Should police be allowed to lie in investigations?

[specklebang]

Exactly! If you're innocent, you can now breathe a sigh of relief. Of course they have no case. If you're guilty, uh oh, that might make you nervous enough to slip up.

Thats why I supported lying, not torture.

What's the legitimate point of saying somebody ID'd you at the scene of the crime when nobody ever actually did that?

If you're a detective, and you're reduced to that, aren't you admitting that you have no case, and that you're just fishing?

 

[specklebang]

I don't think we're talking about "lying in public". We're talking about an interrogation, not a parade. Nobody trusts the police - and they shouldn't.

More than you or I know. Cops should NEVER lie. It comes down to a matter of trust. When your law enforcement regularly practices lying to the public, how do you trust their testimony on the stand? A lot of cases come down to the words of the participants. If the one participants is a practiced professional liar how do you know WHEN or IF they are telling the truth?

 

[radcen]

Exactly! If you're innocent, you can now breathe a sigh of relief. Of course they have no case. If you're guilty, uh oh, that might make you nervous enough to slip up.

Thats why I supported lying, not torture.

You make it sound so black and white. So easy. Just trust the system.

The LEO could be lying. You don't know that. The LEO could be telling the truth... even though you know you're innocent, somebody might have fingered you either incorrectly or intentionally to get the heat off them self. But, you don't know that.

What you do "know" is that the police are already a step above you... an alleged criminal... in court and in terms of credibility and they have a witness who is willing to send you up the river. Or, maybe they don't, but the very real possibility of the worst case scenario makes that plea deal more attractive.

Sorry, but in real life right doesn't always win over wrong.

 

[Fisher]

A technical question for ya, since you seem to be an attorney. If not disregard. Do defense attorneys bring up in court in the fact that police are TRAINED in how to lie and obfuscate effectively? I would think that factoid would be germane in impeaching police officers as witnesses and tainting their testimony, especially since the attorney would have access to the training materials and seminars to present to the jury. If not, why not? Or is their more to it?

Not that I have ever heard. You have to have them open the window before you can attack their truthfulness directly and police are pretty good at answering as briefly as possible giving you as little to work with as possible. One cannot just openly accuse someone of it unless that side of the case puts their credibility into play (like "I never lie about anything.") I have had police officers give obviously incorrect testimony under oath, and rather than make the prosecution do it, gave them the window to explain or review their notes to be certain. I think it scores more points toward discrediting them to have them pull out their pad and flip through their notes in terms of calling all their testimony into question and get them off the stand right after than to rant and rave at them. I few times when they obviously were just making it up as they went along I did not attack them but I sure as hell trashed them in argument. In those cases I did not want them to be able to correct their testimony because they clearly were throwing out lie after lie after lie.

I am aware of a murder trial in my area that resulted in a unanimous not guilty verdict against a defendant when the officer was caught in perjury because they testified completely differently in the grand jury than they did at the trial on some key points. It is one of the few cases in my area where I have ever known the grand jury transcripts to be allowed to be introduced as evidence at the criminal trial. The sad part was that person probably was involved in the murder. It was a weird case where multiple people were all charged as part of a conspiracy and the trials were coming 1 and 2 at a time, with the triggerman being the last trial, as they were looking to flip/leverage testimony to have an open-shut case against the triggerman.

 

[PirateMk1]

Not that I have ever heard. You have to have them open the window before you can attack their truthfulness directly and police are pretty good at answering as briefly as possible giving you as little to work with as possible. One cannot just openly accuse someone of it unless that side of the case puts their credibility into play (like "I never lie about anything.") I have had police officers give obviously incorrect testimony under oath, and rather than make the prosecution do it, gave them the window to explain or review their notes to be certain. I think it scores more points toward discrediting them to have them pull out their pad and flip through their notes in terms of calling all their testimony into question and get them off the stand right after than to rant and rave at them. I few times when they obviously were just making it up as they went along I did not attack them but I sure as hell trashed them in argument. In those cases I did not want them to be able to correct their testimony because they clearly were throwing out lie after lie after lie.

