Speaking to police prior to being arrested

[Papi-C]

I've been watching cops a lot lately and many times I'll notice the LEO's asking the perp a bunch of questions and then arresting him. Is what was said prior to being mirandized admissible in court? Do you have the right to remain silent prior to being arrested?

[berkeleycarlos]

Custody plus interrogation requires Miranda.

[}Dragon{]

I've been watching cops a lot lately and many times I'll notice the LEO's asking the perp a bunch of questions and then arresting him. Is what was said prior to being mirandized admissible in court? Do you have the right to remain silent prior to being arrested?

An Officer may conduct an interview/investigation w/o having someone in custody. What the person of interest says, may land them in jail, however if the person is not in custody, Miranda does not apply. Custody boils down to in simple terms "not free to leave".

Understanding Miranda v Arizona and how it is implemented is a bit on the complex side. Read this if you want some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_law

Unless you have lived under a rock for the last 30 years, I'd venture to say 99.5% of the US population knows that "they don't have to talk to the po-leece".

[monstermonster]

Is what was said prior to being mirandized admissible in court? Do you have the right to remain silent prior to being arrested?

The second question is much easier than the first. The answer to the second question is "yes." You always have the right to remain silent, regardless of whether an officer tell you about the right or not. It's the 5th amendment of the Constitution, i.e. "takin' the 5th".

The answer to the first question is complex and--like Dragon said--requires a fact-specific determination of whether you were in custody or not (which can be a different question from whether you were arrested) and an examination of how the questioning occurred and what questions were asked. All Miranda does is provide a bright-line. Once you are Mirandized, your statements can be used against you. Before you are Mirandized (and whether or not you are Mirandized), it depends.

[}Dragon{]

The second question is much easier than the first. The answer to the second question is "yes." You always have the right to remain silent, regardless of whether an officer tell you about the right or not. It's the 5th amendment of the Constitution, i.e. "takin' the 5th".

Keep in mind you are required to ID yourself. IOW If you are being asked to ID yourself, and you choose to "remain silent", do not pass go, do not collect $200.

The answer to the first question is complex and--like Dragon said--requires a fact-specific determination of whether you were in custody or not (which can be a different question from whether you were arrested) and an examination of how the questioning occurred and what questions were asked. All Miranda does is provide a bright-line. Once you are Mirandized, your statements can be used against you. Before you are Mirandized (and whether or not you are Mirandized), it depends.


The definition of custody is pretty wide IIRC. Just as an example let's say a Police Officer calls you on the phone and asks you questions regarding a crime you may have committed... you don't have custody.

Another example, where, while in custody, a suspect makes a spontaneous statement. You are standing over your dead wife, with a gun lying next to her. The Officer places you in handcuffs and as soon as the cuffs are on, you blurt out, "I didn't mean to kill her." That would be admissible.

Remember: These are simplified examples here and I am not up on current case law and the interpretation of Miranda V. Arizona

[Setwayz]

Best thing to do is keep your mouth shut and higher a lawyer. Don't try to talk your way out of it.

[Papi-C]

ITs okay I'm not asking for the gory case law details. The 2nd question was more important to me. Reading the LEO forum makes watching cops more interesting. Although the little speech every LEO makes at the beginning of their segment is kinda corny. Sounds more like a recruitment speech or a slogan. then again I could be wrong.

[Ironbutt]

Do not elaborate, answer the question. Police use persuasve techniques in order to get you to talk so you incriminate yourself. BTDT.

They're trained interrogators with years of experience; they're sneaky bastards. All sorts of things come into play.. Body language, speech so on and so on..

If your talking to a cop, he's making a case. Simple as that, it's what they do for a living. Gather evidence. Don't ever forget that. Miranda rights read or not.. I wouldn't even bother saying "I plead the 5th.." Say nothing.. simple as that.

"Military bearing" helps thwart even the most persuasive interrogation.. BTW

Chris Rock said it best..
1. Shut the fuck up.
2. Don't ride with a mad woman.
3. Turn that shit down.

[Papi-C]

WHat is "military bearing"

[berkeleycarlos]

WHat is "military bearing"

Its the BB's that keep you in line.
J/k.

It means maintain military or military like discipline. Don't get heated or argue and respect the persons authority.

[2strokeYardSale]

Excercising your right to remain silent pisses them off, or at least irks them.

[Papi-C]

Do not elaborate, answer the question. Police use persuasve techniques in order to get you to talk so you incriminate yourself. BTDT.

They're trained interrogators with years of experience; they're sneaky bastards. All sorts of things come into play.. Body language, speech so on and so on..


http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation.htm

I'm learning.

[}Dragon{]

Best thing to do is keep your mouth shut and higher a lawyer. Don't try to talk your way out of it.

You'd be way better off to hire an Attorney...:laughing

Although the little speech every LEO makes at the beginning of their segment is kinda corny. Sounds more like a recruitment speech or a slogan. then again I could be wrong.

This is an oldie but a goodie; watch this and tell me what you think: http://www.theforce.net/fanfilms/shortfilms/troops/

Some of the crap they get the guys to say is just :wtf. But quoting Eric Cartman, "You just have to take it one day at a time..."

[Ironbutt]

Its the BB's that keep you in line.
J/k.

It means maintain military or military like discipline. Don't get heated or argue and respect the persons authority.

It's all that plus a good poker face. To elaborate...

