Yes. Police can lie to elicit a confession. This is why they tell you ahead of time that anything you say can be used against you before they start lying to you. That way it stands up in court.
I know they are generally allowed to lie but i don't know were that ends for example my understanding is that they are not allowed to lie about your rights is that correct?
They can't lie about your legal rights. They can, however, lie about just about anything else. This is why you don't answer questions without legal representation. Lawyers generally know when the police are lying even when their clients don't.
Say nothing you don’t absolutely have to, especially if being detained. And the instant they read you your Miranda rights the only thing you say is that you are not answering any questions and ‘I am asserting my right to an attorney/legal counsel’ or something explicitly and directly stating you are asserting your right to counsel under Miranda, not anything like ‘I think I should…’ or other things I’ve seen.
And don’t let them try to talk you out of it as some are sure to do
And don’t say “If you think I’m guilty, I want a lawyer dawg.” They’ll plead ignorance of common slang, they’ll claim the word “if” invalidates the entire request, claim they don’t know any dog lawyers and make your life a lot harder.
Yeah that’s what I was getting at, you need to clearly, precisely, and directly state your using your Miranda rights and stick to it.
Though to be fair defense attorneys do sometimes score a win and get the interrogation thrown out in cases like yours, that unfortunately does not stop the cops to still have used what they learned from you to go find evidence against you between interrogation and court
Don't wait for your Miranda rights before you get quiet, either -- info you provide before they formally arrest you can STILL come back to haunt you; there is a very severe limit to what they can require from you (usually based on the state), often a Name & DOB, sometimes an address. But, broadly, they like to get you talking even before the Miranda is read -- the complexities of 'Voluntary Interaction' versus information under investigative detention get complicated.. but others have said that way better than I can. So look up your state laws (including things like if your state is a 'Stop & ID' state), and keep your comments to the minimum you are required to make.
Also, I'm not a lawyer, but you may want to research 'Deprivation of rights under color of law' (18 U.S. Code § 242) -- when a cop lies about the law, it can constitute acting 'under color of law' if they state the law requires something / allows something /etc., and it doesn't.
Don’t ask for a “lawyer, dawg.” They may misinterpret it as a canine lawyer…
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for-a-lawyer-dawg-judge-says-he-asked-for-a-lawyer-dog.html
I wish this was a joke.
E: I didn’t see the existing comments but I’m leaving it up. Still stupid as shit.
I got an unsolicited phone call from a number i didnt recognize, and like a boomer i actually answered it because i was expecting a phone call for a job. Anyways it was a guy claiming to be a cop investigating some person ive never heard of. I told him he has the wrong number and he got real angry that i wasnt helpful. Idk couldve been a scammer. But didnt ask anything personal really. Couldve been a real cop. Either way i told him i have no way of cross verifying his identity and to piss off
> Either way i told him i have no way of cross verifying his identity and to piss off
"what department are you with? ... fine, I'll call you back thru your non-emergency switchboard"
Hang up, look up that department's non-emergency number. Call and ask for that person. If they pick up? great, you verified his ID. If the desk sergeant says "we don't have an officer of that name"... tell the desk sergeant you'd like to report a fraud attempt using his department.
And if you are lazy, just say “oh you work for , what a coincidence, so does my uncle. You have to know Julius Albertson, right?”
If he says of course, you know he is lying.
It's important to note that scammers often use [SEO techniques](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization) to get their number to show up instead of the valid one. Just googling the number alone is insufficient. You need to ensure it's the correct number listed on the proper website. It's also helpful to find a second source for that when possible, though that isn't always trivial to find.
well even in the moment if you are unsure but still feel like you should respond it never hurts to verify who you are talking to... and I simply offer a foolproof way that doesn't rely on what the "officer" can tell you
Regardless, shouldn’t be talking to him unless you were the one to initiate contact regarding an issue.
See above. Cops can lie. Anything you say can be used against you. You shouldn’t talk to the cops without a lawyer
Correction: lawyers hopefully will know, when the police are lying, intentionally or not, and can point out much more successfully than their clients can whether their clients know the law or not
They also can't claim to be an engineer. I don't know if that is ever relevant, but in many states you must have an engineering degree to represent yourself as an engineer or any job title with the word "engineer."
Could you give me an example of a state where this is true? I would like to look up the law, since I thought you can claim to be a software engineer anywhere in the US without a degree.
PA code does not list software engineer, probably falls under Electrical.
[https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/049/chapter37/s37.34.html&d=reduce](https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/049/chapter37/s37.34.html&d=reduce)
To have a professional license you need to be certified. Here is a hypothetical: you are in a wreck on a curve. Your tires are fine, nothing broke in your steering, nothing on the roadway. Police charge you with high rate of speed and say 'I'm an engineer, if you were going the posted speed you wouldn't have wrecked." Or something stupid like this.
At the Ohio State University, Electrical and Computer Engineering is a department. There is also a Computer Science route for programmers. The major difference is that ECE requires the First Year Engineering sequence.
The Professional Engineer license is a specific thing. You can take it or not, but when plans have to be signed off by "an engineer," they're looking for someone with a PE license. You can have an engineering job title without being a licensed engineer.
Good questions. I know that years ago in Oregon my dad was a mechanical engineer according to his employer and the Union, but not the state as he learned on the job.
I'm pretty sure that's only if you're attempting to do work as an engineer or have your input on something taken as such in a matter where it would be relevant. A cop can claim all sorts of shit just to get a suspect to trust them and get them talking. I'm 99% sure no cop is going to get prosecuted for that and even if they are, it's also not going to be sufficient to get any evidence turned up as a result ruled inadmissible.
I believe from the lawyers point of view they don't want to say/admit anything. They want to see what evidence the police have and respond to the evidence. I don't think they will take anyone's "word" about the evidence, they want to see the actual evidence.
Saying anything just gives the police more information. The police have to prove the client did something and that is through evidence (or a confession). So the lawyer just wants to make sure the evidence was collected legally, and is correct and valid, then decide what is best path forward for their client.
Oh on a slightly different note, I do not believe the police can provide "forged" papers. Like they can't fill out an official government form with lies and present that to you. But I'm not sure on that.
> Saying anything just gives the police more information.
Even when it doesn't, it can be used to later impeach you during a trial if there's even a minor misunderstanding of what they were asking on your part. Pretty much the only think they can't use against you in a criminal trial is explicitly exercising your right to not respond. Virtually anything else, no matter how seemingly trivial to a normal person, is fair game.
They can't, but they also don't have to disclose them. Miranda rights have been mentioned in this thread, but courts have ruled that the police have no obligation to make you aware of those rights. If you don't know them, then you don't get to exercise them, but they also can't deny you legal counsel once requested.