I am aware of a murder trial in my area that resulted in a unanimous not guilty verdict against a defendant when the officer was caught in perjury because they testified completely differently in the grand jury than they did at the trial on some key points. It is one of the few cases in my area where I have ever known the grand jury transcripts to be allowed to be introduced as evidence at the criminal trial. The sad part was that person probably was involved in the murder. It was a weird case where multiple people were all charged as part of a conspiracy and the trials were coming 1 and 2 at a time, with the triggerman being the last trial, as they were looking to flip/leverage testimony to have an open-shut case against the triggerman.

So the fact that they are trained and have specific materials and training of these techniques cant be brought up at trial when impeaching their testimony? They have to bring the subject up? Why is that? I would think that their training would be a legitimate way to impeach their testimony, after all lying is part and parcel of their duty to elicit confessions and pretexts for further investigation at least at most departments I have heard of.

 

[Fisher]

So the fact that they are trained and have specific materials and training of these techniques cant be brought up at trial when impeaching their testimony? They have to bring the subject up? Why is that? I would think that their training would be a legitimate way to impeach their testimony, after all lying is part and parcel of their duty to elicit confessions and pretexts for further investigation at least at most departments I have heard of.

I don't know that they are all trained to lie. I guess the rules are so that the whole trial isn't a schoolyard shouting match. They have been that way since before I ever hung out my shingle so I approach them as "They are what they are" In the serious felony cases, the police are often not that relevant compared to other witnesses and there are usually multiple officers so the prosecutor doesn't even bring in the sketchier officers into the trial. I have subpoenaed an officer the prosecution has tried to bury before but my client still ended up being found guilty. I assumed she was guilty but had to go with what she gave me. Every time a plot hole developed in her story she would suddenly produce some new person with some contrived story to try to close it. On the flip side, I have had officers actually help my client out, especially at sentencings, but sometimes in trial.

 

[specklebang]

So you're saying that a policeman's lie could cause you to confess to a crime you did not commit? The police catch people, question them (and you have the right to remain silent) and then you are transferred to the court system. They can't question you for days on end while blasting disco. Don't you think you could tough it out without confessing to a crime you know nothing about. It just doesn't seem at all rational to me. Most people that get arrested have committed crimes. Sure, there is abuse by rogue officers but basically, even cops aren't generally motivated to go pick out some shlub who isn't doing anything. It defies reason to postulate that you will be falsely arrested, falsely accused, told an obvious load of **** and say I don't want a lawyer, I want to confess right now.

But I'm wrong about many things and this could be one of them.

You make it sound so black and white. So easy. Just trust the system.

The LEO could be lying. You don't know that. The LEO could be telling the truth... even though you know you're innocent, somebody might have fingered you either incorrectly or intentionally to get the heat off them self. But, you don't know that.

What you do "know" is that the police are already a step above you... an alleged criminal... in court and in terms of credibility and they have a witness who is willing to send you up the river. Or, maybe they don't, but the very real possibility of the worst case scenario makes that plea deal more attractive.

Sorry, but in real life right doesn't always win over wrong.

 

[radcen]

So you're saying that a policeman's lie could cause you to confess to a crime you did not commit? The police catch people, question them (and you have the right to remain silent) and then you are transferred to the court system. They can't question you for days on end while blasting disco. Don't you think you could tough it out without confessing to a crime you know nothing about. It just doesn't seem at all rational to me. Most people that get arrested have committed crimes. Sure, there is abuse by rogue officers but basically, even cops aren't generally motivated to go pick out some shlub who isn't doing anything. It defies reason to postulate that you will be falsely arrested, falsely accused, told an obvious load of **** and say I don't want a lawyer, I want to confess right now.

But I'm wrong about many things and this could be one of them.

No, it's not rational. But it happens.

 

[specklebang]

There are many inherent risks in the "justice system". Whenever I see a demand for DNA testing refused, I wonder what that's all about.

