Simple formula, investigators track down the leads, bring in the bad guy, interview him or her, they roll over like a mutt being petted & squeal like a stuck pig to everything, usually within the 60 minute time window.
I have fun... but what bunk.
I suppose, if qualified, I could write a dissertation on the way they handle forensics, DNA, etc. But I'm not, so I won't. Suffice it to say... it's almost pure fantasy.
The one that always gets me is how they roll & confess during questioning. Now, I'm not saying this never happens. But when a person does so... they do a disservice to themselves.
I'm not against the guilty being punished. But every person deserves to be treated fairly, and they deserve legal counsel, even though in many cases, that counsel is at best overworked, and at worst, incompetent.
In fact, the founders of the USA thought it important enough to enshrine our right to silence in our Bill of Rights.
Amendment V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So do think about this the next time you talk with a law enforcement officer. It is human nature to want to help... but an officer is an agent of The State. They have no vested interest in your well being, your freedom, and have no duty or obligation "to protect and serve" no matter what is painted on the squad car door.
Casual questions, pre-Mirandized... that's one thing, that should generally be inadmissible, although if you're not careful, it may lead to probable cause for search, seizure, further questioning, and possibly even arrest. So do consider whether you want to talk at that moment. But the minute your rights are read to you, that means they suspect something. Even if you are innocent... your freedom, perhaps even your life, may be in jeopardy.
Be careful what you say...
and never agree to be interviewed without an attorney present.
This video is nearly 49 minutes long... but it is worth watching. It is a law professor, and a police officer commenting on why you should not talk with the police. I hope you watch it.
Do remember that anything you say may be used in a court of law, against you.
I have first-hand experience with this.
In 2007, I was driving along U.S. Highway 2, between Creston & Davenport, Washington. I was slightly outside of Creston, and on a downhill grade in my direction of travel. I had not yet engaged my cruise control, and my car picked up some speed. It was a 60 MPH zone.
A line of traffic approached me from the opposite direction; cars, some trucks, and (I soon found out) a Sheriff's Deputy's car. I was on the inside of a curve, the line of traffic was on the outside, and the officer was behind a few large trucks. My radar detector chirped, (they are legal in most jurisdictions.) I glanced at my speedometer, and it was at about 63 MPH. I didn't concern myself... I reflexively tapped my brake and kept going.
Suddenly, I was treated to the visual cacophony of a light-bar in my rear-view mirror. I stopped as soon as safe, and the deputy asked me if I knew how fast I was going. I said I did not, and he stated that I was doing 75 MPH (as I recall). I disagreed with him and said I was doing 63 at most. He wrote me a citation for 75, and snipped that my radar detector probably went off about the same time I saw him. (Smell any bias here?) At this point I simply shut up.
So I challenged the citation in court. I had a really nice diagram and showed the judge why I thought the radar reading may have been inaccurate. (The angles and obstruction of the larger vehicles in front of the deputy were not conducive to an accurate reading.)
The judge agreed with me.
Then he dropped the bombshell. I had admitted to doing 63, so he let that stand. I was technically speeding, even though most officers will not bother with a traffic stop for that transgression. My fine dropped from about $150 to $93, so it was still worth my time... but had I been more careful with my words, I would have likely had the entire offense dismissed. I licked my wounds and went home a little wiser.
I'm not saying I should have gotten off Scott-free... but since my lead-footing, 150 MPH days in Germany, I have generally followed traffic laws, and were I not ensnared by my own words, I would have likely escaped a fine from a biased officer with faulty physics.
So do remember this... to be quiet.
You do have the right to remain silent.
No comments:
Post a Comment