This way it's possible to show respect without giving up to much; some misinterpret 'bearing' as being submissive but only to those who do not understand the delicate balance of power involved in an interrogation.

It's actually quite opposite and possible to frustrate the interrogator into loosing his cool. And then you win.. on that front.. cause they're trying to do the same thing to you.

CHECK MATE! Now what... Change interrogators.

[Papi-C]

It's all that plus a good poker face. To elaborate...

This way it's possible to show respect without giving up to much; some misinterpret 'bearing' as being submissive but only to those who do not understand the delicate balance of power involved in an interrogation.

It's actually quite opposite and possible to frustrate the interrogator into loosing his cool. And then you win.. on that front.. cause they're trying to do the same thing to you.

CHECK MATE! Now what... Change interrogators.

Like this?

http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/interrog.html

[2strokeYardSale]

It's actually quite opposite and possible to frustrate the interrogator into loosing his cool.
Yes and now you've got an upset guy with a gun and no accountability getting violent with you. BTDT.

[Ironbutt]

Yes and now you've got an upset guy with a gun and no accountability getting violent with you. BTDT.

So what.. They want you to think they have no accountability.. Keep your cool... call it round two.. DING DING.. interrogator 0- Your freedom- 1 What's he gonna do, kill you? Not if he wants the info you have..

It's a game.. play the game. intimidation is part of it. Unless your a bottom.. don't lay down.

It'd be a different story though.. if they were shocking my balls like they did to Santa, last night, on south park..

[SpeedyCorky]

Like this?

http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/interrog.html


cliff notes for that link:

If they *attempt* to interview/interrogate you....simply STFU.



so simple, yet so true.

:laughing

[Mad Mac]

Dragon you are dead on in your case law. I know as I am in court everyday pretty much all day. That is how the questions are asked and it is how they better be answered or you will blow your case all to hell.

[Rel]

Very rarely do I give Miranda once I've placed someone under arrest. Once I make the arrest, I should have all I need to support my charges.

Also, just because you are detained, does not mean Miranda comes into play. Detention, and transportation ie: taken to the office for questioning, is an arrest.

[magyarbetyar]

An Officer may conduct an interview/investigation w/o having someone in custody. What the person of interest says, may land them in jail, however if the person is not in custody, Miranda does not apply. Custody boils down to in simple terms "not free to leave".



Not quite. You can be detained (not free to leave) and Miranda will still not apply. Not until you say the magic words "you are under arrest" only then will Miranda apply.

[}Dragon{]

Not quite. You can be detained (not free to leave) and Miranda will still not apply. Not until you say the magic words "you are under arrest" only then will Miranda apply.


Steve- I was just trying to over simplify it a bit. The other thing is that it comes down to is the DAs idea of custody and how the DA wants Miranda implemented. That varies county to county and state to state.

[NorCalBusa]

I find the entire "detained" v. "arrested" kind of silly. If you are detained, you clearly are under arrest- it's only afterwards they choose to let your ass go. Don't believe it? Go ahead and resist "detainment" and see what PC section you get slapped with...bet it begins with 148.

[}Dragon{]

I find the entire "detained" v. "arrested" kind of silly. If you are detained, you clearly are under arrest- it's only afterwards they choose to let your ass go. Don't believe it? Go ahead and resist "detainment" and see what PC section you get slapped with...bet it begins with 148.

148 is not just "resisting arrest". It can be applied to resisting a legal detention.

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical
technician...

[NorCalBusa]

That's my point. It's useless semantics- if the cops have grabbed you up (or are chasing you down), the actual term (be it detention or arrest) don't mean shit in the practical world. For all intents, your ass is getting "arrested". I put "person of interest" in the same silly club- you're a frookin suspect, they'll grab you up as soon as they find your sorry ass, and everyone knows it.

Hey- if "detained" was the right word- they'd put you up at the Marriot while they sort things out, not CJ.

[monstermonster]

Not until you say the magic words "you are under arrest" only then will Miranda apply.

Not quite. Miranda generally doesn't apply during a Terry stop or a routine traffic stop. But there can be situations where someone is detained where Miranda would apply even where they haven't heard the magic words yet.

NorCalBusa, you're going to have to blame the Supreme Court for that semantic difference between detention and arrest.

[NorCalBusa]

Monster- I can do that! It's a change from blaming the 9th Circ, but I'll manage...

[T-1 Thunder]

Most of what you've seen probably renders miranda rights irrelevant. Why? Because most of the time, with things like public intox - what you say matters ZERO. If you're under arrest based on what they got, they don't need your words. It's not a murder trail, is it? ;)

[JPM]

That's my point. It's useless semantics- if the cops have grabbed you up (or are chasing you down), the actual term (be it detention or arrest) don't mean shit in the practical world. For all intents, your ass is getting "arrested". I put "person of interest" in the same silly club- you're a frookin suspect, they'll grab you up as soon as they find your sorry ass, and everyone knows it.

Hey- if "detained" was the right word- they'd put you up at the Marriot while they sort things out, not CJ.

Not true at all. There have been plenty of times I have detained someone legally and found out they were not involved from the investigation. They were not arrested and went on their way. Just last night I stopped a small silver car speeding away from a bar where units were responding to a fight call and the RP described the suspect in the same type of car. Turns out they were not involved in the fright but leaving to get away from the problem. They told me their side of the story, confirmed by other officer arriving at the bar, and they were on their way. If they chose not to say anything it would have been a lot longer and more involved before they were determined not to be involved.

