Former cop here. The article states "You cannot lie to the police". This is, generally, incorrect. Some jurisdictions may have some specific law, but other than certain exceptions, lying has no general consequence. If it did, there would be a lot more charges against pretty much everyone who has been arrested. In my experience, people will lie about stuff that's not even relevant, or helpful to them.
Exceptions include things like giving a fake ID or name/dob or SSN to avoid certain identifications (e.g. on a traffic stop). Also, lying to a federal agent during their investigation is illegal, to my understanding. In Virginia, if you lie to the police regarding the investigation of a different person than yourself, it is considered obstruction of justice, though I can think of maybe one time that I heard of that law being used that way.
But in general, it's a good article. Assert your rights politely, but firmly. If the cop disregards it, don't try to stop them. If the cop does illegal stuff violating 4th and 5th amendment, there's a chance the case gets tossed (as it should). If you try to physically stop the 4th amendment violation, and you're wrong about it being a violation, you just made your problem worse.
Of the people who've accused me of violating their rights, 0 have been correct, but plenty of people have asserted their rights, and stopped an investigation that I had reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause on, and no further means to reasonably develop PC.
A caveat to lying: even if your particular jurisdiction doesn't criminalize lying to law enforcement, it can result in a truly devastating jury instruction. The judge will literally instruct the jury "It is reasonable to infer that an innocent person does not usually find it necessary to invent or fabricate an explanation or statement..."
My attorney has advised me (over social beers, not while preparing me for a court appearance :-) ) that while I can lie to the police, if I do and the prosecution can prove it, they will beat me like a drum with the fact I lied throughout any prosecution. Basically, there are no direct consequences, but if things get hairy, there can be indirect consequences.
> (1) gives a false report of the commission of a crime or gives false information in the official investigation of the commission of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false;
> ...
> knowing the report or information to be false; commits false informing [0]
I've omitted (for brevity) several other things that also make a person guilty of this particular crime but read (1) again and think about how absolutely vague that sentence really is:
> gives false information in the official investigation of the commission of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false;
(Note that, here, both making a "false identity statement" and "assisting a criminal" are completely separate crimes; the above simply regards any "false information", generally.)
Granted, a prosecutor likely wouldn't bother wasting his time and the government's money to charge you over some inconsequential, petty lie but that might not stop a police officer from arresting you and making you spend a day or two in jail over it -- especially if he's having a bad day or you've done something to piss him off. Is that really a chance you want to take?
Personally, I feel that the best ("smartest") thing one can say when such an "opportunity" arises is absolutely nothing. To paraphrase Proverbs (17:28), "Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise." [1]
Yeah but if you're being pulled over for illegitimate reasons none of that technically applies.
If it goes to court and it's your word against the police's then you are at a potential disadvantage, unless you run into a jury of your fellow proletariat.
>Police have a tough job. They are on the lookout for any sign of danger. Make it clear that you are a sane, reasonable person. Keep your hands visible at all times. Avoid the element of surprise.
> If you have any weapons or potentially dangerous items on you, keep your hands visible at all times and inform the officer. Inform the officer of your every move, if you need to reach for anything (your identification, your registration, etc.).
Were you a federal, state, or local cop? Lying to a federal officer is a felony. Lying to a local cop can be less of a problem, but the feds can even make that a big deal if the entity being lied to receives federal funding.
Lying is an act of speech and the government is prohibited from abridging that right according to the first amendment. We all know how that goes. Graduates of Yale, Harvard, et al. are appointed to SCOTUS over the course of generations. They parse plain language to mean whatever suits them and, well, here we are.
You're not the cops I've dealt with but thanks for being good sports when I go hard on you guys when you falsely arrest me and stuff. Eventually the realization dawns that I am rich and will fight back (I don't look it, drive an old car, wear old clothes) and magically the charges go away. Occasionally, I have to prove one of you perjured yourself.
This makes me wonder how much of legal decision-making is based on the actual law and the arguments being made, and how much is based on one's adherence to proper "courtroom culture" demonstrating that you're sophisticated enough to warrant bargaining with, rather than dictated to.
