Hacking Meeting at my house

[Thorn]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

now, see, i have no grounds to disagree with you directly due to your years of exposure to these matters and the fact that i've never been placed under full, custodial arrest and taken downtown. <knock on wood>

however, i've heard from more than one person (and these are people with whom i've been relatively close and don't think they'd be making things totally up. i wouldn't put a little bit of embellishment past them, but outright fabrication i don't see) that when in an interrogation room, the remark "i want a lawyer" was first met with derisive comments for the first half hour to an hour, then the following couple hours they were introduced to numerous officers who would come in and out of the room, each separately trying to engage the person in some discussion. in the end, one person (now, this was in NYC so maybe their police force is different from others) actually had to resort to staring blankly at the opposing wall and repeating the sentence "i have nothing to say... i want a lawyer" for about two to three hours before officers stopped asking him questions and just left him alone back in a holding cell. (it wasn't until the next morning that a lawyer was finally brought in.)

it was my understanding of the law that the police are not obligated to cease questioning entirely (or even immediately) but that, rather, they are supposed to stop investigatory proceedings... they could still talk about, say, fishing or baseball. (in the hopes that the suspect will begin, of his or her own accord, to talk about the matter at hand again)

it's also my understanding that questioning even about the case isn't outright verboten... but that any knowledge gained after a suspect has requested a lawyer is not admissible as evidence. (at least not directly. one could follow up on leads then argue inevitable discovery at a later date)

i hope that those who know more than me will step in and correct my factual errors because legal and police proceedings interest me a great deal but i don't like mixing fact and fiction. help me sort out true details and valid stories from hollywood and fabrication.

A confession is, in many ways, a shortcut to finding out what happened, but even the best confessions are usually tainted by the suspect's own viewpoint, justifications, contradictions, omissions, outright lies, and blaming of the victim. On top of that most good defense attorneys can at least cast some doubt (whether reasonable or not) on a confession. While juries find that "I did it" confessions are very compelling, usually there are witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and forensic evidence which when analyzed tell a truer picture of what actually happened.

There is nothing from the courts that states the police can't attempt to talk the suspect out of the decision to talk to a lawyer, and some suspects can easily be talked out of it. However, as an officer you are treading on thin ice to keep pressing the issue. There are those who advocate use of such techniques, and being very aggressive about it, but at some point you cross the line from trying to talk him out of it, to actively denying him counsel. Once the officer has crossed that point, he's opened himself and the department to being civilly sued and to being criminally prosecuted under the US Civil Rights laws.

I've also heard some cops say that 'you aren't doing your job if you don't press such things,' but personally, I never felt that any suspect was worth that kind of risk to your career and liberty. Telling the suspect that he's 'making a mistake to talk to a lawyer' is fair. Not stopping the questioning and actively denying him a lawyer and turning yourself into criminal in the process is stupid. Cops always have another chance with a suspect. Perhaps not with that crime, but suspects will always offend again. It's inevitable.

[theprez98]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

however, i've heard from more than one person (and these are people with whom i've been relatively close and don't think they'd be making things totally up. i wouldn't put a little bit of embellishment past them, but outright fabrication i don't see) that when in an interrogation room, the remark "i want a lawyer" was first met with derisive comments for the first half hour to an hour, then the following couple hours they were introduced to numerous officers who would come in and out of the room, each separately trying to engage the person in some discussion. in the end, one person (now, this was in NYC so maybe their police force is different from others) actually had to resort to staring blankly at the opposing wall and repeating the sentence "i have nothing to say... i want a lawyer" for about two to three hours before officers stopped asking him questions and just left him alone back in a holding cell. (it wasn't until the next morning that a lawyer was finally brought in.)

it was my understanding of the law that the police are not obligated to cease questioning entirely (or even immediately) but that, rather, they are supposed to stop investigatory proceedings... they could still talk about, say, fishing or baseball. (in the hopes that the suspect will begin, of his or her own accord, to talk about the matter at hand again)

it's also my understanding that questioning even about the case isn't outright verboten... but that any knowledge gained after a suspect has requested a lawyer is not admissible as evidence. (at least not directly. one could follow up on leads then argue inevitable discovery at a later date)

i hope that those who know more than me will step in and correct my factual errors because legal and police proceedings interest me a great deal but i don't like mixing fact and fiction. help me sort out true details and valid stories from hollywood and fabrication.