[NorCalBusa]

Not true at all. There have been plenty of times I have detained someone legally and found out they were not involved from the investigation. They were not arrested and went on their way. Just last night I stopped a small silver car speeding away from a bar where units were responding to a fight call and the RP described the suspect in the same type of car. Turns out they were not involved in the fright but leaving to get away from the problem. They told me their side of the story, confirmed by other officer arriving at the bar, and they were on their way. If they chose not to say anything it would have been a lot longer and more involved before they were determined not to be involved.

So John, what would you have done if they said, "no comment, we weren't involved" and proceeded to leave before you were done investigating?

[JPM]

So John, what would you have done if they said, "no comment, we weren't involved" and proceeded to leave before you were done investigating?


They would have gotten arrested for resisting and obstruction and on-going investigation. So you can clearly see the difference between a detention and an arrest. They were detained for probable cause for an investigation, found not to be involved, and on their way. Had they resisted and obstructed then THEY would have change it to a crime and now an arrest can be made. So there is clearly a difference between a detention and an arrest.

[NorCalBusa]

"I un-arrest thee, un-arrest thee, un-arrest thee"! It's semantics all the way... Not clear how they would have been guilty of obstruction, if they had no information and weren't involved...It seems all about timing to me- detention/arrest: the cop is deciding in the field. Arrest/Go to trial: the DA is deciding a little later in the process.

[Razel]

So John, what would you have done if they said, "no comment, we weren't involved" and proceeded to leave before you were done investigating?

Not clear how they would have been guilty of obstruction, if they had no information and weren't involved...
Just by their leaving before he's finished, they're "obstructing". He needs to indicate they are free to leave (meaning he's done with that part of the investigation)
They could have said "no comment, we weren't involved" only to have the officer say "Wait here". They're still detained, but not under arrest.

[n10sive]

Something that hasn't been mentioned...and this was done to my brother. He went to jail, and to get him to sign a confession, the DA put out a bogus story in the jail and had the inmates kick his ass. Then he offered to protect my brother and move him to another jail if he confessed. My bro signed a bogus confession and is now serving a horrendously long sentence :(

True shit...don't come to Nevada for justice. This ass clown is now sitting judge in the same podunk county and he got there using techniques like this. The really sucky part was that the DA was the judge that got to hear my bro's appeal and DENIED it. Supreme court ruled with the DA/Judge.

[silversvs]

I've been watching cops a lot lately and many times I'll notice the LEO's asking the perp a bunch of questions and then arresting him. Is what was said prior to being mirandized admissible in court? Do you have the right to remain silent prior to being arrested?

Keep in mind that what you are seeing is edited and cut down to make for interesting TV. I would imagine that many times, the officers have advised the suspect of Miranda befor questioning them, but the editors only show the questioning.

Lots of correct answers in this thread regarding detention vs arrest and when Miranda applies.

If there is custody (arrest) and interrogation then there must be Miranda. If either is missing then no Miranda requirements. Interrogation is questions that should elicit an answer that can incriminate. Simply asking someone to identify themselves, where they live, etc is not interrogation.

[NorCalBusa]

Would you consider "detention" to be custody Silversvs?
(Since one isn't free to leave without specific LEO permission according to Razel and JPM. I've stated how I feel about it)

[Bad Santa]

Would you consider "detention" to be custody Silversvs?
(Since one isn't free to leave without specific LEO permission according to Razel and JPM. I've stated how I feel about it)

How you "feel about it" is basically irrelevant. The principle of investigative detention is well-established case law which was decided by the Supreme Court a long time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

"Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when a police officer stopped a suspect on the street and searched him without probable cause to arrest.

"The Court held that police may briefly detain a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."

[motorman4life]

Would you consider "detention" to be custody Silversvs?
(Since one isn't free to leave without specific LEO permission according to Razel and JPM. I've stated how I feel about it)
This is considered a gray area. It really depends upon what measures were employed to effect the detention. You could "feel" detained and not be. You could be detained and not feel as if you are not free to leave.

Detentions could range from two guys (a cop and a detainee) standing on a street corner chatting to... sitting in the back seat of a police car wearing handcuffs (this is called a restrained detention). Generally, if the officer has not said or done anything to make you feel you are IN CUSTODY, then it is not considered a custodial situation. If they lay hands on someone, take their ID and hold it, tell them they are not free to leave or not free to talk to the other detainees or use their cell phone... then it is on the police to OVERCOME that in court if they asked interrogative questions after they had done something that could have reasonably made the detainee feel they were in custody.

For example, I stop a car load of 5 gang-bangers (ages 17-20) and smell pot in the car. I call for backup and get the kids out and separate them. I ask each one if they have a pot card. They all say they don't have a pot card (which I find incredible nowadays.. if you are a pot head, you should either get a fucking medical marijuana card or give up the herb, but that's another topic).

I pat each one for weapons and pull pot and meth (packaged for sales) off one kid (the right rear passenger). I search the driver's compartment and find another much larger bag of meth and some unidentified tablets (maybe X) in a vinyl tool kit in the driver's side forward map pocket. At this point, if I plan on questioning the kids, I need to consider which, if any, of these kids may reasonably feel that they are in custody and what any of the officers have said or done to make that so.

All of them were patted down. I explained to each one before patting them down that I was patting them for weapons and that they were NOT under arrest. Each one acknowledged that they understood. When I pulled the drugs off of the passenger, he was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car without further explanation. So.. clearly, he would feel he is in custody.. because he is. So, if I plan on questioning him further, he will need to have his rights read to him.

