Now I'm Definitely Never Talking to the Cops

[Guy Incognito]

Like I said, have fun talking to yourself.

You do realize you are still responding to my posts, right? If you want to quit talking to me, then be a man and actually do it.

Geez:roll: Please, quit responding to me. I would prefer it if you actually kept your word on this one. But if you continue to post wrong and ignorant **** I will keep calling you on it.

 

[fmw]

Why is it a bad thing for cops to be able to do their job well?

Because some things that make life easier for police are illegal, unconstitutional and against natural law.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Because some things that make life easier for police are illegal, unconstitutional and against natural law.

Not this.

 

[radcen]

According to many sources I have read of late it is becoming increasingly common for police to first try to question people "unofficially" for as long as possible, precisely so that they can get as much information as possible without having to read them their rights. Don't be fooled, they try to play the system as much as anybody else does. They use a sense of urgency and intimidation to get you to agree, but stay just within the legal bounds necessary to claim that you did it of your own free will... which, technically speaking you have, but they're not going to tell you that and the intimidation factor to comply is huge.

If faced with this type scenario, I'd bet that almost everybody here would say they'd resist, but that half of you would cave in so fast it'd be like child's play for the police.

 

[Guy Incognito]

you did it of your own free will... which, technically speaking you have

Correct. End of discussion.

 

[TurtleDude]

I also don't understand what the big deal is. I'm not surprised at all by the ruling. Officer testifying on stand: "We asked him a number of questions which he answered; when we asked him if ballistic tests would match his weapon, he fell silent." What is so shocking that the prosecution would be able to say that??

As to the onus being on the individual? That's why it's called invoking your right to counsel.

Joe MOpe is being prosecuted for narcotics trafficking

the AUSA calls the DEA agent who testifies they caught Joe mope trying to sell willie the nose a pound of blow

Joe the mope doesn't testify

guess what happens if the AUSA makes a comment to the jury that Joe didn't take the stand?

 

[Ikari]

It is a weird ruling. I think I might agree with it sometimes. I cannot believe that any person doesn't have some inkling of what their rights are considering we are inundated with it on TV and in movies.

Rights are not evoked, rights are possessed. The Corporate Court at it again.

 

[Fisher]

Rights are not evoked, rights are possessed. The Corporate Court at it again.

Not allowing a prosecutor to comment on your silence is not a right but a tradition.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The Court’s ruling is really no big deal.

I believe a brief examination of how the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments work in a criminal matter can help you understand why.

The First Amendment guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech. What most people fail to realize is that not speaking falls under that right. Silence is a form of expression.

This is exemplified by the issue ruled on in the Salinas case. Salinas was not under arrest. He was talking freely right up until the officers asked him whether the shotgun shells from his home would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder. At that point Salinas responded with ….silence. His act of silence was a form of expression in answer to a question, and therefore can be used against him.

The Fifth Amendment protects an individual from self-incrimination by expanding on his freedom of speech. When invoking the “Fifth” a suspect (or defendant in court) is saying “I choose silence because any answer I give might lead to a presumption that I participated in a criminal act, but my silence does not mean that I am admitting I have committed any crime.”

What most people fail to understand is that the police do not have to arrest you (which requires that they read you the Miranda warnings) before asking you questions. They can just “interview” you, and as long as you respond freely everything you say can be used against you. They can even record the interview. This is because until your arrest you are technically not a suspect, and you are simply participating in a “voluntary conversation.”

Police conduct interviews with people who are potential suspects. Never think otherwise. If they ask you any questions, the first thing you should do is ask them if you are under arrest. If they say no, then state clearly that you wish to leave, (or them to leave your residence). If they resist in any way, this confirms you are a suspect and the next words out of your mouth, arrested or not, is that you refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer present.

Once you invoke your Fourth Amendment right to counsel, your attorney is empowered to represent you in all matters pertaining to your criminal case. That means he can advise you on whether or not to respond to questions, and you do not have to answer any questions without his presence unless you choose to. At this point the police may arrest you, or may try to convince you that you don't need your attorney. Invoke the Fifth Amendment and keep silent.

That's right, keep your mouth shut no matter what. Do not speak to anyone, not a cop, a cell-mate, your folks, no one! Period! Don’t trust the jailhouse phones, conversations can be recorded when they are not attorney-client. Have absolutely nothing to say until you have spoken to your lawyer and he is with you for any interview.

This is the process that protects your Fifth Amendment rights.