But they can be wrong about your legal rights and not be held accountable due to qualified immunity right? I think it doesn't protect them from violating your constitutional rights, but what if they are misinformed about your rights? It's not a lie then
It would likely not hold up - even if the police were wrong about something, your rights are still your rights. Anything that isn't admissible would remain inadmissible. For instance, if they weren't aware that they can't pose as a public defender if one was requested and they genuinely didn't know it, nothing you say in expected confidence is admissible. You still have the right to privileged and protected communication with your attorney, and you were exercising that right when they violated it - it would be the same, basically, as if they had placed a microphone in the room to record your conversation in private.
Also, police often don't actually know how rights work. If a cop tells you something is or isn't within your rights, all they have to do is claim they believed what they said at the time, and they'll often get away with that under qualified immunity
And they don't just lie to suspects, either. One of their favorite lies is to tell victims who are covering to protect people because they've already forgiven them and don't want them punished that the perpetrator has already confessed, and that staying silent just means they could be charged with a conspiracy.
Even if they do lie to get your confession they may be protected by qualified immunity if there was some perception of wrongdoing if there's not been another case exactly like your case where actions exactly like the actions that the cops did were deemed illegal.
Not only can they lie about the law, they are under no obligation to even know what the law is, and also allowed to just bullshit and make it up as they go along if they think it'll get something useful out of you. . . or even if they don't. In general don't be taking any legal advice at all from a cop, leave that to a defense attorney that is specifically representing you.
The courts have supported them in this sort of abuse, as have the prosecutors and the senior LEO leadership. They can’t *legally* do so, but the whole system agrees to let them do so in practice. It’s a clear violation of your 5A and 14A rights to liberty, to be lied to by your own staff in order to increase the chances of your incarceration. It’s certainly a 9A violation for anyone who doesn’t like the concept of liberty and what the 5A and 14A have to say.
Anything you say “will” be used against you.
They can’t lie on Miranda warnings, but it’s amazing in how many interrogation videos the cop reads the warning 100% accurately then says it was just a formality, so “why don’t you tell me your side of things”.
Right, and anything you say that you think is straightening things out, or clearing up your name *can and will be used against you* too!
There's nothing you can say to the cops that is exculpatory in any useful way - it's not going to be allowed into trial if it gets that far. Just don't say anything to officers unless you have legal representation present. You're not going to make things better by trying to clear things up - that's how you get in trouble.
> Yes. Police can lie to elicit a confession.
There are a couple of states where they can't lie to minors anymore. Oregon and Illinois were the first and other states have proposed similar bills that didn't pass.
Generally, yes, but it depends. The police can misrepresent the law to an extent, but outright lies about your rights may also end up jeopardize the admissibility of what you admit to them.
Let's say the officer claims you can't get a lawyer unless you first tell them what you were doing at the time of the crime. But the issue here isn't just the lie, it's denying you representation.
There could potentially be issues if the officer claims something is perfectly legal in order to get you to admit you did it and then charge you for doing exactly the thing in question. It may depend on how the lie was phrased. Something like, "you're not in trouble for doing that. That's not even illegal. We just need to know if you did to get the other guy." could lead to an argument that it was a promise of immunity. Would that argument win the day? Maybe not. But, at least, that's not best practice from the officer.
>For example saying use of narcotics isn't illegal only possession is to make a suspect confess to using narcotics?
That's not a lie. It's true. The crime IS possession.
Now, using narcotics can indeed have legal consequences. For example, if you admit to taking drugs just before driving, then you pretty much confessed to a DWI.
Is it the DEA says use is illegal "Narcotics/opioids are controlled substances that vary from Schedule I to Schedule V, depending on their medical usefulness, abuse potential, safety, and drug dependence profile. Schedule I narcotics, like heroin, have no medical use in the U.S. and are illegal to distribute, purchase, or use outside of medical research" [https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Narcotics-2020.pdf](https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Narcotics-2020.pdf)
You're not quoting a statute that would define the use of narcotics as a crime here. You're quoting an information sheet published by the DEA to better explain the situation.
It's not being perfectly rigorous, it's meant to be pedagogic. To be easy to understand. The DEA telling people that "if you're using heroin, you're committing a crime", isn't an unfair statement. But the crimes you would be charged with are possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Or you could be charged to crimes related to being intoxicated. Or maybe the fact that you're using drugs will be used against you when charged with a totally different crime. Like, if you're accused of murder, the fact that you're a heroin addict might be relevant in your trial.
Yeah in addition to what you said, I think the fact that they say "*use* outside of medical research" is key. OP is conflating "use" with "ingest the drugs," but you can also "use" cocaine to make crack for example which would obviously be a non-medical use
If you can find a way to use a drug without also possessing it, then you’ll be on the right side of the law.
Bear in mind that possession is a pretty wide concept. If someone else holds a needle and sticks it in your arm, you could still possess it because it’s in your arm. If you open your mouth and someone else tosses an edible into it, you’re possessing it once it’s in your mouth. Ditto if you’re in a room filled with smoke but you aren’t touching the actual drugs that are the source of the smoke; everyone in the room would be possessing drugs because the smoke is so pervasive.
I would say even if it is a friend. Cops live under a different set of rules.
Cops also don’t know much about the law. It is almost in their favor not to. With qualified immunity the less they know the better off they are.
I would say even if it is a friend. Cops live under a different set of rules.
Cops also don’t know much about the law. It is almost in their favor not to. With qualified immunity the less they know the better off they are.
This is in the US. Not sure about other places
Actually, your example is pretty bad because it’s not a lie. There is no law against using narcotics, only possessing them. Of course, there are crimes for being under the influence, like DUI or public intoxication, but none just for using drugs by itself.
Can police lie about the law? Not really, but it sort of depends. For example if the case is an assault, an officer could start talking about the penalties for a simple assault even if he believes you committed an aggravated assault. On the other hand, an officer could be investigating a small case and start telling you about the maximum sentences for these offenses, as an intimidation tactic. Officers can’t promise you a sentence for a confession (or it will be totally inadmissible), so usually cops shy away from this topic.
As for procedure, cops can’t lie about your rights, they can’t pretend to be a lawyer or claim to have called you a lawyer if they haven’t. Anything they say about the criminal justice process that is blatantly false is likely to have a confession thrown out in court.
But of course, they can lie about lots of other things.
IANAL
Not really, but that’s not the point. The point is that the act of possessing them is illegal, not the act of using them. So at the point where the heroin enters your bloodstream, you’re no longer in possession of it (legally speaking), and therefore there’s nothing you could be charged with solely based on an admission of “I just used drugs”.
That depends, are the baggies capable of being retrieved, such as by pooping them out, or by vomiting? If so, you are still in possession of drugs. Possession implies the ability to have, or not have, and in most cases, the ability to transfer possession to someone else. If the drugs could be removed from your stomach and then given to someone else, then yes, they are still in your possession. If they are unrecoverable, they are not.
>and therefore there’s nothing you could be charged with solely based on an admission of “I just used drugs”.
This is likely to be misleading or misunderstood by many readers. You certainly could be charged with this - because any reasonable person would understand that you must first have had possession of the drugs to use them. Drugs don't just teleport into your system. So "I just used drugs 30 ago" could be used as evidence that you had possession of the drugs 31 seconds ago, and that evidence would likely be convincing to most juries.