As for the other 4, they know they are not free to go. I know this due to the fact that I have been telling them where to sit/stand, where to keep their hands. I also told them not to talk to each other, not to smoke and not to use their phones. So, if I plan to question these kids, I need to ensure it is clear to each of them that they are not in custody (need to overcome the things that have been done (cumulatively) to make them reasonably feel they are in custody). So, I'll pull the right/front passenger aside, complete an FI (field interview) card and tell him he is not under arrest and free to leave. I ask him if he understands, then I may attempt to ask questions about the meth and pills found in the car. I do this with each of the others, ending with the driver. In all likelihood, I'm going to arrest the driver for the drugs concealed next to his position, in his car. So, I may handle it a bit different than the others. But, I will likely give him an opportunity to attempt to explain away or admit to the dope before I decide whether he is going into custody.

Keep in mind, there may be other things at play here that were not considered for the example, but are a factor on the street; the license status of the driver, status of the vehicle (stolen?), warrants and/or probation/parole status of all parties, other items found (weapons?) and of course, attitudes.

Hopefully this did not raise more questions than it answered. :teeth


How you "feel about it" is basically irrelevant. The principle of investigative detention is well-established case law which was decided by the Supreme Court a long time ago.
"Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when a police officer stopped a suspect on the street and searched him without probable cause to arrest.
The "how you feel about it" part pertains to non-Miranda questioning. Terry v. Ohio says you can search w/o PC to arrest. That does not change the fact that this non-PC search could result in some actions that would lead a reasonable person to BELIEVE they are in custody when they are not. Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations. If you are not in custody, then it does not apply. If things have been done to make you FEEL you are in custody, then in-effect, you cannot be questioned without a Miranda warning. OTOH, if the police consider what may have been done to make you FEEL you were in custody, then they make an effort to OVERCOME those things and make it clear you ARE NOT in custody, then they can question outside Miranda.

[monstermonster]

How a reasonable person (not that particular person) "feels" about it is critical for the purposes of Miranda.

All this talk about how you "feel" is not because of reading too many self-help books. The reason it makes a difference is because the idea behind Miranda is based on how someone would feel if they were interrogated while in custody. They don't feel like they can leave, feel like they HAVE to answer your question and feel like they don't have the right to remain silent. So, the Supreme Court came up with Miranda to remedy what they consider an inherently coercive situation. It tells people that they can STFU if they want. As MM4L made clear, if an officer tells you that you are free to leave, it is less likely that it will be considered an inherently coercive situation (i.e. a custodial interrogation).

And because we're on a moto-forum, here's the Supreme Court re Miranda and routine traffic stops. Keep in mind it still depends on the facts of each case. In 1984, in Berkemer v. McCarty, the Supreme Court said that a routine traffic stop does not require Miranda because the dude was not in custody. Here's what the Supreme Court said:

"Two features of an ordinary traffic stop mitigate the danger that a person questioned will be induced "to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely," Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S., at 467 . First, detention of a motorist pursuant to a traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief. The vast majority of roadside detentions last only a few minutes. A motorist's expectations, when he sees a policeman's light flashing behind him, are that he will be obliged to spend a short period of time answering questions and waiting while the officer checks his license and registration, that he may then be given a citation, but that in the end he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way. In this respect, questioning incident to an ordinary traffic stop is quite different from stationhouse interrogation, which frequently is prolonged, and in which the detainee often is aware that questioning will continue until he provides his interrogators the answers they seek. See id., at 451.

Second, circumstances associated with the typical traffic stop are not such that the motorist feels completely at the mercy of the police. To be sure, the aura of authority surrounding an armed, uniformed officer and the knowledge that the officer has some discretion in deciding whether to issue a citation, in combination, exert some pressure on the detainee to respond to questions. But other aspects of the situation substantially offset these forces. Perhaps most importantly, the typical traffic stop is public, at least to some degree. Passersby, on foot or in other cars, witness the interaction of officer and motorist. This exposure to public view both reduces the ability of an unscrupulous policeman to use illegitimate means to elicit self-incriminating statements and diminishes the motorist's fear that, if he does not cooperate, he will be subjected to abuse. The fact that the detained motorist typically is confronted by only one or at most two policemen further mutes his sense of vulnerability. In short, the atmosphere surrounding an ordinary traffic stop is substantially less "police dominated" than that surrounding the kinds of interrogation at issue in Miranda itself, see 384 U.S., at 445 , 491-498, and in the subsequent cases in which we have applied Miranda."

[n10sive]

So in some of these videos floating around the net of motorists being tazered....how does this fall into play?

Cop: Sign the ticket
Motorist: No
Cop: Get out of the car
Motorist: Why?
Cop: Get out of the car!
Motorist: What did I do?
Cop: Get out of the car!!!
(escalation of force).

So for whatever reason, an officer demands you get out of the car, are you in custody? required to get out of the car?

Curious....

Thanks for all the good replies too guys....

[motorman4life]

So in some of these videos floating around the net of motorists being tazered....how does this fall into play?

Cop: Sign the ticket
Motorist: No
Cop: Get out of the car
Motorist: Why?
Cop: Get out of the car!
Motorist: What did I do?
Cop: Get out of the car!!!
(escalation of force).

So for whatever reason, an officer demands you get out of the car, are you in custody? required to get out of the car?