The obligatory "IANAL" but:

When a suspect says "I want a lawyer" any questioning after that point is potentially inadmissible. If the police ask a question and even if the suspect answers it, there are certainly grounds for that statement to be thrown out.

As you suggest, it's not that the police have to stop, but that it is in their best interest to stop asking questions because after a lawyer request is made, the answers to any of their questions are not likely to be admissible.

When you start breaking out the "inevitable discovery" you definitely show off your L&O stripes. Then again, I think most exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule are a good thing.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Some of the worst offenders are NYPD Blue, and the L&O and the CSI franchises. All are good story telling venues, but are horrid as to police procedure. L&O also has bad lawyering. However, in my mind the CSI group of shows is especially bad, as the have incredibly bad forensic science on top of bad police procedure.

yes, many lawyers have told me that while the drama on L&O can be entertaining, it's nothing at all like that in an actual courtroom... judges would get pissed as hell at counselors making a pageant out of the matter. as for CSI, i've never even tried to watch that. was pretty great to see the segment on the Simpsons once where they made fun of it. "Yeah, that's it," remarks Chief Wiggum after a series of weird camera shots etc, "Lots of flash and no meaning."

In real life, if a suspect says "I want a lawyer" then the questioning stops. Period.

now, see, i have no grounds to disagree with you directly due to your years of exposure to these matters and the fact that i've never been placed under full, custodial arrest and taken downtown. <knock on wood>

however, i've heard from more than one person (and these are people with whom i've been relatively close and don't think they'd be making things totally up. i wouldn't put a little bit of embellishment past them, but outright fabrication i don't see) that when in an interrogation room, the remark "i want a lawyer" was first met with derisive comments for the first half hour to an hour, then the following couple hours they were introduced to numerous officers who would come in and out of the room, each separately trying to engage the person in some discussion. in the end, one person (now, this was in NYC so maybe their police force is different from others) actually had to resort to staring blankly at the opposing wall and repeating the sentence "i have nothing to say... i want a lawyer" for about two to three hours before officers stopped asking him questions and just left him alone back in a holding cell. (it wasn't until the next morning that a lawyer was finally brought in.)

it was my understanding of the law that the police are not obligated to cease questioning entirely (or even immediately) but that, rather, they are supposed to stop investigatory proceedings... they could still talk about, say, fishing or baseball. (in the hopes that the suspect will begin, of his or her own accord, to talk about the matter at hand again)

it's also my understanding that questioning even about the case isn't outright verboten... but that any knowledge gained after a suspect has requested a lawyer is not admissible as evidence. (at least not directly. one could follow up on leads then argue inevitable discovery at a later date)

i hope that those who know more than me will step in and correct my factual errors because legal and police proceedings interest me a great deal but i don't like mixing fact and fiction. help me sort out true details and valid stories from hollywood and fabrication.

[Floydr47]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

I did a ride along once, I didn't see anything that was especially interesting until the officer got me to the drunk tank and took the handcuffs off me...but that is a story for an entirely different topic.

In my area we have a TABC (Texas Alcoholic Beverage Control) officer who is famous (or would it be infamous), for his Friday and Saturday night "bar sweeps". His tactic is that he arrives in the bar accompanied by a couple of uniformed officers, either city police or ECSO (Ector County Sheriff's Office), who station themselves at the exits, while the TABC officer walks around the room picking out people to arrest for public intoxication. Due to the fact that a bar is a public place then anyone who has consumed more than a couple of drinks is subject to arrest. The arrested party is then taken to the Ector County Law Enforcement Center, booked, finger printed, has a mug shot taken, is locked in a holding cell for 4-12 hours, goes before a JP, and is fined $172.50. You do however have the option of having your case heard in court (on Monday or Tuesday), but most people just go ahead and pay the fine so that they don't miss work on Monday because they are sitting in jail waiting for their hearing.

[Thorn]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Sheesh, you act as if you were a cop at one time.

</slides eyes from side to side>

What makes you say that?

I highly recommend that people do ride-alongs in your community. You'd probably be surprised at what you see, and it is a very eye-opening experience to see the daily routine of most LEOs. I've done ride-alongs all over the place, and am continually amazed at the crap police have to put up with on a daily basis. On top of that, they are routinely swamped with paperwork, court appearances, etc. It is not an easy job.

Ride alongs are excellent for both the civilian and the cop, and I highly recommend them. They do tend to focus exclusively on the patrol side of things, but that's where most things start in police work.

[theprez98]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Sorry, that's TV BS. If you tried any of that stuff, it wouldn't work.