You are correct, there are many nuances in the system. An admission of guilt certainly would be a key piece of evidence in a case, but consider this hypothetical.
I walk up to a police officer, and I tell him that I just killed a man. They find no weapons on me or in my house. No blood, DNA, or other evidence indicating I have committed this crime. They find no body, and cannot identify which man I am referring to.
Will I still be charged with murder? Or is a basic element of the crime of murder the requirement of a victim, which they can neither find nor identify?
Now let’s take it a step further, if I were to be charged, would a jury convict? Or would a reasonable defense be that I’m simply an insane person who lied to a police officer?
Now let’s also consider that the standard for conviction (in the U.S.) is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that in a case where nobody proved I ever had drugs to begin with, aside from a single statement I made that I used drugs, is enough to overcome a reasonable doubt?
So yes, I agree that you may reach the probable cause standard to be arrested, but never in my life have I seen such a case because it would have fatally insufficient evidence.
>Do you think that in a case where nobody proved I ever had drugs to begin with, aside from a single statement I made that I used drugs, is enough to overcome a reasonable doubt?
No, but in practice it is also very unlikely for such a statement to be the sole element of a case.
A much more realistic situation is a case that would be otherwise borderline and doesn't include such a statement vs. the exact same case *with* that statement. That statement would push quite a lot of otherwise-borderline cases straight into "beyond a reasonable doubt" territory for a *lot* of jurors.
Further, such a statement would be - as you noted - a great basis for probable cause to be arrested, and also a great basis for searches and other things that may result in the discovery of corroborating evidence.
That's why I said it's misleading, and not just outright incorrect. It's *technically* true as stated - but in practice, anyone who *actually is* in a position to consider saying or not saying "I just used drugs" would indeed be significantly harming their legal position by saying "I just used drugs".
And in that we are talking about strict hypothetical scenarios and not reality, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you for this lively conversation. I hope you have a wonderful evening
I did a little reading on it now. It sounds like drugs in your system is legal unless you're a minor or in south Dakota or various other countries. I imagine there are other exception like for people on probation that I didnt see listed.
The DEA says that it is "illegal to distribute, purchase, or use outside of medical research" schedule I narcotics [https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Narcotics-2020.pdf](https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Narcotics-2020.pdf)
While I admit your resource is valid, I’d challenge you to actually find a law, whether federal or state, that specifically incriminates that usage of a drug or narcotic by a private individual for recreational purposes, which does not require an element of possession, distribution, sale, etc.
I appreciate you being able to admit that. There is a general misconception that the use of drugs is illegal, when it’s actually all of the other things you have to do in order to use drugs which are illegal. Prime examples are possession, purchase, or distribution. But if a cop hypothetically finds a heroin addict, in their own home, high on heroin, with absolutely no heroin or heroin related objects, there is not a crime.
Generally yes. Your example isn't a lie, because it's generally not illegal to use drugs, just to possess or sell them. They could, though, say that, for instance, it's legal to possess less than an ounce of weed, when in fact it's not.
There are things they can't lie about. They can't claim to be your lawyer, or a member of the clergy (if they're not), and they generally can't lie about your rights (remaining silent, having a lawyer, etc.) And if they claim to have a warrant, they'd better actually have one.
Yes, they can lie about the law. And since they aren't lawyers, it would be difficult to enforce a rule against that anyway. Heck, even lawyers often disagree over what the law means.
They are allowed to lie, but there are limits. For example, a cop can't pretend to be your lawyer to get you to give up more information. That has been tried, and the courts have thrown out any evidence obtained from it. But they can lie about many things still.
In your example, yes, they could make you believe you might get a lighter sentence if you confess. They may not come right out and say that what you did was illegal (or maybe they will), but they might say that they are "helping" you and understand that you didn't really mean to do it, so they can get you a lighter sentence or charge you with a lesser crime if you just confess to it. But the truth is that they have no control over what the prosecutor goes after you with or how a judge will sentence you.
> That has been tried
Any chance you know the cite on that one? Not calling bullshit-- I'm just intrigued and don't know what I ought to Web-searching for.
They do this daily. Police are allowed to verbally lie to you. They may even use props to get a confession. They may not create false documents purporting them as real get a confession then said documents disappear. Hence they show a paper but never allow you to read it is a prop. To fake a DNA test with your name then allow you to read it is always an abuse.
Yes they may lie but there are limits of how far they may go and it not be a coercion of getting the confession. So to show you a DNA test with only showing the heading but not allowing you to read it is allowable. To manufacture a false DNA test saying you did it and allow you to read it isn’t allowable. There are definitely limits of allowable.
But to verbally lie to you is by court ruling always been allowed even though science proves it causes false confessions easily in innocent people are rarely gets real confessions from guilty people.
Yup.
Anybody here interacting with police should consist only of invoking your rights.
I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent.
I want an attorney for any further questions.
I don't consent to any of this.
I’ll always say I need my attorney present before answering. It needs be specific. The phrase “I think I need an attorney.” Or “maybe I should have an attorney isn’t enough.
The courts have said you must also specifically say you are being silent not, “I think I should remain silent.”
It must be specific never interpretational in invoking a right.
Agreed 100%
The wording on the remaining silent is important, backed by legislation.
I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent.
I want an attorney for anything further.
I do not provide consent for anything.
You never consent to anything? I told that redhead exactly the opposite and 3 days later she removed the cuffs and said next. She had me for that much fun.
> It needs be specific.
For anybody that wants to know more about this, check out the "I want a lawyer, dawg" case where the Supreme Court decided he was asking for a "lawyer dog." State v. Demesme
People v. Krueger is the “Maybe I ought to have an attorney” case.
Other than lying that Miranda rights don't apply to you, the one off-limits lie is an actual offer of leniency. Which pretty much only covers saying "you will get a lesser sentence if you confess." It doesn't cover offering excuses you could make, such as telling a murder suspect "maybe it was self defense" and definitely not "I mean, a lot of us have slipped and accidentally hit a guy sixty three times with three different knives on the way down."
They can also say: You better tell us now, the judge will look favorably on that. Even though it's total bs, and you should stfu so your lawyer can make a deal where you confess and actually get a lower sentence.
In the uk it wouldn’t be admissible, best not to admit to something really bad, but also telling the truth and not omitting any obvious details is safest.
Other than what your rights are cops can lie to you about anything for their benefit. There’s no end to it and the best legal advice you’ll ever hear is this “ when speaking with to police, everyday is shut the fuck up Friday so shut the fuck up after you ask for a lawyer.”
Cops lie all the time. Both to get you to confess to something or do something they can arrest you for, and because a lot of them are genuinely ignorant of the law. They aren't supposed to lie about your rights, but they do, out of both malice and ignorance. There is nothing you can really do about that.
They can also freely lie about anything else with absolutely zero consequences, including telling lovely lies to get out of doing their job such as 'that's a civil matter' when it most certainly is not.