Curious....

Thanks for all the good replies too guys....
In many agencies an ERD (electronic restraint device, such as a tazer or stun gun) and chemical spray (such as mace or pepper spray) are considered to be a level of force below impact weapons (baton) and in many cases they are considered to be below pain-compliance holds, which are a part of hands-on. In some cases, they are considered the next level of force above verbal commands. In cases where the officer is outsized and/or outnumbered, he may preclude the use of hands-on (as a ground fight may not only put him/her at a tactical disadvantage, but it may encourage or ultimately allow the use of his or her own weapons against them. By keeping distance, they keep the door to retreat open and also are in a position to communicate with cover or dispatch via radio vs. a situation where they get into a ground fight and are likely to lose communications and may end up surrendering or losing control of tools that can be employed against them.

So, the officer needs to decide whether to escalate and always keep a back-up plan ready. They have no legal or moral obligation to back down. So, once the offender offers resistance or shows aggression, they should choose and use the lowest level of force available to neutralize the threat, precluding any lower levels of force, as they may deem them impractical, potentially ineffective or may create an undue hazard to the officer, innocent bystanders, possible co-conspirators (passengers, friends and sympathizers) and the offender.

As for your example, you would need to direct me to a specific video if you want me to comment upon the reasoning behind the officer’s actions. This is really getting off-topic a bit, so I’d ask that if you want to discuss a video that you start a new thread and post the link in the initial post.

As for detention vs. arrest/custody. It is a fine line. There are different expectations as to what the officer needs to escalate a detention into an arrest. “Probable cause” is needed to make the arrest where mere “reasonable suspicion” is needed for a detention. A traffic stop for an infraction violation is recognized as a detention because an infraction is not usually an arrest-able offense and you will be detained for a reasonable time, until the citation (promise to appear) is signed. If a person refuses to sign a ticket, then they are escalating the situation by committing a new crime, a misdemeanor. Their refusal changes the situation from a detention to an arrest, because as mentioned previously, their promise to appear (signature) is required for their release. Without a signature, they must be taken into custody. They are effectively MAKING the officer arrest them because they are refusing to do the one thing asked of them that would free them from the lawful detention and in doing so, they are committing a new crime, for which they must be arrested. That does not preclude the officer from trying to reason with the person at the scene before they make the arrest. I have had many people refuse to sign initially, but once I explain to them what they are doing, they relent and sign. If, in trying to explain, a person became belligerent or aggressive, I would not hesitate to take them into custody immediately. If they offered resistance to the lawful arrest, then I would be making decisions on the fly as to what level of force I would use to respond to their actual or perceived resistance.

I hope this answers your questions.

[n10sive]

thanks for the answer! Your last paragraph is exactly what I was looking for. I didn't want to get into a debate on a particular video (ugh) that is why I didn't post one up. It was more the situation that you described "I won't sign" and what that does to 'level' of confinement/arrest. You explained it perfectly :thumbup

Thanks!

FYI, My son is an officer in the PNW in a gang infested part of town. He manages to get into his fair share of 'escalations' and I always fear for him in the physical ones that he has not had a choice in using 'distance' techniques (jumped from behind, people not leaving vehicles, PCP heads etc). There are some real losers out there :(

[saizai]

NorCalBusa - True neither way you're free to go, but there's one big difference between "detained" and "arrested": search.

Detain = patdown for weapons only, no followup for anything (e.g. crack pipes) that isn't a suspected weapon or it gets tossed as "fruit of the poison tree"

Arrest = full search

[saizai]

So, once the offender offers resistance or shows aggression, they should choose and use the lowest level of force available to neutralize the threat...

I find it telling, and disturbing, that you find it so easy to equate "resistance" with "threat".

Not complying with orders (e.g. wanting to know why one is being ordered to get out of one's car and not getting out until told) is not the same as a threat. It's this sort of mentality that leads to people spraying peaceful sit-down protesters with pepper spray, tazering to get 'em to move, etc.

What justification is there to use potentially lethal and certainly very painful force (tazers) on someone who is not in fact an actual *threat* to the safety of the person using it or their friends?

True shit...don't come to Nevada for justice. This ass clown is now sitting judge in the same podunk county and he got there using techniques like this. The really sucky part was that the DA was the judge that got to hear my bro's appeal and DENIED it. Supreme court ruled with the DA/Judge.

AIUI you're saying that the DA who convicted your friend later became the judge that heard his appeal?

You must have had an incompetent lawyer to not have had a change of jurisdiction for probable judicial bias. Judges aren't supposed to be involved in anything that affects them or their prior lives personally. Y'know, the whole hypothetical neutral objectivity thing.

[n10sive]

You must have had an incompetent lawyer to not have had a change of jurisdiction for probable judicial bias.

Was a funny scene, the PD for my brother standing there, the DA and the judge. Flash forward 6 weeks and the PD was sitting in that judges seat, the presiding judge moved up to district and the DA got the seat for a newly formed district. They were all friends. My bro tried to get a new PD but it was denied. Tried to bring all this up via appeal and it was like 'tough shit' :shocker

So just remember, when you come to Nevada, and you visit the county that has the brothels, DON'T get in any trouble.