IANAL but my understanding was that lying to the police opens you up to obstruction of justice charges -- or perjury.
For instance, I learned from law professor James Duane's video that Martha Stewart would have completely avoided prison time if she had not lied to investigators.
Lying in court is always* illegal. Lying in general, e.g
"I didn't steal anything", "I only had 2 beers", "These aren't my pants", is not inherently illegal. All of these are lies I've been told.
As a cop, if you get caught lying, i.e. intentionally false testimony in court, your career is effectively over. Any defense attorney can bring that one time you got caught lying up in court, discounting your entire testimony on every case forever, making you useless. No matter how bad you screw up as a cop, the number 1 rule is don't lie about it in court.
*Maybe not in some jurisdictions? But realistically yeah, always
So if you plead not guilty to some crime, and they find you guilty, do you get prosecuted for lying in court with your plead as well as for the original crime?
I believe that entering a plea doesn't count as testimony, thus isnt subject to perjury laws. Most of my cases were plea deals before trial, or were cases where the defendant did not testify. Saying "not guilty" also doesn't necessarily mean you didn't do anything, you may honestly believe at that point, and make the argument, that the thing you did was not illegal.
What about Alford pleas? I thought they existed so that you could reserve the right to appeal or avoid a civil action by avoiding an admission of guilt while acknowledging that you will likely be convicted.
IANAL but from what my lawyer friends have told me an Alford plea is practically the same as a guilty plea for purposes of appeal. In other words, it's very difficult to appeal an Alford plea. Seek legal advice before considering an Alford plea.
> He denied having any ID, claimed he could not remember his Social Security umber, and said his name was “Mr. Horrell.”
> After police found a photo ID in the vehicle, he claimed the person pictured was his “identical cousin.”
---
He was arrested and charged with "privacy invasion and refusal to identify himself". He was acquitted of the former and convicted of the latter -- only to have it later overturned.
Never works. I was driving my friend’s car. I had a tire burst on me. I pulled over to the side of the road. Cops showed up in a few minutes and charged me with reckless driving. Made me take three different breathalyzers. I hadn’t been drinking so obviously it showed “well below the legal limit”. But my friend apparently had an empty beer can in the back.
You can never say it wasn’t yours, apparently. In any case, paid the fine. Oh well.
You have to understand, much of he law that pertains to using a motor vehicle in the US is a pretense to legitimize traffic stops, which are then used for some other purpose (mostly busting drivers for more serious crimes, or else extracting fines from out-of-towners/minorities).
What is the point of having traffic stops of this kind? For example, why can't you just have traffic checks as a normal activity? In some countries (Botswana is an interesting example) the police stop you on public holidays and give you flyers and tell you "drive safely".
Our system allows police to selectively apply traffic rules. This means that the people who find them onerous and can fight back against them tend to be avoided, while more vulnerable people are subject to them more often.
You might remember the protests in Ferguson, MO, after Michael Brown was m̶u̶r̶d̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ killed. A federal investigation later revealed the tense police/public relations under which that incident took place: the jurisdiction was essentially using the traffic laws to extract rent, overwhelmingly from black residents. A traffic citation would require attending court (often without access to a vehicle); if a court date was missed, additional fines and an arrest warrant were issued, which of course the person would only become aware of during the next traffic stop. Police were encouraged to increase stops and citations to make up for lowered taxes. It's regressive fiscal policy you see popular among American conservatives because it shifts the tax burden off of people who are then more likely to vote for them, onto people "deserving" of punishment.
The protection from unreasonable search and seizure is taken to mean that the police can't stop your car without a reason. Since the justice system really really wants to be able to stop your car at will, anything at all can be a "reason".
That would violate our constitution. These sorts of traffic stops are either a bug or a feature, depending who you talk to. I feel that in the absence of clearly reckless driving the police should be unable to stop you. I view these sorts of stops as government run amuck, and a police state. Many Americans would agree, which is why we have constitutional protections beyond most countries (in theory at least). The problem is that hinders the police's ability to solve cases, which is where the "hack" comes in.