Sheesh, you act as if you were a cop at one time.

I highly recommend that people do ride-alongs in your community. You'd probably be surprised at what you see, and it is a very eye-opening experience to see the daily routine of most LEOs. I've done ride-alongs all over the place, and am continually amazed at the crap police have to put up with on a daily basis. On top of that, they are routinely swamped with paperwork, court appearances, etc. It is not an easy job.

[Thorn]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Tatic's used to "out" undercover cops include, but are not limited to:

...

Sorry, that's TV BS. If you tried any of that stuff, it wouldn't work.

yeah, that's the sort of thing that gets everyone yelling at the TV set in our house when Law & Order marathons are on.

Guys, don't get too hyped on TV, or expect that you can learn real police tactics (or anti-police tactics) from TV. You have to remember that TV shows are nothing more than a vehicle to sell you stuff, and that any appearance to what occurs in real life is entirely coincidental. TV shows by their very nature are distorting. A techniques that actually takes six weeks is done on a show in two minutes. A case that might take over a year to complete, from initial action to the court conclusion, is over in an hour. Some of the worst offenders are NYPD Blue, and the L&O and the CSI franchises. All are good story telling venues, but are horrid as to police procedure. L&O also has bad lawyering. However, in my mind the CSI group of shows is especially bad, as the have incredibly bad forensic science on top of bad police procedure.

One of my academy instructors (and later a chief of the largest city here) used to say that the only police show that gave a real indication of police work was "Barney Miller." He was pretty accurate in that statement.

... I suggest that at the very moment that the police ask you to accompany them anywhere you may consider yourself as being in their custody.

historically (and i'm certain jur1st can correct me if i'm wrong) the Court has applied the "reasonableness" doctrine. essentially, this asks (on a case-by-case basis) the question "would a reasonable person, put in that situation, believe themselves to be free to go?". ..

In real life, cops will tell a suspect "You are free to leave", and that person really is free to leave; right up until they implicate themselves. Many times people may not realize this, or claim not to after the fact because they said something really stupid, like "I did it."

In real life, if a suspect says "I want a lawyer" then the questioning stops. Period. You might be surprised how many times , the suspect re-engages the conversation. Often times people feel a need to tell their side of a story. Also, you have to remember that the people who commit crimes are stupid. They were stupid enough to commit crimes in the first place. They often times think that they can outsmart the police during the questioning.

Finally, modern police interrogation training and techniques are now very psychologically orientated. The last 40 years or so since the Miranda and Escobar decisions have required the police to learn techniques that veer entirely away from anything that appears to be from the "rubber hose" methods. Now interrogations are much more psychologically aimed at to getting people to talk and admit the truth. Those techniques have made the police very astute as to what is going on in a person's head. In many ways, the whole Miranda/Escobar situation has made confessions much stronger, (i.e. more admissible) since they were not obtained via violence -which may elicit a worthless confession just to stop the violence-, but directly through knowing when people are lying and when they are telling the truth.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

wouldn't the suspect be in police custody even though he wasn't at the time he was asked to accompany the police to the station under arrest?

historically (and i'm certain jur1st can correct me if i'm wrong) the Court has applied the "reasonableness" doctrine. essentially, this asks (on a case-by-case basis) the question "would a reasonable person, put in that situation, believe themselves to be free to go?"

now, it is my displeasure to report that in recent decades the Court has a highly bizzare definition of what constitutes a reasonable person's state of mind. in the distant past, being in police "custody" wasn't just defined as a full, custodial arrest.. but a variety of times when either by force or show of authority officers restricted the an individual's freedom of movement. thus, if an officer flashed a badge and said "hold up for a moment... were you around this corner about a half hour ago? we're investigating a report of a robbery of this store" that could have been interpreted by the older Court (usually Warren Court if i recall correctly) as being temporarily in police "custody" and deserving of all the protections that this would entail.

nowadays, however, even an officer in full uniform with one hand on his holstered weapon and the other brandishing a pair of cuffs while saying, "answer my questions, goddamnit!" may not being interpreted by the court as having placed a person "in custody" since Scalia or Thomas would say "oh, please... any reasonable person would know that they were free to walk away."

times change, and so does the Court. and now that Roberts shot his wad on the very first case out of the gate we all know that his alleged commitment to freedom and liberty was purely window dressing. expect opinions of the judiciary to reflect this continuing trend. if the Court increasingly considers the behavior of a "reasonable" person to be stoic, tight-lipped, and non-cooperative... i suppose you might as well live up to that expectation.