But the police have a job to do. They are supposed to catch as many as possible and do it legally enough to pass muster in the DA and court office. But having to be truthful during an interrogation seems like a pretty big handicap. "Gee, Joe, we don't really have a solid case but we would appreciate your assistance and understanding as we pursue the matter". I don't know....maybe honesty is the best policy.:think:

No, it's not rational. But it happens.

 

[Ikari]

Jeez, I thought Whitey had bigger cojones than that.

As in Whitey Bulgar? I thought you were just being racist.

He needs a faster lawyer or something.:roll: You've added a lot of buse to the concept of lying. 7 hours, no potty break? No lawyer?

Cops don't play fair. They lie and cheat and do the best they can to get an arrest, any arrest. Arrests are good for the State and the corporations it supports.

If they want to search your house, they can simply say you said you knew Satan. They must lie to a judge, not a suspect.

They can lie to whomever they want. Courts are in on this business and they are more apt to believe a lying cop than a truthful citizen.

 

[Hard Truth]

So the fact that they are trained and have specific materials and training of these techniques cant be brought up at trial when impeaching their testimony? They have to bring the subject up? Why is that? I would think that their training would be a legitimate way to impeach their testimony, after all lying is part and parcel of their duty to elicit confessions and pretexts for further investigation at least at most departments I have heard of.

Defense lawyers have to be careful about appearing to insult the police because they risk looking like sleazy criminal lawyers discrediting hard working honest cops who put their lives on the line every day.

Also the swearing-in ritual is intended to make sure that the police know that their role is different in court than it is in their usual work.

 

[Hard Truth]

So you're saying that a policeman's lie could cause you to confess to a crime you did not commit? The police catch people, question them (and you have the right to remain silent) and then you are transferred to the court system. They can't question you for days on end while blasting disco. Don't you think you could tough it out without confessing to a crime you know nothing about. It just doesn't seem at all rational to me. Most people that get arrested have committed crimes. Sure, there is abuse by rogue officers but basically, even cops aren't generally motivated to go pick out some shlub who isn't doing anything. It defies reason to postulate that you will be falsely arrested, falsely accused, told an obvious load of **** and say I don't want a lawyer, I want to confess right now.

But I'm wrong about many things and this could be one of them.

I saw a documentary about a false confession that included the actual footage of the interrogation that convinced me that a determined cop with skills can obtain a false confession from a large portion of interrogated people.

 

[specklebang]

OK, I know you're right and I'm just being contentious. I'm also accepting reality instead of trying to alter it. I'll leave that for the young 'uns.

Yes, Whitey Bulgar. I see how that might not have been a smart example. :3oops:













.

As in Whitey Bulgar? I thought you were just being racist.



Cops don't play fair. They lie and cheat and do the best they can to get an arrest, any arrest. Arrests are good for the State and the corporations it supports.



They can lie to whomever they want. Courts are in on this business and they are more apt to believe a lying cop than a truthful citizen.

 

[specklebang]

Because of the interrogation skills or because of the lie the cop told? Without the lie, would he have bet down this poor shnook anyway? I'm asking - not being snarky.

I saw a documentary about a false confession that included the actual footage of the interrogation that convinced me that a determined cop with skills can obtain a false confession from a large portion of interrogated people.

 

[radcen]

Because of the interrogation skills or because of the lie the cop told? Without the lie, would he have bet down this poor shnook anyway? I'm asking - not being snarky.

Could be either, but I believe the lying just makes it go quicker.

 

[PirateMk1]

Defense lawyers have to be careful about appearing to insult the police because they risk looking like sleazy criminal lawyers discrediting hard working honest cops who put their lives on the line every day.

Also the swearing-in ritual is intended to make sure that the police know that their role is different in court than it is in their usual work.

Be careful about insulting the police? Really? I think most people find defense attorneys to be sleazy anyhow. I would expect my attorney to be a pitbull and use everything in the book and some things not. Court is NOT a game. Not all cops are honest, in fact I would say a sizable minority are anything but.

 

[Summerwind]

To me it's not that cops lie, it's that they are allowed to lie, but if we lie, then that's a crime. It should be either we can all lie during investigations and interrogations, or no one should be able to lie.