Yea...US DUI laws are "interesting". I make every effort to not drink and drive, but I definitely don't let anyone in a car I'm driving have an open drink. I've seen way to many 'you just handed your drink to the guy in the back seat' scenes to risk that.
Not everywhere, and it should be nowhere. Which states don't specify that there needs to be alcohol in the container? That seems like a bizarre last, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Hitching in the 80s, I got picked up by this guy who was drinking beer while driving. That worried me some. But I was shocked when he threw the empty out the window. And when I commented on it, he pointed out that littering was the safest option.
"A common trope amongst police officers in the United States is the aphorism: "If you lie, you die." This is indicative of the essential need for trustworthiness in the job—police officers are society's observers, enforcers and professional witnesses—and a warning that any deliberate falsehood can undermine the officer's continued usefulness, resulting in termination. Such terminations have been judicially enforced.[20]"
I personally know of 3 cops who lost their job for dishonesty. It's not even stuff like planting drugs, but turning in fake tickets (court copies never submitted, just office copies).
Further, look up the Brady List. In everywhere I've worked, if you're on it, the Commonwealth's Attorney will not take your cases. Period. If your lawyer loses a case where the witness is a cop who has lied intentionally on record, you have a crappy lawyer or a terribly corrupt judge AND jury
I practiced in Virginia for about 6 years. I handled approx 150 DUIs there. It is in the officers best interest to exaggerate their findings while investigating a crime. So ok. Yeah. Most officers don’t “lie.” But they certainly don’t act objectively either.
You know the onerous discovery policies in Virginia. Prosecutors don’t have to give you much. Even the Constitutionally mandated stuff is impossible to check because the only people who could, defense attorneys, have no way of knowing what exists.
Last, and I think this was op’s point: a lie only becomes a lie if it can be exposed as a lie. Most statements are very difficult to outright prove as a lie. This goes for defendants claiming they have someone else’s pants and for officers who are VERY sure she had bloodshot eyes “which in (their) training and experience are consistent with intoxication by marijuana.”
As a note, the thought process behind the ‘if you lie you die’ theory is contingent upon one thing. The cop has be caught lying. This is primarily because the cop has now made it practically impossible to testify in court on any charge he may have investigated.
The early history of the LAPD (1860's to 1920's) is basically a history of systemic corruption, complete with many many accounts of perjury. I highly recommend The Dollop podcasts on the subject.
Since local or state don't prosecute securities violations, yeah, I guess your right. But there are perjuries that can be committed at the local level, depending on the jurisdiction. Don't assume you can blow smoke and get away with it.
It's not just those feds. Lying to the FBI is a very bad idea. And even if you're guilty of something, they may let it go if it's not their focus. When the feds were first looking for the source of recreational drugs found by the postal service, they interviewed recipients. And as I recall, they didn't prosecute many (any?) of them. Or at least, not end users.
You can't attack another user like this on HN, regardless of how you feel about the police, which I'm sure you have good reasons for.
We ban accounts that violate the site guidelines this badly, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do this again. Maybe you don't owe the person you're replying to any better—though if you're blasting them just because they belong to a category, maybe you do—but you definitely owe this community much better if you want to participate here.
Exceptions include things like giving a fake ID or name/dob or SSN to avoid certain identifications (e.g. on a traffic stop). Also, lying to a federal agent during their investigation is illegal, to my understanding. In Virginia, if you lie to the police regarding the investigation of a different person than yourself, it is considered obstruction of justice, though I can think of maybe one time that I heard of that law being used that way.
But in general, it's a good article. Assert your rights politely, but firmly. If the cop disregards it, don't try to stop them. If the cop does illegal stuff violating 4th and 5th amendment, there's a chance the case gets tossed (as it should). If you try to physically stop the 4th amendment violation, and you're wrong about it being a violation, you just made your problem worse.
Of the people who've accused me of violating their rights, 0 have been correct, but plenty of people have asserted their rights, and stopped an investigation that I had reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause on, and no further means to reasonably develop PC.