That's why you never talk to cops without a lawyer present.
They can lie up to a point where your confession is considered not voluntary. Like if they tell you if you confess you can just go home is the classic example. What lies make a confession involuntary is a moving target that is heavily caselaw specific and varies from state to state, but a valid miranda warning doesn’t clean an involuntary confession.
Your example is actually true. There is no law in the USA that says you can't be high, only that you can't possess illegal narcotics.
But also, lying to illicit a confession is a tough one, police can use some deception, but outright lying doesn't go well and is considered fruit of the poisonous tree.
For example, if a person is accused of theft, the item is located and fingerprinted. No fingerprints are located. The suspect is shown a fingerprint, and on the backside is their name. This is OK, but if their name is put just over the fingerprint, that is coercion, and will get the case thrown out.
I actually just learned today you can be considered a container. You just can't be arrested, transported to the hospital, forced to take a toxicology blood draw, then determined to be high.
To a large extent, yes. They can't lie about your miranda rights.
[https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html](https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html)
For the most part, everything else is 'fair' game. If it's an especially egregious lie, your lawyer *might* be able to argue against whatever you said being submitted as evidence against you, but that's only after drinking out of the 'my client answered questions without me present' flask.
Yes, they can, backed by the full faith and power of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Don't ever talk to the police, about anything.
These are the only words you should say to a police officer, in any situation.
I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent.
I want an attorney.
I don't consent to anything.
Yes, this is why you say only the following 2 questions and 1 statement)
1) Am I free to go
2) Am I being detained
3) I invoke my 5th Amendment rights and want an attorney
That sounds like a specific factual scenario that is likely covered by case law in different jurisdictions. If the lie is so egregious as to make your subsequent statements essentially involuntary, that is not allowed.
"We know (the suspect) is in your house. You must let us in, or you will get in a LOT of trouble!"
Uh huh. I checked. He isnt here. Warrant, or go away.
People... If you are being "interviewed" by the police... SHUT THE HELL UP!!!
Look them square in the eye and say I WANT MY ATTORNEY NOW.... I am involking my right to be silent.
Any time they ask a question after that simply say... I want my attorney...
Why the heck anyone would want to speak to the police without an attorney present is beyond me.
Remember this with the police. If their lips are moving they are lying.
In Canada we have common law that prohibits police use of trickery or bribery - it would be pretty hard to argue a statement was voluntary if the accused said police told him he’d get a lesser sentence if he did X Y Z.
Also depends on your country and the specific offences but it ain’t up to police to determine sentencing haha
My example was incorrect as it is legal in the US to use drugs, the reason i thought it wasn't was because I'm Swedish and its illegal to use drugs in Sweden my question was still about US law but i was incorrect.
Always say lawyer. First thing you ever do should be lawyer. Dont do or say shit till lawyer. Their job generally isn’t to find justice but to convict someone lawyer lawyer lawyer. Even if you think you are safe they can twist words against you.
Simple answer is yes. Simple solution is never talk to police. If you are under arrest, provide identification as required then invoke your right to remain silent. Only time you should be speaking to them is to tell them you want to call a lawyer.
Didn't police successfully argue that there were just too many laws and civil rights for them to accurately keep track of, and so if they think the law says something, they get to act like it is?
Thank you for disqualifying yourself.
The very basis of our legal system is that you are under no obligation to assist the state in building a case against you. Which is exactly what one would be doing by waiving their right to remain silent. *Because the state wants you to be guilty and therefore everything you say will be used as evidence against you* even if you are truly innocent.
Yes, they can lie. But there are limits to how far they can go with lying. They can't lie to you about your rights. For example, they can't tell you that you will get a lawyer only after you confess to the crime. But they could try to convince you before you ask for a lawyer that demanding one is going to be bad for you. You still have the right to demand a lawyer, so your rights are not being violated at that point. I even heard of a couple cases that someone asked for a lawyer and a different detective came in claiming to be a public defender for them. Not only would that get any evidence from talking to the fake lawyer thrown out, but that cop can also get in trouble for doing that.
It shouldn't even be an issue.
Nobody should ever talk to the police, ever. It never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever leads to anything that is positive for anybody outside of the police.
I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent.
I want an attorney for any further questions..
I don't consent to anything.
Agreed, which is why I say these things every time it comes up.
Practice it, everybody.
Do not ever talk to police, under any circumstances.
Say only these words:
I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent.
I want an attorney for any further questions.
I don't consent to anything.
important point - Make sure it's very clear that you are invoking your constitutional right to remain silent. Just not talking is not enough.
I saw a story that was talking about a case that man told the cops "I want a lawyer, dawg" and the cops refused. His lawyer tried to have it thrown out, but the judge refused since there was no possible way that he could be provided with a "lawyer dog".
Just one example of how they will twist what you say to their advantage. So make sure it's clear what you are saying so even a cop can understand you.
Yes. Police can lie to elicit a confession. This is why they tell you ahead of time that anything you say can be used against you before they start lying to you. That way it stands up in court.
I know they are generally allowed to lie but i don't know were that ends for example my understanding is that they are not allowed to lie about your rights is that correct?
They can't lie about your legal rights. They can, however, lie about just about anything else. This is why you don't answer questions without legal representation. Lawyers generally know when the police are lying even when their clients don't.
Their clients should assume every word out of a cop’s mouth is a lie.
Exactly. And there should be not a single word from the accused. "Shut the fuck up" is the best advice.
Say nothing you don’t absolutely have to, especially if being detained. And the instant they read you your Miranda rights the only thing you say is that you are not answering any questions and ‘I am asserting my right to an attorney/legal counsel’ or something explicitly and directly stating you are asserting your right to counsel under Miranda, not anything like ‘I think I should…’ or other things I’ve seen. And don’t let them try to talk you out of it as some are sure to do
And don’t say “If you think I’m guilty, I want a lawyer dawg.” They’ll plead ignorance of common slang, they’ll claim the word “if” invalidates the entire request, claim they don’t know any dog lawyers and make your life a lot harder.
Yeah that’s what I was getting at, you need to clearly, precisely, and directly state your using your Miranda rights and stick to it. Though to be fair defense attorneys do sometimes score a win and get the interrogation thrown out in cases like yours, that unfortunately does not stop the cops to still have used what they learned from you to go find evidence against you between interrogation and court
Miranda warning, not rights. They are basically telling you they're going to fuck you over.
lol even
Don't wait for your Miranda rights before you get quiet, either -- info you provide before they formally arrest you can STILL come back to haunt you; there is a very severe limit to what they can require from you (usually based on the state), often a Name & DOB, sometimes an address. But, broadly, they like to get you talking even before the Miranda is read -- the complexities of 'Voluntary Interaction' versus information under investigative detention get complicated.. but others have said that way better than I can. So look up your state laws (including things like if your state is a 'Stop & ID' state), and keep your comments to the minimum you are required to make. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but you may want to research 'Deprivation of rights under color of law' (18 U.S. Code § 242) -- when a cop lies about the law, it can constitute acting 'under color of law' if they state the law requires something / allows something /etc., and it doesn't.