 

[radcen]

Be careful about insulting the police? Really? I think most people find defense attorneys to be sleazy anyhow. I would expect my attorney to be a pitbull and use everything in the book and some things not. Court is NOT a game. Not all cops are honest, in fact I would say a sizable minority are anything but.

I think Hard Truth was somewhat correct. I think it is a game, but in the sense that court is like a chess match. You have to carefully weigh your moves.

The court and the police, though not officially, are really on the same side. Plus, the police, for right or for wrong, are still accorded a presumption of credibility before they even step into the courtroom... by both the court and the jury.

Going back to the chess match analogy, there's a time to be a pit bull, and there's a time to be more subtle.

 

[Hard Truth]

Because of the interrogation skills or because of the lie the cop told? Without the lie, would he have bet down this poor shnook anyway? I'm asking - not being snarky.

I don't recall for sure whether he lied or the nature of the lie. The main technique used was alternating good cop and bad cop approaches and appeals to do the right thing so they can finally end the painfully long interrogation (many hours going all night). By the end, the suspect was believing that he must have done the murder and just couldn't remember.

 

[specklebang]

It does make a difference. The OP topic is about cops lying, not about interrogation technique.

I don't support cops being abusive or refusing to let you have an attorney. But I do support imaginary witnesses or imaginary weapons that might elicit a confession.

I must admit that I can't imagine confessing to something I didn't do. Maybe under torture but not under anything less. So, I'm just amazed. In order to be unsure, you would have to be mentally unbalanced. I'm terribly forgetful but I doubt you could remind me I committed a robbery or murder and I would be unsure about my response.

To impair the police ability to investigate to protect the minuscule number of people falsely accused that are so far gone they can be convinced of their guilt despite innocence, seems equivalent to the people who don't want to help the poor because some of them are lying. There has to be a line somewhere.

Of course, I could be wrong.

I don't recall for sure whether he lied or the nature of the lie. The main technique used was alternating good cop and bad cop approaches and appeals to do the right thing so they can finally end the painfully long interrogation (many hours going all night). By the end, the suspect was believing that he must have done the murder and just couldn't remember.

 

[jamesrage]

It does make a difference. The OP topic is about cops lying, not about interrogation technique.

I don't support cops being abusive or refusing to let you have an attorney. But I do support imaginary witnesses or imaginary weapons that might elicit a confession.

I must admit that I can't imagine confessing to something I didn't do. Maybe under torture but not under anything less. So, I'm just amazed. In order to be unsure, you would have to be mentally unbalanced. I'm terribly forgetful but I doubt you could remind me I committed a robbery or murder and I would be unsure about my response.

I imagine a lot of people couldn't imagine confessing to something they didn't do. I would like to think that if I was ever a suspect in a crime or that the police want to question me then the first thing out of my mouth would be "I am exercising my 5th amendment right to remain silent and I want a lawyer". However most people have never been a suspect in a crime and therefore never faced the possibility that they could go to prison for an extremely long time. Not everyone is educated about the fact cops can lie about anything.Not everybody is educated about the fact that you do not have to talk to cops.Not everyone is educated about the fact that they should get a lawyer first before talking to the police.

To impair the police ability to investigate to protect the minuscule number of people falsely accused that are so far gone they can be convinced of their guilt despite innocence, seems equivalent to the people who don't want to help the poor because some of them are lying. There has to be a line somewhere.

Of course, I could be wrong.

The line should be that cops can not lie,can not omit truths,can not over blow what evidence they do have out of proportion and can not make promises regarding sentencing and charges.

 

[specklebang]

Sure, the lass you say the better off you are and your lawyer will tell you to STFU.

But if you didn't commit any crimes, either the one under topic or something else completely, I don't know what you can confess to. You did or you didn't. If you didn't....I realize you are probably right but I'm missing something here. Now, if you are close to the crime, lets say a guy you know was murdered and you saw him a few days ago, maybe you might get stupid and sy something you shouldn't. But if you are clueless, whay can they find out by lying?