[Razel]

I find it telling, and disturbing, that you find it so easy to equate "resistance" with "threat".It's a threat when you try to cuff a PCP-influenced individual who doesn't want to be cuffed. Even though it's only "resistance"
Not complying with orders (e.g. wanting to know why one is being ordered to get out of one's car and not getting out until told) is not the same as a threat. It's this sort of mentality that leads to people spraying peaceful sit-down protesters with pepper spray, tazering to get 'em to move, etc.Compliance is required. Refusal to follow instructions is the same as a "threat". That's the way our society has it set up.
What justification is there to use potentially lethal and certainly very painful force (tazers) on someone who is not in fact an actual *threat* to the safety of the person using it or their friends?..."potentially lethal" is a stretch. Yeah, maybe in extreme circumstances, but the tazer isn't considered lethal. Painful? Yeah, its side affect is painful. The purpose is to give the officer the abilty to control the situation without the non-compliant individual being injured.

You have to keep in mind that saying "No" to getting out of your car isn't an option you have when told to "get out of the car"

A peaceful sit-in doesn't mean you get to sit where you want when you're not supposed to be sitting there. The cops with the pepper spray and the tazers aren't spraying and tazing because they like it. It's their job...they've been given those instructions by...ultimately...us. We voted that they do that job that way.

[saizai]

It's a threat when you try to cuff a PCP-influenced individual who doesn't want to be cuffed.

WTF? That's a really inappropriate overextension of the example I gave. Please don't use BS red herrings.

Nothing I said indicated I'd be against tasing someone who is on PCP, acting violent or very probably violent, and refusing to cooperate with efforts to cool 'em down. I'm not.

Compliance is required. Refusal to follow instructions is the same as a "threat".

Again, I can only say that I find this extremely disturbing and totalitarian-state-like.

That's the way our society has it set up...."potentially lethal" is a stretch.

IIRC the recent thread about the tazer-shotgun described it as a "less lethal" weapon, not "non lethal".

Tazers are potentially lethal or permanently damaging to people with heart conditions, implanted devices, and/or neurological conditions. (And guess what? I'm one.)

Painful? Yeah, its side affect is painful.

"Side effect" my ass. That's one of the two primary effects. It's the reason you get compliance: because it hurts too much not to.

(The other is because you're not really capable of moving.)

The cops with the pepper spray and the tazers aren't spraying and tazing because they like it. It's their job.

I cannot accept "it's their job" as justification for why someone should do something. Look up "Milgram experiment" for why.


I perfectly understand that you feel that people should do what they ought to do. I'm cool with that and even agree to a point.

That point being quite simple: MM4L - and you - characterized actions other than ones that are actually a threat to someone's safety as justifying the use of potentially lethal, very painful force. I find that to be abominable. History just has an amazingly horrible track record on this.

[}Dragon{]

IIRC the recent thread about the tazer-shotgun described it as a "less lethal" weapon, not "non lethal".

Tazers are potentially lethal or permanently damaging to people with heart conditions, implanted devices, and/or neurological conditions. (And guess what? I'm one.)



If you have one of the listed conditions and it makes it more lethal, maybe you shouldn't put yourself into a position to get tased. You could always change your wardrobe: http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/donttasemebro/Male

That point being quite simple: MM4L - and you - characterized actions other than ones that are actually a threat to someone's safety as justifying the use of potentially lethal, very painful force. I find that to be abominable. History just has an amazingly horrible track record on this.

Before you label a Taser a "potentially lethal, very painful force", so is a PR-24. Living with two broken kneecaps and a busted elbow would be slightly more painful, than a Taser ride.

[Papi-C]

wow did this thread go off on a tangent. :Popcorn

[monstermonster]

That point being quite simple: MM4L - and you - characterized actions other than ones that are actually a threat to someone's safety as justifying the use of potentially lethal, very painful force.

Someone who refuses to obey an officer--yes, simple refusal--is a potential threat to that officer. Refusal may trigger the officer to move up the ladder in terms of what force, if any,they should use to gain compliance of the subject, control of the situation and eliminate any potential threat. If you think about it, it's a pretty simple rule that you're arguing against. Obey a command by a LEO or there will likely be escalation. Yes, you might even get tased.

If you don't like the fact that "compliance is required" or you think it is "totalitarian-state-like", you are welcome to lobby the legislature to change the law. But don't blame officers for it. And I guarantee that you wouldn't like living in a regime where people are free to ignore the commands of LEOs.

Did you really come into the LEO forum to pull a thread off-topic and give the LEOs shit because you have a heart condition and have an agenda about tasers?

[n10sive]

always heard it as ATM, ASK them, TELL them, MAKE them.

[Rel]

Can we get back to the point?? Please?

[saizai]

Attempting to bring things back on-topic:

There seems to be basically two, very different, strategies re talking.

1. STFU until you have your lawyer. Repeat the mantra "I don't consent to any search, I don't want to testify, I want my lawyer" until it happens.

Pro: Preserves your rights. Ought to prevent cops from interrogating you, at least once arrested. Makes it easier to win in court.

Con: Will probably piss off the cop and get you harassed, possibly in jail for a day or three, etc. Not fun. Might get you tazed.

2. Be nice, talk to the cops, try to get 'em to believe you're innocent.

Pro: Might get you off at the scene, no court. More enjoyable, less nasty feelings all 'round, less likely to get you tazed.

Con: Might get your ass convicted.


Best seems to be where you talk nice but actually STFU about anything important.

But then I've heard of people getting off e.g. a speed ticket when they admitted to the cop "yeah I was going 85 but I was doing it safely", and the cop let 'em off for being that cop's first honest person in the week.