[Floydr47]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

It would appear that what started out as a totally stupid topic has evolved into a worthwhile discussion that is both interesting and informative. I can appreciate Thorn's comment as custody being a tight rope walk. A friend and I recently had a discussion about what constitutes custody. If a suspect is asked to come to the police station to answer some questions about a crime, wouldn't the suspect be in police custody even though he wasn't at the time he was asked to accompany the police to the station under arrest? I argued that the police have an obligation to inform the suspect that he does have the right to an attorney being present during any such questioning and he should be informed that he is a suspect. My friend differed in opinion, he believes that if a suspect voluntarily accompanies an officer to the police station then he is fair game and any warnings or other information pertaining to his status are unnecessary. Which gives law enforcement officers the hook, "If you have nothing to hide then you won't mind coming down to the station with us to help us clear a few things up, it will help us to eliminate you as a suspect..." I suggest that at the very moment that the police ask you to accompany them anywhere you may consider yourself as being in their custody.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

potential suspects that are free to leave the police station during questioning do not require a "Miranda" ... Statements made under questioning when someone is not in custody, or aren't suspects for a crime (until the moment they say something implicating themselves) are excluded from "Miranda".

yeah, that's the sort of thing that gets everyone yelling at the TV set in our house when Law & Order marathons are on. We're huge fans of the show* but we often exclaim "why the hell are you talking to the cops?!?" whenever the "person of interest" just strolls down to the station, without a lawyer, and has a chat with detectives despite not being charged with a crime.

not to sound jaded or anything... but i was raised to never, under any circumstances, give people any information or details about your life (or the lives of those around you) to persons who can't legally compel you to talk.

if i were on that show, the request "would you come with us, sir? we need to ask you a few questions" would be met with a quizzical look and an inquiry along the lines of "what, is this bright sunlight going to somehow affect your hearing? we can speak right here where we're standing." not to mention the fact that i could never, ever imagine speaking to LEOs about anything while in their custody if there was no lawyer present.

that's why in our home we hate the very concept of the Kyra Sedgwick show "The Closer." we've never actually watched it (because her character's look, voice, and mannerisms would make me want to actually shoot the TV as opposed to merely shout at it) but from what we have gathered during the occasional commercial is that it's a show based around some detective's "unique one on one ability" to elicit confessions and other bullshit from a suspect during interrogation. in other words, it's an entire show whose premise is focusing on fucking stupid morons who open their goddamn mouths without a lawyer present. grrr.... gets me mad. my version of "the Closer" would be a program called "the Stonewaller" and it would just feature a guy who is always arrested, but then spends the whole hour in a holding cell or interrogation room simply repeating the phrase "i demand a lawyer" over and over and over, as various officers walk in, walk out, offer coffee, yell at him, etc etc. perhaps during sweeps season he could request a lawyer ten times in a row, then recite the bill of rights once, then request a lawyer another ten times... kind of like some sort of civil libertarian's rosary prayer.

of course, that wouldn't make for as compelling and dramatic a TV program as a folksy souther-accented ditzy woman doing a Columbo-esque routine of faux ignorance in order to dupe dimwits into spilling their guts.



* Due to our habitual viewing of the program on TNT we can practically summarize entire episodes before the first body is even discovered. you'll see two kids playing football and one overthrows a pass, as his buddy starts to trudge into some bushes one of us will proclaim something like "oh, man... this is the one where the alcoholic doctor is accused of spiking the drink of her ex-husband's young girlfriend when in fact it's the family's daughter who pushed her off the roof."

editorial note - disagree if you will, but i say that the Jerry Orbach / Benjamin Bratt years were the best, particularly seasons seven and eight, which featured Carey Lowell as the best ADA the show ever had. yeap, i was a huge fan of her Yin tempering the jaded and heartless Yang of Steven Hill (who was still more suited to the role than Dianne Wiest or Fred Thompson, although i have been big fans of their soft-spoken self-assurance and homespun off the cuff expressions, respectively). Angie Harmon sure was easy on the eyes but was further to the right than Antonin Scalia. Still, even the long-legged fascist was superior to many others... Jill Hennessy was often a big pile of spineless mush with no substance and Elisabeth Rohm can't act her way out of a paper bag.

but yeah, the cop partnership... hard to beat Orbach and Bratt. that duality of each man played so well into this partnership of contradictions, with the older and calmer streetwise man of the city whose damaged past haunts him as he uses his long time on the force to justify cutting 4th amendment corners... and the younger kid whose passions often lead to inappropriate confrontations with suspects even as his straight-arrow nature prevents him from ever overstepping a line or breaking proper procedure.

