I watched the video: I was afraid it would turn into some abusive "fuck da police" kind of thing. Obviously that was not the case. Fine. I get that.

But my original question remains: If you are in the room being interviewed, and you DO say nothing at all, how long can they keep you there before they have to let you go?

I'm no legal expert or anything, but I believe whether you say something or not, they can still keep you for a certain amount of time if your a person of interest/a suspect/whatever term applies. I think that's what the whole point of the time limit is, but again, don't take my word for it.

 

[Data Holmes]

Okay, so I finished watching the video. It made some excellent points. I'm glad that the police officer made it a point to say that he doesn't want to send innocent people to prison. That's one of the things that made me wait as long as I did, before I watched the video: I was afraid it would turn into some abusive "fuck da police" kind of thing. Obviously that was not the case. Fine. I get that.

But my original question remains: If you are in the room being interviewed, and you DO say nothing at all, how long can they keep you there before they have to let you go?

I found this online, not sure if it is accurate, but it sounds correct:

There is no hard rule. You can only be detained if the officer has an articulable suspicion that you have engaged in criminal conduct, and he can only detain you long enough to reasonably investigate. This time frame will almost always be less than 24 hours.

Note that the police can't hold you while they investigate other leads. The detention must be directly related to the investigation (e.g. questioning you). If the detention lasts more than 24 hours, it will usually convert to an arrest. If this happens and the police do not have probable cause, they have violated your civil rights. If they did have probable cause, then you must be arraigned within 24 hours (however, it has held that this can be extended up to 72 hours with cause).

Cops will often argue that you were not being detained, and that you were free to leave at anytime. To avoid this argument, if you are being held by the police you should ask directly if you are free to go.

 

[John Picard]

Every Tuesday around 11 am, you drive your car to a certain building to drop off papers for your boss. One Tuesday, a neighoring store is robbed, around 11 am, and your car is spotted leaving the scene. Witnesses state the car looked familiar, that it had been spotted in the area before. Police ask you if you drive such-and-such car, whether you were in the area that day and time, and why. Oops! Despite your totally innocent story, you're a suspect.

Even though your boss can vouch for you?

Are you serious? So long as there's a suspect, their job is finished.

 

[cultcross]

There's a legal distinction between 'detention' and 'arrest' in the US? That's interesting, I didn't know that. What is the difference in definition, what makes a 'detention' different?

As far as I know (and someone will swoop in now and prove me wrong ) the only time a 'detention' is different to an 'arrest' in English law is during a search of a person or their vehicle, and that person is detained solely for the duration of the search.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

if you are being held by the police you should ask directly if you are free to go.

And do they have to answer with the truth if you ask that question? (They are allowed to lie when asking YOU questions, how about answering them FROM you?)

 

[propita]

They have to answer that one truthfully, or you might have a 4th, 5th, and/or 6th Amendment claim. From my Criminal Procedure class outline:

Custodial Interrogation is police-initiated questioning after a person has been taken into custody (police-dominated atmosphere)

Custody is when a REASONABLE PERSON would feel deprived of freedom of movement in a significant way.

Interrogation is words or actions initiated by the police the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
EXCEPTIONS: • voluntary statements; • questions during preliminary investigation; • some actions by cops
Though reasonable “trickery” is acceptable, if it was such that ANYONE would’ve confessed (= extrinsic), it was NOT voluntary

 

[Locutus of Bored]

There's a legal distinction between 'detention' and 'arrest' in the US? That's interesting, I didn't know that. What is the difference in definition, what makes a 'detention' different?

Not everywhere, just certain jurisdictions. In California there's no separate distinction between the two and the rules on when it's an arrest are pretty strict, for example.

I'm not sure on the distinction elsewhere, but it probably involves the difference between just sitting in the police car or in the station/holding cell waiting versus when they actually start to interrogate you.

I'm sure the whole thing is just a way of weaseling the suspect into spilling his guts while he's bored out of his mind waiting.

 

[Data Holmes]

There's a legal distinction between 'detention' and 'arrest' in the US? That's interesting, I didn't know that. What is the difference in definition, what makes a 'detention' different?

Not everywhere, just certain jurisdictions. In California there's no separate distinction between the two and the rules on when it's an arrest are pretty strict, for example.

I'm not sure on the distinction elsewhere, but it probably involves the difference between just sitting in the police car or in the station/holding cell waiting versus when they actually start to interrogate you.

I'm sure the whole thing is just a way of weaseling the suspect into spilling his guts while he's bored out of his mind waiting.

I think that it's 24 hours without charging the person with a crime, whether there is a distinction of Detained and Arrest or not.

 

[cultcross]

There's a legal distinction between 'detention' and 'arrest' in the US? That's interesting, I didn't know that. What is the difference in definition, what makes a 'detention' different?