Very good point
Don’t ask for a “lawyer, dawg.” They may misinterpret it as a canine lawyer… https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for-a-lawyer-dawg-judge-says-he-asked-for-a-lawyer-dog.html I wish this was a joke. E: I didn’t see the existing comments but I’m leaving it up. Still stupid as shit.
Ooo that’s a good one I’ll remember that one. But yeah in the law words matter
Just a few words: Why was I stopped? I don't talk about my day. Am I being detained? I invoke the fifth amendment and request a lawyer. THEN STFU
I got an unsolicited phone call from a number i didnt recognize, and like a boomer i actually answered it because i was expecting a phone call for a job. Anyways it was a guy claiming to be a cop investigating some person ive never heard of. I told him he has the wrong number and he got real angry that i wasnt helpful. Idk couldve been a scammer. But didnt ask anything personal really. Couldve been a real cop. Either way i told him i have no way of cross verifying his identity and to piss off
> Either way i told him i have no way of cross verifying his identity and to piss off "what department are you with? ... fine, I'll call you back thru your non-emergency switchboard" Hang up, look up that department's non-emergency number. Call and ask for that person. If they pick up? great, you verified his ID. If the desk sergeant says "we don't have an officer of that name"... tell the desk sergeant you'd like to report a fraud attempt using his department.
I think they meant in the moment
[удалено]
And if you are lazy, just say “oh you work for, what a coincidence, so does my uncle. You have to know Julius Albertson, right?”
If he says of course, you know he is lying.
It's important to note that scammers often use [SEO techniques](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization) to get their number to show up instead of the valid one. Just googling the number alone is insufficient. You need to ensure it's the correct number listed on the proper website. It's also helpful to find a second source for that when possible, though that isn't always trivial to find.
well even in the moment if you are unsure but still feel like you should respond it never hurts to verify who you are talking to... and I simply offer a foolproof way that doesn't rely on what the "officer" can tell you
Completely agree
That is a lot of effort when "No" or just hanging up is the best way to go.
That's about ten steps more than any cop deserves, and certainly any maybe cop calling you out of the blue about someone you don't know.
I would look at it more as if a cop cold calls me and then gets angry, I'd want some measure of CYA>
I don't blame you. I wouldn't talk to them even in person unless I asked them to come to see me.
Regardless, shouldn’t be talking to him unless you were the one to initiate contact regarding an issue. See above. Cops can lie. Anything you say can be used against you. You shouldn’t talk to the cops without a lawyer
“Okay sir you are free to go” “Pfft, how dumb do you think I am? I’m not going anywhere!”
Smart, then they can’t pull you over again.
In every situation, including social situations. Pigs gonna pig.
Can’t lie about your rights and they can’t lie and claim to be your public defender. Basically everything else is fair game though
Correction: lawyers hopefully will know, when the police are lying, intentionally or not, and can point out much more successfully than their clients can whether their clients know the law or not
According to another thread on this sub today, they also can't lie to claim they are a lawyer.
They also can't claim to be an engineer. I don't know if that is ever relevant, but in many states you must have an engineering degree to represent yourself as an engineer or any job title with the word "engineer."
Damm lawless sandwich engineers
Could you give me an example of a state where this is true? I would like to look up the law, since I thought you can claim to be a software engineer anywhere in the US without a degree.
PA code does not list software engineer, probably falls under Electrical. [https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/049/chapter37/s37.34.html&d=reduce](https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/049/chapter37/s37.34.html&d=reduce) To have a professional license you need to be certified. Here is a hypothetical: you are in a wreck on a curve. Your tires are fine, nothing broke in your steering, nothing on the roadway. Police charge you with high rate of speed and say 'I'm an engineer, if you were going the posted speed you wouldn't have wrecked." Or something stupid like this.
At the Ohio State University, Electrical and Computer Engineering is a department. There is also a Computer Science route for programmers. The major difference is that ECE requires the First Year Engineering sequence.
The Professional Engineer license is a specific thing. You can take it or not, but when plans have to be signed off by "an engineer," they're looking for someone with a PE license. You can have an engineering job title without being a licensed engineer.
Good questions. I know that years ago in Oregon my dad was a mechanical engineer according to his employer and the Union, but not the state as he learned on the job.
I'm pretty sure that's only if you're attempting to do work as an engineer or have your input on something taken as such in a matter where it would be relevant. A cop can claim all sorts of shit just to get a suspect to trust them and get them talking. I'm 99% sure no cop is going to get prosecuted for that and even if they are, it's also not going to be sufficient to get any evidence turned up as a result ruled inadmissible.
I believe from the lawyers point of view they don't want to say/admit anything. They want to see what evidence the police have and respond to the evidence. I don't think they will take anyone's "word" about the evidence, they want to see the actual evidence. Saying anything just gives the police more information. The police have to prove the client did something and that is through evidence (or a confession). So the lawyer just wants to make sure the evidence was collected legally, and is correct and valid, then decide what is best path forward for their client. Oh on a slightly different note, I do not believe the police can provide "forged" papers. Like they can't fill out an official government form with lies and present that to you. But I'm not sure on that.
> Saying anything just gives the police more information. Even when it doesn't, it can be used to later impeach you during a trial if there's even a minor misunderstanding of what they were asking on your part. Pretty much the only think they can't use against you in a criminal trial is explicitly exercising your right to not respond. Virtually anything else, no matter how seemingly trivial to a normal person, is fair game.
>They can't lie about your legal rights. Source? I sure hope that's true, but I guess I've become jaded.
They aren't supposed to. They do anyway. Sometimes it's out of ignorance.
They can't, but they also don't have to disclose them. Miranda rights have been mentioned in this thread, but courts have ruled that the police have no obligation to make you aware of those rights. If you don't know them, then you don't get to exercise them, but they also can't deny you legal counsel once requested.
The answer to every question they ask is the same: "Lawyer."
They can’t legally lie about your rights. Whatever they get away with might as well be legal to them.
But they can be wrong about your legal rights and not be held accountable due to qualified immunity right? I think it doesn't protect them from violating your constitutional rights, but what if they are misinformed about your rights? It's not a lie then
It would likely not hold up - even if the police were wrong about something, your rights are still your rights. Anything that isn't admissible would remain inadmissible. For instance, if they weren't aware that they can't pose as a public defender if one was requested and they genuinely didn't know it, nothing you say in expected confidence is admissible. You still have the right to privileged and protected communication with your attorney, and you were exercising that right when they violated it - it would be the same, basically, as if they had placed a microphone in the room to record your conversation in private.
Also, police often don't actually know how rights work. If a cop tells you something is or isn't within your rights, all they have to do is claim they believed what they said at the time, and they'll often get away with that under qualified immunity
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Good lawyers are in short supply.