I guess it depends on just how confident you are that you can be charismatic enough at the scene vs lawyery enough at court.

[}Dragon{]

Can we get back to the point?? Please?

Sorry- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc

[berkeleycarlos]

:laughing

[Rel]

Sorry- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc

LOL... thats good.

[Visions]

This is considered a gray area. It really depends upon what measures were employed to effect the detention. You could "feel" detained and not be. You could be detained and not feel as if you are not free to leave.


Somehow police having a "Gray" area doesnt exactly fill me with a feeling of safety. I have to agree with NorcalBusa on this one, its all semantics.

Laws shouldnt have a gray area, they should be transparent like the government. Sadly this isnt the case in America.


As for the OP, did you ticket the speeding silver car??:twofinger

[Razel]

Somehow police having a "Gray" area doesnt exactly fill me with a feeling of safety. I have to agree with NorcalBusa on this one, its all semantics.This grey area isn't something the participating police gave to themselves. Change has to come from the top down...

[timlexus]

Something I never - one of those articles you guys linked to says that the Supreme Courts allows a detective to basically lie to you during the interrogation. IE - we found you're blood in the bedroom, even if its not true.

The courts position is that an honest man wouldn't confess even with lies....
good topics fellows.


The article basically says:
1)Remain Silent
2)Remain Silent
3) Seek Counsel
4) Remain Silent

Even small talk is a bad idea as it then becomes harder to remain silent. The articles POV was those detectives aren't you're friend and they only have one objective, a signed Confession.

[RolnCode3]

Laws shouldnt have a gray area, they should be transparent like the government. Sadly this isnt the case in America.
It all stems from case law, which is about the interpretation of written laws and previous cases. There has to be a gray area unless a brightline rule is created. (I don't know if there's a difference between gray and grey, so I'll just go with the flow).

[JPM]

Even small talk is a bad idea as it then becomes harder to remain silent. The articles POV was those detectives aren't you're friend and they only have one objective, a signed Confession.

The objective is to get the truth and solve the crime. It is just as important to clear someone who is innocent.

[saizai]

The courts position is that an honest man wouldn't confess even with lies....

Which, unfortunately, is empirically false as demonstrated by plenty of social science experiments, starting with Asch et al & continuing to more direct reviews of actual (false) confessions...

With enough stress, disorientation, and good manipulation, you can get people to say damn near anything you want. And even to honestly believe it afterwards. You might be surprised at just how mutable human memory is, and how easy it is to plant false memories even for really disturbing things.

It is entirely possible (with the right techniques and enough time) to get an honest person to not just confess, but to be convinced that they did in fact kill someone when they didn't.

[RolnCode3]

Which is why you're supposed to get a defense attorney that argues it was not voluntarily obtained.

[timlexus]

Which, unfortunately, is empirically false as demonstrated

You are absoluetly correct. Which is why there are 2 main safe guards placed into effect. Prior to 1940 it was legal to actually beat/whip a confession out of a suspect as long as A) it didn't leave a mark B) suspect signed that it was 'voluntary'.

"Are you Guily"
"No"
Whip - smack

"Are you Guily"
"No"
Whip - smack

"Are you Guily"
"Yes"
What am i guily of again?

Second: Is that you not be deprived of Sleep/Food/Water during an integration (stems from a signed confession that a PD recieved after interrogating a suspect for 36 straight hours) that evidence later proved his innocents....

The fact that a court allows a detective to lie is amazing to me, I believe in the future this will be overturned but until then, remember your right to silence!

I'm curious to hear experiences from a LEO's POV regarding a suspect that just remains silent - what transpires?

There is actually a third one based on mental capacity - after reading some of the lunnie ideas from members here (other forums of course) just say your an active member of BARF and that will get any signed confession tossed out of court due to being retarded :laughing

Fascinating Subject Boys!

[saizai]

You are absoluetly correct. Which is why there are 2 main safe guards placed into effect. Prior to 1940 it was legal to actually beat/whip a confession out of a suspect as long as A) it didn't leave a mark B) suspect signed that it was 'voluntary'. (snip)

Indeed.

However, the research on which I base my comments is much more tame than the actual techniques used. None of that severe deprivation, no physical torture, not even the real pressures that are usable legally by real police. So these limitations are in no way sufficient to prevent the kind of memory manipulation that I described.

To do so, you would need to ban:
* any lying
* any coercion e.g. through different consequences, implied release if they confess and not if they don't, etc., that would encourage a false confession
* any interrogation without full audio/video recording
* leading questions
* "theme elaboration" (e.g. "so someone might have done this 'cause they were in a fit of rage...")
* confirmation/denial based interrogation (rather than open questions like "what happened on the night of x" and "tell me more about y")
* psuedoscientific "lie detectors" like polygraph (it's only a stress detector, and no way to discern "I raped her and am lying" vs "he thinks I'm lying about not raping her, though I'm innocent" vs "my sister got raped too" vs etc) (for research here, read Paul Ekman's excellent books on lying & lie detection)

One area of progress is in how detectives question children about sexual abuse, as this problem of memory mutability is particularly acute with kids. It's really disturbingly easy to plant a memory. So there's been some attention paid to developing more robust protocols for interrogating children so that a) the evidence stands up in court and b) you don't scar the child for life by implanting a memory of abuse that didn't actually happen. (Look up the "recovered memory" movement a couple decades ago for a widespread example of this happening IRL because of memory-changing techniques used quite innocently and sincerely by psychologists trying to help their clients.)

