What To Do During Police Questioning | LawInfo
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 08. 2013
- If you're ever questioned by the police, you don't have to say anything. You can remain silent the whole time or ask to speak to a lawyer first. It's better than saying something in error and harming your legal rights. To learn more about what to do during police questioning, visit www.lawinfo.com/resources/civ...
Visit us: www.lawinfo.com/
Follow us: / lawinfo
LawInfo.com has been connecting people seeking legal advice or representation with qualified, experienced lawyers since 1994. Browse our nationwide directory to find a lawyer near you or check out our thousands of free articles and videos to learn more about the basics of the law. No matter your legal need, LawInfo is your source for the help you need.
NEVER talk to the police. "Am i free to go?", "I want a laywer", "I do not consent to any searches/seizures of my person or property without a warrant".
And don't fall for the "just making conversation here" bs.
Rule number one.......... NEVER TALK TO THE FUCKING COPS!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe that when asked we do have to give our name, and what we're doing at the moment we're stopped, but that's all for a pedestrian. Drivers will also have to produce a license, registration and proof of insurance. Beyond that, answer NO questions. Tell them you're exercising your right to remain silent and that only an attorney will be speaking for you. Say that as many times as you have to. And of course don't give the the PIN to your phone!
"The stop and ID" depends on the state and the nuances of the particular situation. You never have to tell anyone what you are doing, or you could answer "just chilling in a public place and enjoying the great outdoors. What are you doing?" Learn the loitering laws in your state.
There would be a lot fewer innocent people in jail if they followed this advice. It may be difficult to do, but serving time is worse.
Sound advice for those of us in the UK too.
How many innocent people are in jail from not knowing their rights.
A lot.
TOO MANY!!
Great advice.
What to Do During Police Questioning...
Say "I am invoking my right to remain silent," demand a lawyer, then STFU.
Ask for a notarized copy of the crime they are investigating and the particulars of the crime (time location etc). They can lie so this is important. Don't let them change the time of the crime, for example, if you have an airtight alibi for the time they tell you.
don't say anything without your (or a) Attorney.
Especially when the police try to illegally blackmail you.
I wish I knew this after what happened to me!!!!
What’d you do and how’d it go
Gotta stay ready bro
I thought that a court has ruled that simply remaining silent isn't enough and that you have to state that you invoke your right to remain silent
Absolutely ❤️ 💯 👌 correct!!
Hello. Can a police officially file a police report without a Police Case Number ?
Use a security PIN on your phone and not a fingerprint.
❤️👏👏👏💯
-- “If you're ever questioned by the police, you don’t have to say anything You can simply remain silent the whole time...”
*This is no longer true.* On June 17, 2013, two months before this video was posted, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in _Salinas v. Texas,_ 570 U.S. 178 (2013) that if you are being questioned by the police, you cannot merely remain silent but instead you have to speak up and verbally invoke your 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. Failure to do so can result in the prosecutor using your silence against you at trial!
The Supreme Court is supposed to protect our constitutional rights. The judicial branch is the only branch of our government that is non-political (or at least is supposed to be) and is therefore the only branch that is in a position to protect individuals against violations of our constitutional rights. The judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court, is the thin line between the awesome power of the government and the powerless individual. And yet it has abdicated that role and allowed the government to do pretty much whatever it wants -- _even in the face of previous decisions that say otherwise._ (E.g., _Miranda v. Arizona,_ 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which required the police to warn arrestees before questioning that they had the right to remain silent -- a right that has now been abrogated by the court.) So much for _stare decicis._
It is now 2021, exactly how many CONVICTIONS have prosecutors won using Salina v. Texas as precedent? I'll tell you, ZERO.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 : As I mentioned in the other thread in which you and I discussed this, there is at least one other case that has gone up on appeal in which the prosecutor used the defendant's silence against him in court: _People v. Tom,_ 59 Cal.4th 1210 (2014). (And who knows how many dozens or hundreds of cases and trials there have been which _haven't_ resulted in published appellate court decisions? Not every case goes up on appeal, and even fewer result in a published decision. In fact, the vast majority don't.)
In the _Tom_ case, the defendant Richard Tom was charged with vehicular manslaughter after a car accident, and the prosecutor used his silence against him at trial as evidence of "consciousness of guilt." In a shocking display of illogic, the California Supreme Court upheld his conviction.
This case is actually far worse than _Salinas,_ because in _Tom,_ the California Supreme Court said that the defendant's silence could be used against him _even though he wasn't being asked any questions!_ This makes absolutely no sense when you think about it. How can saying nothing, when nobody is asking you any questions, be proof of _anything?_ What is an arrestee supposed to do in order not to have his silence be used against him in court, when no one is even asking him anything?
The California Supreme Court said that Mr. Tom had to explicitly invoke his 5th Amendment rights in order to avoid his silence being used against him at trial, mirroring the U.S. Supreme Court's _Salinas_ decision. But when, exactly, is he supposed to do that, when nobody is talking to him? It makes no sense at all. (At least in _Salinas,_ the defendant was being interrogated by a detective when he fell silent. Maybe something can be inferred from that; I don't know. But how can one infer _anything_ from a person's silence when he isn't being asked anything? As I said, the California Supreme Court's decision in _Tom_ is nonsensical.)
Nonetheless, if nothing else, that case stands as proof that, in the wake of _Salinas,_ prosecutors DO use the silence of defendants against them at trial. It's wrong, it's unfair, it's illogical, but obviously it does happen, as the _Tom_ case proves.
Buy a microphone.
Tell the truth
Wrong.
Anything you say that is against you can be used as evidence. Anything you say that can help you can be dismissed. A prosecutor can cherry pick and twist whatever you say to help build their case.
Nope, not when dealing with cops. What you think may be the truth can easily be turned against you in court.