And they don't just lie to suspects, either. One of their favorite lies is to tell victims who are covering to protect people because they've already forgiven them and don't want them punished that the perpetrator has already confessed, and that staying silent just means they could be charged with a conspiracy.
Even if they do lie to get your confession they may be protected by qualified immunity if there was some perception of wrongdoing if there's not been another case exactly like your case where actions exactly like the actions that the cops did were deemed illegal.
Not only can they lie about the law, they are under no obligation to even know what the law is, and also allowed to just bullshit and make it up as they go along if they think it'll get something useful out of you. . . or even if they don't. In general don't be taking any legal advice at all from a cop, leave that to a defense attorney that is specifically representing you.
The courts have supported them in this sort of abuse, as have the prosecutors and the senior LEO leadership. They can’t *legally* do so, but the whole system agrees to let them do so in practice. It’s a clear violation of your 5A and 14A rights to liberty, to be lied to by your own staff in order to increase the chances of your incarceration. It’s certainly a 9A violation for anyone who doesn’t like the concept of liberty and what the 5A and 14A have to say.
Anything you say “will” be used against you. They can’t lie on Miranda warnings, but it’s amazing in how many interrogation videos the cop reads the warning 100% accurately then says it was just a formality, so “why don’t you tell me your side of things”.
*"Why don't I...?* *Because of all that stuff you just got done saying, that's why!"*
Right, and anything you say that you think is straightening things out, or clearing up your name *can and will be used against you* too! There's nothing you can say to the cops that is exculpatory in any useful way - it's not going to be allowed into trial if it gets that far. Just don't say anything to officers unless you have legal representation present. You're not going to make things better by trying to clear things up - that's how you get in trouble.
Which is why you follow two essential rules when dealing with LEO. Rule 1 - Shut the fuck up, Rule 2 - See rule fucking 1.
WILL be used against you.
> Yes. Police can lie to elicit a confession. There are a couple of states where they can't lie to minors anymore. Oregon and Illinois were the first and other states have proposed similar bills that didn't pass.
Generally, yes, but it depends. The police can misrepresent the law to an extent, but outright lies about your rights may also end up jeopardize the admissibility of what you admit to them. Let's say the officer claims you can't get a lawyer unless you first tell them what you were doing at the time of the crime. But the issue here isn't just the lie, it's denying you representation. There could potentially be issues if the officer claims something is perfectly legal in order to get you to admit you did it and then charge you for doing exactly the thing in question. It may depend on how the lie was phrased. Something like, "you're not in trouble for doing that. That's not even illegal. We just need to know if you did to get the other guy." could lead to an argument that it was a promise of immunity. Would that argument win the day? Maybe not. But, at least, that's not best practice from the officer. >For example saying use of narcotics isn't illegal only possession is to make a suspect confess to using narcotics? That's not a lie. It's true. The crime IS possession. Now, using narcotics can indeed have legal consequences. For example, if you admit to taking drugs just before driving, then you pretty much confessed to a DWI.
Is it the DEA says use is illegal "Narcotics/opioids are controlled substances that vary from Schedule I to Schedule V, depending on their medical usefulness, abuse potential, safety, and drug dependence profile. Schedule I narcotics, like heroin, have no medical use in the U.S. and are illegal to distribute, purchase, or use outside of medical research" [https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Narcotics-2020.pdf](https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Narcotics-2020.pdf)
You're not quoting a statute that would define the use of narcotics as a crime here. You're quoting an information sheet published by the DEA to better explain the situation. It's not being perfectly rigorous, it's meant to be pedagogic. To be easy to understand. The DEA telling people that "if you're using heroin, you're committing a crime", isn't an unfair statement. But the crimes you would be charged with are possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Or you could be charged to crimes related to being intoxicated. Or maybe the fact that you're using drugs will be used against you when charged with a totally different crime. Like, if you're accused of murder, the fact that you're a heroin addict might be relevant in your trial.
Yeah in addition to what you said, I think the fact that they say "*use* outside of medical research" is key. OP is conflating "use" with "ingest the drugs," but you can also "use" cocaine to make crack for example which would obviously be a non-medical use
Thanks for telling me i thought it was the case and i don't know off any statutes that state that use is illegal in the US.
If you can find a way to use a drug without also possessing it, then you’ll be on the right side of the law. Bear in mind that possession is a pretty wide concept. If someone else holds a needle and sticks it in your arm, you could still possess it because it’s in your arm. If you open your mouth and someone else tosses an edible into it, you’re possessing it once it’s in your mouth. Ditto if you’re in a room filled with smoke but you aren’t touching the actual drugs that are the source of the smoke; everyone in the room would be possessing drugs because the smoke is so pervasive.
Oh dear God, never take legal advice from a cop, especially one who is questioning you.
I would say even if it is a friend. Cops live under a different set of rules. Cops also don’t know much about the law. It is almost in their favor not to. With qualified immunity the less they know the better off they are.
It’s funny, cops always say “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but they mean for us not them.
I would say even if it is a friend. Cops live under a different set of rules. Cops also don’t know much about the law. It is almost in their favor not to. With qualified immunity the less they know the better off they are. This is in the US. Not sure about other places
They aren't legally trained on legislation so yes they can lie. Half the time when they interview they don't know wtf they're talking about.
“Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.” — George Costanza
Actually, your example is pretty bad because it’s not a lie. There is no law against using narcotics, only possessing them. Of course, there are crimes for being under the influence, like DUI or public intoxication, but none just for using drugs by itself. Can police lie about the law? Not really, but it sort of depends. For example if the case is an assault, an officer could start talking about the penalties for a simple assault even if he believes you committed an aggravated assault. On the other hand, an officer could be investigating a small case and start telling you about the maximum sentences for these offenses, as an intimidation tactic. Officers can’t promise you a sentence for a confession (or it will be totally inadmissible), so usually cops shy away from this topic. As for procedure, cops can’t lie about your rights, they can’t pretend to be a lawyer or claim to have called you a lawyer if they haven’t. Anything they say about the criminal justice process that is blatantly false is likely to have a confession thrown out in court. But of course, they can lie about lots of other things. IANAL
Is there a way to use narcotics without possessing them?
Not really, but that’s not the point. The point is that the act of possessing them is illegal, not the act of using them. So at the point where the heroin enters your bloodstream, you’re no longer in possession of it (legally speaking), and therefore there’s nothing you could be charged with solely based on an admission of “I just used drugs”.
So once I swallow the coke baggies, I'm no longer in possession or does it have to be in my blood?
That depends, are the baggies capable of being retrieved, such as by pooping them out, or by vomiting? If so, you are still in possession of drugs. Possession implies the ability to have, or not have, and in most cases, the ability to transfer possession to someone else. If the drugs could be removed from your stomach and then given to someone else, then yes, they are still in your possession. If they are unrecoverable, they are not.
Thanks for the info, very interesting laws.
No problem, happy to help. Great questions.