But people who aren't versed in the research on this tend to really grossly overestimate the amount of pressure required to fuck with someone's memory.

A related issue is that "voluntary" becomes a very... weird thing to tell. Think e.g. Stockholm syndrome, cult recruitment techniques, military & paramilitary indoctrination techniques [which includes police training], etc. Volition is mutable.

(Fun neurological fact: each time you recall something, you in a very real sense re-write your memory for that event. So if you recall it, and during that recall have your perception of that memory changed, it will be re-recorded differently.

In fact, there are certain drugs and equipment techniques [like TMS] that can make it so that if they are used at the moment of recall, they disrupt the re-encoding of that memory, and effectively wipe your memory for that particular item, or at least your emotional associations to that memory. Takes a couple reps to be totally wiped, but it's disturbingly effective. One of the scarier bits of research I've seen - susceptible to both very evil uses [brainwashing] and very healing ones [PTSD].)


(Sorry for the wordiness here. My major was in cognitive science, my doctorate will be in cognitive neuroscience, aaaand I've read up a fair amount about exactly this topic, so this has wandered into territory that's within my academic domain. :nerd)

[NorCalBusa]

Interesting stuff Sai. Let's move to the really important stuff- how do we make such influence on our dear LEO's when one is pulled over for (a few) moments of vehicular insanity?

[Rel]

Interesting stuff Sai. Let's move to the really important stuff- how do we make such influence on our dear LEO's when one is pulled over for (a few) moments of vehicular insanity?

Be polite.

Just be honest. Admit that you did something wrong. Ask for a warning, BEFORE the officer walks away to write the ticket.

Be polite.

Don't try to bullshit us. We know you did something wrong, or we wouldn't have taken the risk to stop you.

Be polite.

[NorCalBusa]

Be polite.

Just be honest. Admit that you did something wrong. Ask for a warning, BEFORE the officer walks away to write the ticket.

Be polite.

Don't try to bullshit us. We know you did something wrong, or we wouldn't have taken the risk to stop you.

Be polite.

No, no, no. I want the memory manipulation techniques he described, so that by the time I'm done with the LEO; he pays for a Starbucks gift certificate out of his pocket AND I get a "Get out of jail free" card...

"Be honest...don't bullshit"- priceless!:laughing

[saizai]

NCB - As you can see, Rel is advocating one of the two options I gave earlier, and you the other. ;)

In all seriousness, these memory manipulation techniques per se would be pretty hard to employ on police during a traffic stop. They have most of the power, are trained to be controlling, are quite probably recording these days, and are in what to them is a quasi-predatory, high-alert mode, specifically looking for someone trying to bullshit them, and it's a relatively quick situation - all of which are forces that act to prevent it. It's not like you can say some magic words to someone that make 'em remember stuff differently (which'd be cool, but scary). It's a matter of getting 'em to mistrust their own memory, and that takes time and/or subtle kinds of pressure.

Sorry, I can't offer any way to convince the cop you were *actually* doing 65. :laughing ;)


(I could however show you ways to prevent those techniques working well on you, or at the least for you to recognize it going on...)


ETA: Actually, one point that may be helpful: in that sort of situation, you have nigh zero chance at getting someone to shift perspective or belief about fact. So do not challenge anything that the police claim to be true. If you disagree, try to distract 'em from it (e.g. talking about whether you were driving safely) or just STFU. Both will lessen their memory of the event, because having to justify facts makes 'em record much much better into long term memory. Which would be a bad thing for you in court. ;)

Whether or not the "be honest and ask forgiveness" thing works is going to be highly dependent on the individual officer, and pretty hard for you to judge. So take your pick: try to win in court or win at the scene. Hard to have both unless you're really slick - in which case your primary job is probably as a con man or laywer anyway. ;)

[NorCalBusa]

Sorry, I can't offer any way to convince the cop you were *actually* doing 65. :laughing ;)

Back to school for you!:cry

[timlexus]

So the conversation has shifted from being arrested to being cited.

Different tactics - good advice

[Rel]

So the conversation has shifted from being arrested to being cited.

Different tactics - good advice


Being cited is being arrested. By signing the citation, you're not admitting guilt, but you promise to address the court. (simplified of course)

[JPM]

Interesting stuff Sai. Let's move to the really important stuff- how do we make such influence on our dear LEO's when one is pulled over for (a few) moments of vehicular insanity?


Same principal, just change to "Not the speeder you are looking for" :rofl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnjaUoR15dU&feature=related

[NorCalBusa]

Same principal, just change to "Not the speeder you are looking for" :rofl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnjaUoR15dU&feature=related

Now THAT's what I'm talking about! :thumbup

[saizai]

Same principal, just change to "Not the speeder you are looking for" :rofl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnjaUoR15dU&feature=related

:laughing If I could do that, I'd be set for life.

Alas, I think I'm going to have to do things the old-fashioned way... :cry :nerd

[RolnCode3]

Same principal, just change to "Not the speeder you are looking for" :rofl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnjaUoR15dU&feature=related
Man, you'd be the greatest detective alive if you could do that. We'd know how many shooters there were in Dallas, and where Hoffa is buried - just take about 24 hours and some phone calls.

[Aluisious]

Like this?

http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/interrog.html

"ALWAYS DO NO COMMENT OR SILENT INTERVIEWS WHILE IN POLICE CUSTODY"

"Remember, the police to do not want to help you ever!"

:wtf