Anyway, they do lie and their right to lie is already part of law. So, what do you think should be done? Pass a law that says police can not tell a lie?

I imagine a lot of people couldn't imagine confessing to something they didn't do. I would like to think that if I was ever a suspect in a crime or that the police want to question me then the first thing out of my mouth would be "I am exercising my 5th amendment right to remain silent and I want a lawyer". However most people have never been a suspect in a crime and therefore never faced the possibility that they could go to prison for an extremely long time. Not everyone is educated about the fact cops can lie about anything.Not everybody is educated about the fact that you do not have to talk to cops.Not everyone is educated about the fact that they should get a lawyer first before talking to the police.



The line should be that cops can not lie,can not omit truths,can not over blow what evidence they do have out of proportion and can not make promises regarding sentencing and charges.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Strange as it may seem, I voted yes they should be allowed to lie.

Why? Because these lying tactics are only successful when a suspect fails to exercise his clearly understood Constitutional protections, thinking that if he seems to cooperate he can fool the police and convince them he should not be a suspect.

American media is full of stories about how cops work and what suspects should do if they are ever stopped, questioned, or arrested. Every citizen has seen enough cop shows to know what their Miranda Rights are and what happens if they don't invoke them. Despite this knowledge, many people who get arrested don't ask for a lawyer or invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. Instead, they "cooperate."

Now the police are supposed to investigate crime and since I am a big privacy advocate, I'm willing to give them non-invasive tools to help them do their jobs. To me, lying doesn't matter because it is ineffective on any suspect who has invoked both his Fourth Amendment right to an attorney and his Fifth Amendment right to be silent.

Suspects who are so intentionally foolish as to choose to cooperate? That's on them.

 

[Gaius46]

It does make a difference. The OP topic is about cops lying, not about interrogation technique.

I don't support cops being abusive or refusing to let you have an attorney. But I do support imaginary witnesses or imaginary weapons that might elicit a confession.

I must admit that I can't imagine confessing to something I didn't do. Maybe under torture but not under anything less. So, I'm just amazed. In order to be unsure, you would have to be mentally unbalanced. I'm terribly forgetful but I doubt you could remind me I committed a robbery or murder and I would be unsure about my response.

To impair the police ability to investigate to protect the minuscule number of people falsely accused that are so far gone they can be convinced of their guilt despite innocence, seems equivalent to the people who don't want to help the poor because some of them are lying. There has to be a line somewhere.

Of course, I could be wrong.

I think many innocent people who are looking at a 10 year sentence if found guilty, plus god knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands in legal fees versus 3 years in a plea deal would seriously think about it.

Cops lie in investigations. It's called good police work. Should they be allowed to? Absolutely not. The government wields far too much police power as it is. The average person, innocent or not, is essentially defenseless against the power of the state.

 

[radcen]

Strange as it may seem, I voted yes they should be allowed to lie.

Why? Because these lying tactics are only successful when a suspect fails to exercise his clearly understood Constitutional protections, thinking that if he seems to cooperate he can fool the police and convince them he should not be a suspect.

American media is full of stories about how cops work and what suspects should do if they are ever stopped, questioned, or arrested. Every citizen has seen enough cop shows to know what their Miranda Rights are and what happens if they don't invoke them. Despite this knowledge, many people who get arrested don't ask for a lawyer or invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. Instead, they "cooperate."

Now the police are supposed to investigate crime and since I am a big privacy advocate, I'm willing to give them non-invasive tools to help them do their jobs. To me, lying doesn't matter because it is ineffective on any suspect who has invoked both his Fourth Amendment right to an attorney and his Fifth Amendment right to be silent.

Suspects who are so intentionally foolish as to choose to cooperate? That's on them.

I'm curious as to your definition of "successful".

If you mean gaining a conviction, regardless factual guilt or innocence, you are pretty much correct.

If you mean actually solving the case and convicting the actual perpetrator, then the unnecessarily high numbers of wrongful convictions (many based on coerced confessions) says you are incorrect.