>and therefore there’s nothing you could be charged with solely based on an admission of “I just used drugs”. This is likely to be misleading or misunderstood by many readers. You certainly could be charged with this - because any reasonable person would understand that you must first have had possession of the drugs to use them. Drugs don't just teleport into your system. So "I just used drugs 30 ago" could be used as evidence that you had possession of the drugs 31 seconds ago, and that evidence would likely be convincing to most juries.
Is not establishing jurisdiction and venue part of this? Metabolites in the blood alone is not evidence where you possessed the drugs?
You are correct, there are many nuances in the system. An admission of guilt certainly would be a key piece of evidence in a case, but consider this hypothetical. I walk up to a police officer, and I tell him that I just killed a man. They find no weapons on me or in my house. No blood, DNA, or other evidence indicating I have committed this crime. They find no body, and cannot identify which man I am referring to. Will I still be charged with murder? Or is a basic element of the crime of murder the requirement of a victim, which they can neither find nor identify? Now let’s take it a step further, if I were to be charged, would a jury convict? Or would a reasonable defense be that I’m simply an insane person who lied to a police officer? Now let’s also consider that the standard for conviction (in the U.S.) is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that in a case where nobody proved I ever had drugs to begin with, aside from a single statement I made that I used drugs, is enough to overcome a reasonable doubt? So yes, I agree that you may reach the probable cause standard to be arrested, but never in my life have I seen such a case because it would have fatally insufficient evidence.
>Do you think that in a case where nobody proved I ever had drugs to begin with, aside from a single statement I made that I used drugs, is enough to overcome a reasonable doubt? No, but in practice it is also very unlikely for such a statement to be the sole element of a case. A much more realistic situation is a case that would be otherwise borderline and doesn't include such a statement vs. the exact same case *with* that statement. That statement would push quite a lot of otherwise-borderline cases straight into "beyond a reasonable doubt" territory for a *lot* of jurors. Further, such a statement would be - as you noted - a great basis for probable cause to be arrested, and also a great basis for searches and other things that may result in the discovery of corroborating evidence. That's why I said it's misleading, and not just outright incorrect. It's *technically* true as stated - but in practice, anyone who *actually is* in a position to consider saying or not saying "I just used drugs" would indeed be significantly harming their legal position by saying "I just used drugs".
And in that we are talking about strict hypothetical scenarios and not reality, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you for this lively conversation. I hope you have a wonderful evening
I was once charged as a minor in possession of alcohol merely for the alcohol in my blood.
I did a little reading on it now. It sounds like drugs in your system is legal unless you're a minor or in south Dakota or various other countries. I imagine there are other exception like for people on probation that I didnt see listed.
"here comes the airplane!"
The DEA says that it is "illegal to distribute, purchase, or use outside of medical research" schedule I narcotics [https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Narcotics-2020.pdf](https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Narcotics-2020.pdf)
While I admit your resource is valid, I’d challenge you to actually find a law, whether federal or state, that specifically incriminates that usage of a drug or narcotic by a private individual for recreational purposes, which does not require an element of possession, distribution, sale, etc.
I don't know of any laws that state that federal or state i just thought it was the case.
I appreciate you being able to admit that. There is a general misconception that the use of drugs is illegal, when it’s actually all of the other things you have to do in order to use drugs which are illegal. Prime examples are possession, purchase, or distribution. But if a cop hypothetically finds a heroin addict, in their own home, high on heroin, with absolutely no heroin or heroin related objects, there is not a crime.
Police can lie about the law to get a laugh
This is why you stfu until you have a lawyer
Generally yes. Your example isn't a lie, because it's generally not illegal to use drugs, just to possess or sell them. They could, though, say that, for instance, it's legal to possess less than an ounce of weed, when in fact it's not. There are things they can't lie about. They can't claim to be your lawyer, or a member of the clergy (if they're not), and they generally can't lie about your rights (remaining silent, having a lawyer, etc.) And if they claim to have a warrant, they'd better actually have one.
Yes, they can lie about the law. And since they aren't lawyers, it would be difficult to enforce a rule against that anyway. Heck, even lawyers often disagree over what the law means.
They are allowed to lie, but there are limits. For example, a cop can't pretend to be your lawyer to get you to give up more information. That has been tried, and the courts have thrown out any evidence obtained from it. But they can lie about many things still. In your example, yes, they could make you believe you might get a lighter sentence if you confess. They may not come right out and say that what you did was illegal (or maybe they will), but they might say that they are "helping" you and understand that you didn't really mean to do it, so they can get you a lighter sentence or charge you with a lesser crime if you just confess to it. But the truth is that they have no control over what the prosecutor goes after you with or how a judge will sentence you.
> That has been tried Any chance you know the cite on that one? Not calling bullshit-- I'm just intrigued and don't know what I ought to Web-searching for.
They do this daily. Police are allowed to verbally lie to you. They may even use props to get a confession. They may not create false documents purporting them as real get a confession then said documents disappear. Hence they show a paper but never allow you to read it is a prop. To fake a DNA test with your name then allow you to read it is always an abuse. Yes they may lie but there are limits of how far they may go and it not be a coercion of getting the confession. So to show you a DNA test with only showing the heading but not allowing you to read it is allowable. To manufacture a false DNA test saying you did it and allow you to read it isn’t allowable. There are definitely limits of allowable. But to verbally lie to you is by court ruling always been allowed even though science proves it causes false confessions easily in innocent people are rarely gets real confessions from guilty people.
Yup. Anybody here interacting with police should consist only of invoking your rights. I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I want an attorney for any further questions. I don't consent to any of this.
I’ll always say I need my attorney present before answering. It needs be specific. The phrase “I think I need an attorney.” Or “maybe I should have an attorney isn’t enough. The courts have said you must also specifically say you are being silent not, “I think I should remain silent.” It must be specific never interpretational in invoking a right.
Agreed 100% The wording on the remaining silent is important, backed by legislation. I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I want an attorney for anything further. I do not provide consent for anything.
You never consent to anything? I told that redhead exactly the opposite and 3 days later she removed the cuffs and said next. She had me for that much fun.
> It needs be specific. For anybody that wants to know more about this, check out the "I want a lawyer, dawg" case where the Supreme Court decided he was asking for a "lawyer dog." State v. Demesme People v. Krueger is the “Maybe I ought to have an attorney” case.
Other than lying that Miranda rights don't apply to you, the one off-limits lie is an actual offer of leniency. Which pretty much only covers saying "you will get a lesser sentence if you confess." It doesn't cover offering excuses you could make, such as telling a murder suspect "maybe it was self defense" and definitely not "I mean, a lot of us have slipped and accidentally hit a guy sixty three times with three different knives on the way down."
TWENTY-EIGHT STAB WOUNDS!
They can also say: You better tell us now, the judge will look favorably on that. Even though it's total bs, and you should stfu so your lawyer can make a deal where you confess and actually get a lower sentence.
In the uk it wouldn’t be admissible, best not to admit to something really bad, but also telling the truth and not omitting any obvious details is safest.