Jesse L. Martin made for a more believable and colorful pairing with Orbach (a pleasure to see two theater guys in TV roles, and the whole "i'm a hot-headed latino guy who struggles with my catholicism and family life" motif was rather played out before it even got started) but the partnership dynamic was just more dramatic with Bratt. and Dennis Farina... geez, don't get me started. that guy is such an asshole that half the time i'm now rooting for the criminals to either beat the rap or take a swing at him before the cuffs are secured... just because i hate his character's "i have a badge so that makes me a tough guy and i'll insult or intimidate whomever i want because i'm a big man" attitude.

heh, this whole footnote is totally off-topic but i have way too much energy despite it being pretty late and i needed something to do before going to bed.

[hackajar]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Tatic's used to "out" undercover cops include, but are not limited to:

- Grouping a potental prostitue, cops are a little squimish in these situations
- Possession, when in small quantities, carries as a minor infraction, requiring other parties to consume as user, not buyer, forces cops to make a choice to use drugs (though some are authorized to do so in many situations) and may out their status as cop
- Asking new or in-the-know slang questions to person to identify them as a fake
- Requiring a story of person before trusting them, usually involving a known their party

EDIT: Not that I would know first hand about any of this

[Tacitus]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

It can be a tightrope to walk.

First, the person may be in the state's custody, but they may not be in "police custody for the purposes of questioning under 'Miranda.'" Yes, that is one of those legal constructs that makes attorneys rich. Second, usually the "cell mate" is often told to asks things like general questions ("What are you in for?") and avoid specific questions about the crime ("Did you plan the murder?") Third, Miranda has usually been issued, and the suspect has already consulted with an attorney. If they ignore both the warning and the advice of that attorney, that's their problem. The warning doesn't expire per se.

And, I would assume... one's rights only exist as long as a defendant can afford an (good) attorney to defend them :)

[ecc]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

In addition to what Thorn said, he doesn't have to talk to his cell mate or anybody else. He choses what to tell the cell mate and what not to, it's a pretty big loophole.

[Thorn]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

The "cell-mate confession trick" seems to follow all 4 points of the Miranda test- person is a suspect in custody, talking to LEO or someone acting as agent for LEO being asked about elements of a crime.
How is this still allowed? is it under the assumption that there has already been a miranda warning given that carries on during length of stay in the friendly confines of police custody?

It can be a tightrope to walk.

First, the person may be in the state's custody, but they may not be in "police custody for the purposes of questioning under 'Miranda.'" Yes, that is one of those legal constructs that makes attorneys rich. Second, usually the "cell mate" is often told to asks things like general questions ("What are you in for?") and avoid specific questions about the crime ("Did you plan the murder?") Third, Miranda has usually been issued, and the suspect has already consulted with an attorney. If they ignore both the warning and the advice of that attorney, that's their problem. The warning doesn't expire per se.

[Tacitus]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

This touches on what I said in my previous post: The socalled "Miranda Warning" only has to be given under four circumstances that must be together:

• A person has to be a suspect.
• The questions must address the elements of the crime.
• The person making the questions must be a LEO or acting as an agent for the police.
• That person has to be in police custody.

Things that are excluded by that test:
Asking for identifying/demographic information such as name, age, address, etc.
Asking general investigatory questions prior to an arrest (e.g. "What happened here?")
Asking questions outside of police custody ("Custody" is usually within the confines of police station after the cops says "You are under arrest.")

If the questioning doesn't fit those criteria, then no "Miranda" is required. For example, potential suspects that are free to leave the police station during questioning do not require a "Miranda", nor do suspects where the police have witnessed the crime, and don't intend to ask about the crime.


Suspects talking amongst themselves and saying something that is overheard by the cops? Excluded. Talking to someone that the suspect thinks isn't a cop (the old "cell-mate confession" trick) is another exclusion, especially when the questions aren't pointed to the elements of the crime.

The "cell-mate confession trick" seems to follow all 4 points of the Miranda test- person is a suspect in custody, talking to LEO or someone acting as agent for LEO being asked about elements of a crime.
How is this still allowed? is it under the assumption that there has already been a miranda warning given that carries on during length of stay in the friendly confines of police custody?