Not everywhere, just certain jurisdictions. In California there's no separate distinction between the two and the rules on when it's an arrest are pretty strict, for example.

Ah, thanks, I always forget your legal system isn't uniform. The UK takes on a similar idea to that - if you have deprived someone of their liberty (or in fact, even more broadly, intend to deprive them of their liberty), you have arrested them. The term 'detained' with the one exception I noted earlier, doesn't have a legal meaning separate to arrest.

I'm not sure on the distinction elsewhere, but it probably involves the difference between just sitting in the police car or in the station/holding cell waiting versus when they actually start to interrogate you.

Yeah, probably. It seems a rather artificial distinction, really. If you are held by police and they intend to prevent you leaving, you're under arrest in my eyes.

 

[StarshipDefiant]

I'm not sure on the distinction elsewhere, but it probably involves the difference between just sitting in the police car or in the station/holding cell waiting versus when they actually start to interrogate you.

Yeah, probably. It seems a rather artificial distinction, really. If you are held by police and they intend to prevent you leaving, you're under arrest in my eyes.[/QUOTE]

I share that opinion, the separation of those terms, is probably done so in an attempt to allow the Cops get what they want, a confession, etc... while keeping things legal enough so the arguments of ones civil rights being violated wouldn't hold up. Kind sad, but whatever. And, law makers and officers wonder why so many Americans have such a low opinion of police.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

If you are held by police and they intend to prevent you leaving, you're under arrest in my eyes.

Agreed.

Thanks for the insights into the UK system by the way. I like that one can not voluntarily consent to a search and that the officer(s) must have probable cause to do so regardless. I'd like to see that implemented here.

I mean, even if it only happens rarely, what if it's your word versus that of the officers and they insist that you did give consent to search when you didn't? How would you prove otherwise? At least making them have to have probable cause gives you that extra bit of protection against potentially corrupt behavior.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I mean, even if it only happens rarely, what if it's your word versus that of the officers and they insist that you did give consent to search when you didn't? How would you prove otherwise?

If it's an instance where they've stopped your car, the dash cam footage could be used in your favor. It will have the whole encounter on tape.

 

[StarshipDefiant]

If you are held by police and they intend to prevent you leaving, you're under arrest in my eyes.

Agreed.

Thanks for the insights into the UK system by the way. I like that one can not voluntarily consent to a search and that the officer(s) must have probable cause to do so regardless. I'd like to see that implemented here.

I mean, even if it only happens rarely, what if it's your word versus that of the officers and they insist that you did give consent to search when you didn't? How would you prove otherwise? At least making them have to have probable cause gives you that extra bit of protection against potentially corrupt behavior.

I'm not an anti police person, by all means we do need them, but I would agree that it should be probable cause to search. The whole thing where they can search you because they pulled you over is bullshit, and just rings of the 'because I can' attitude (which is a pet peeve of mine). That said, without yet having seen the videos, I've already vowed long ago, that if I found myself in a situation where I was in a police environment, and they insisted I wasn't under arrest, and yet wouldn't let me leave, I'd ask for a lawyer.

 

[Mr Awe]

Very interesting and eye opening video. I think I agree with it mostly. My only concern would be that if the police originally just wanted information from you only to track down the real criminal (e.g. you aren't a suspect) that by refusing to answer and demanding a lawyer might well bring suscipion on you where it wasn't otherwise. However, I'm willing to accept that that situation would be rare and generally you'd do more damage than good.

Mr Awe

 

[John Picard]

I mean, even if it only happens rarely, what if it's your word versus that of the officers and they insist that you did give consent to search when you didn't? How would you prove otherwise?

If it's an instance where they've stopped your car, the dash cam footage could be used in your favor. It will have the whole encounter on tape.

Not every police department equips its cars with dash cams.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I mean, even if it only happens rarely, what if it's your word versus that of the officers and they insist that you did give consent to search when you didn't? How would you prove otherwise?

If it's an instance where they've stopped your car, the dash cam footage could be used in your favor. It will have the whole encounter on tape.

Not every police department equips its cars with dash cams.

I thought all police departments were required to do so?

 

[Lindley]

I'd be surprised if all police departments had the budget to do so.

 

[Chaos Descending]

As far as the difference between "arrest" and "detention", technically any contact between police and a citizen in which the citizen is not free to leave is considered to be a type of arrest.

However, for the sake of this thread, I believe the most commonly agreed upon definition of "detention" is where they need to keep you for a short time for questioning or whatever, but do not (yet) specifically plan to charge you with anything. It becomes an "arrest" when they informed you of the intent to charge you with a crime.

If memory serves, that is.