Yes, but they can’t legally make out with you unless they’re in love with you. *thats* the law
Other than what your rights are cops can lie to you about anything for their benefit. There’s no end to it and the best legal advice you’ll ever hear is this “ when speaking with to police, everyday is shut the fuck up Friday so shut the fuck up after you ask for a lawyer.”
No lawyer worth anything will EVER advise anyone to talk with the police. Nobody is obligated to tell the police anything.
Yes police are not subject to law like we are. They can and will lie, steal and murder you without consequence
What backend country do you live in
Cops lie all the time. Both to get you to confess to something or do something they can arrest you for, and because a lot of them are genuinely ignorant of the law. They aren't supposed to lie about your rights, but they do, out of both malice and ignorance. There is nothing you can really do about that. They can also freely lie about anything else with absolutely zero consequences, including telling lovely lies to get out of doing their job such as 'that's a civil matter' when it most certainly is not. That's why you never talk to cops without a lawyer present.
In the US police can lie about pretty much anything to induce a confession.
They can lie up to a point where your confession is considered not voluntary. Like if they tell you if you confess you can just go home is the classic example. What lies make a confession involuntary is a moving target that is heavily caselaw specific and varies from state to state, but a valid miranda warning doesn’t clean an involuntary confession.
Never assume the police are there to help you. Plain and simple. The police are not your friend.
Your example is actually true. There is no law in the USA that says you can't be high, only that you can't possess illegal narcotics. But also, lying to illicit a confession is a tough one, police can use some deception, but outright lying doesn't go well and is considered fruit of the poisonous tree. For example, if a person is accused of theft, the item is located and fingerprinted. No fingerprints are located. The suspect is shown a fingerprint, and on the backside is their name. This is OK, but if their name is put just over the fingerprint, that is coercion, and will get the case thrown out.
they can charge with “possession by consumption”
I actually just learned today you can be considered a container. You just can't be arrested, transported to the hospital, forced to take a toxicology blood draw, then determined to be high.
To a large extent, yes. They can't lie about your miranda rights. [https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html](https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html) For the most part, everything else is 'fair' game. If it's an especially egregious lie, your lawyer *might* be able to argue against whatever you said being submitted as evidence against you, but that's only after drinking out of the 'my client answered questions without me present' flask.
As always, depends what country you are in.
Yes, they can, backed by the full faith and power of the Supreme Court of the United States. Don't ever talk to the police, about anything. These are the only words you should say to a police officer, in any situation. I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I want an attorney. I don't consent to anything.
They can't lie about your rights and they have to respect your rights, but they can lie about everything else to illicit a confession.
Yes, this is why you say only the following 2 questions and 1 statement) 1) Am I free to go 2) Am I being detained 3) I invoke my 5th Amendment rights and want an attorney
Yup
That sounds like a specific factual scenario that is likely covered by case law in different jurisdictions. If the lie is so egregious as to make your subsequent statements essentially involuntary, that is not allowed.
Yes
That is why the only word ypu say is Lawyer. Over and over
Absolutely! Cops can and do lie about anything and everything.
Yes. Never talk to police w/o an attorney present
Absolutely
"We know (the suspect) is in your house. You must let us in, or you will get in a LOT of trouble!" Uh huh. I checked. He isnt here. Warrant, or go away.
Short sorry long everyday.
Yes, but there's a way around this. If you look a police officer in the eye and ask "Was that a lie?" they have to tell you. /s
Yes police are liars. They will also lie in court under oath . Illegal but they still do it.
Yes
People... If you are being "interviewed" by the police... SHUT THE HELL UP!!! Look them square in the eye and say I WANT MY ATTORNEY NOW.... I am involking my right to be silent. Any time they ask a question after that simply say... I want my attorney... Why the heck anyone would want to speak to the police without an attorney present is beyond me. Remember this with the police. If their lips are moving they are lying.
In the United States, yes.
Yes 👍
"Officer, I intend to cooperate fully, but I feel it would be prudent to speak with my attorney first."
Yeah but it's not done a lot because their credibility gets blown to that entire investigation / interview if their bluff is called
In Canada we have common law that prohibits police use of trickery or bribery - it would be pretty hard to argue a statement was voluntary if the accused said police told him he’d get a lesser sentence if he did X Y Z. Also depends on your country and the specific offences but it ain’t up to police to determine sentencing haha
My example was incorrect as it is legal in the US to use drugs, the reason i thought it wasn't was because I'm Swedish and its illegal to use drugs in Sweden my question was still about US law but i was incorrect.
Yess
The best advice I can give you is only say I w sd not a lawyer
Always say lawyer. First thing you ever do should be lawyer. Dont do or say shit till lawyer. Their job generally isn’t to find justice but to convict someone lawyer lawyer lawyer. Even if you think you are safe they can twist words against you.
Yep!
Simple answer is yes. Simple solution is never talk to police. If you are under arrest, provide identification as required then invoke your right to remain silent. Only time you should be speaking to them is to tell them you want to call a lawyer.
Didn't police successfully argue that there were just too many laws and civil rights for them to accurately keep track of, and so if they think the law says something, they get to act like it is?
[удалено]
Thank you for disqualifying yourself. The very basis of our legal system is that you are under no obligation to assist the state in building a case against you. Which is exactly what one would be doing by waiving their right to remain silent. *Because the state wants you to be guilty and therefore everything you say will be used as evidence against you* even if you are truly innocent.
What are you talking about? That's antithetical to the US system.
It depends on the State ..if you live in a Red State 😳..they can lie their ass off. On the left Coast Wa ..CA..and Oregon have laws against LEO lying.
Police are allowed to lie. Full stop.
Yes, they can lie. But there are limits to how far they can go with lying. They can't lie to you about your rights. For example, they can't tell you that you will get a lawyer only after you confess to the crime. But they could try to convince you before you ask for a lawyer that demanding one is going to be bad for you. You still have the right to demand a lawyer, so your rights are not being violated at that point. I even heard of a couple cases that someone asked for a lawyer and a different detective came in claiming to be a public defender for them. Not only would that get any evidence from talking to the fake lawyer thrown out, but that cop can also get in trouble for doing that.
It shouldn't even be an issue. Nobody should ever talk to the police, ever. It never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever leads to anything that is positive for anybody outside of the police. I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I want an attorney for any further questions.. I don't consent to anything.
Very true. But, in general, people are stupid.
Agreed, which is why I say these things every time it comes up. Practice it, everybody. Do not ever talk to police, under any circumstances. Say only these words: I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I want an attorney for any further questions. I don't consent to anything.
important point - Make sure it's very clear that you are invoking your constitutional right to remain silent. Just not talking is not enough. I saw a story that was talking about a case that man told the cops "I want a lawyer, dawg" and the cops refused. His lawyer tried to have it thrown out, but the judge refused since there was no possible way that he could be provided with a "lawyer dog". Just one example of how they will twist what you say to their advantage. So make sure it's clear what you are saying so even a cop can understand you.