Silk Road forums

Discussion => Security => Topic started by: chrisbarnett on May 01, 2012, 01:29 am

Title: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: chrisbarnett on May 01, 2012, 01:29 am
First off.. There are so many threads where people are giving advice on dealing with the cops...

they say deny deny deny deny and get a lawyer
deny and ask for a lawyer.

the whole reason we have these continuous topics of how to deal with the cops is because dumbass people are giving bad advice when they say ''deny and ask for a lawyer'' ''say i don't know and get a lawyer''

DON'T SAY ANYTHING!!!!!

cop - ''do you know why you are here?''
you - either remain silent or say 1 word ''lawyer''

cop - ''well you are in here because we you got drugs in the mail''
you - ''lawyer'' or remain silent

cop - ''do you have any idea about this package''
you- DO NOT SAY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST SAY LAWYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cop - ''we know you ordered this package. we have been watching you''
you - DONT DENY!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST SAY LAWYER!!!!!!!!!


ANOTHER thing is.. people always say deny deny deny. and when people deny they will say something like
''I didn't ORDER anything"  that simple word of ORDER is a game changer.
they may have thought you had a friend in Cali shipping you bud and you've just been paypaling him money (the cops really aren't going to come after a buyer .. not because they don't care but because they are only focused on money and you represent no money to LE because you order an OZ a week)

my whole point is NEVER DENY ANYTHING JUST REMAIN SILENT OR SAY LAWYER.
when you REMAIN SILENT AND DON'T DENY AND ONLY REQUEST A LAWYER they will understand that you understand how the justice system works.



but my question is this
say you do the above^
well, instead of letting you go (or even if they do)... you have to get a lawyer..

well what do you tell your lawyer?
the truth? i know not to do that.. but you've got to speak to him so what do you say?
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: TrustusJones on May 01, 2012, 01:41 am
you are 100% correct... DO NOT engage LE in ANY conversation related the charges brought against you... the only word out of your mouth should be 'LAWYER'... try to do it in front of the dash cam also so it is on record.

Thanks Chris!

TJ
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: 17239friendofafriend on May 01, 2012, 01:57 am
Guys, I think there's a better way of handling things than being sketch and simply keeping silent and whatnot. Why not look surprised and try to play it off like "We got your drugs in the mail" and replying "What drugs? I'm sure you must've mistaken me for someone else. Either way, considering the circumstances I'm not inclined to say anything without my lawyer. Here's his card." and look like an upstanding citizen!
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: tomorrowman on May 01, 2012, 02:07 am
dont cops usually get super pissed when u dont answer their questions and lawyer up?  last time the cops were sweating me i played dumb and acted very surprised and it fooled them, luckily they were not the sharpest tools in the shed.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: chrisbarnett on May 01, 2012, 02:11 am
Friend, I hate to sound like a arrogant jackass....

BUT DON'T DO THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just!!!!! say!!!!!! lawyer!!!!!!!

FUCK THE POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT SHOULD BE EVERY PERSONS ATTITUDE!!!!!! IN NO WAY DO THE POLICE SERVE YOU AS A CITIZEN! ALL THEY DO IS WASTE YOUR TAX MONEY!
cops don't even deal with murderers etc. the people that will be trying to get you to break will be a drug force team. the people we are against!

I don't give a fuck if you are in church, dressed up, with a bible in your hand preaching the word of God.
DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE! DO NOT TRY TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A GOOD CITIZEN! THIS IS WHAT WILL FUCK YOU!
and even if it doesn't.... your mentality should be FUCK THE POLICE!

I will never, ever... ever never.. talk to the police. I don't care if my daughter has been raped, abducted, and murdered. I will not talk to the police. I will handle shit myself with my own investigation and justice.
FUCK THE POLICE

''Protect'' and serve.
they don't serve shit besides unconstitutional devious bullshit
and the 2nd amendment is what protects you. not the bitch ass cops.


I fucking the police. Fuck all police. and I've even been let go every single time I've been caught with weed. (3 times) while driving. while hotboxing. and I was alone each time.
and one time was on a college campus.
THAT COP IS STILL A MOTHERFUCKER! he didn't do me a favor by letting me go. FUCK THAT. he interrupted my session and confiscated my weed. which is stealing from me.
and I should give a crack headed nigger 100$ to go cut his throat and every other cop out there.

FUCK THE POLICE! ANYBODY WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A PUSSY ASS BITCH WHO THINKS THE POLICE ARE THERE TO PROTECT THEM. THEY DON'T DO SHIT FOR YOU AND NEVER WILL!
fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkkk the policeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: tomorrowman on May 01, 2012, 02:15 am
lol, someone really doesn't like the police.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: chrisbarnett on May 01, 2012, 02:16 am
I just re-read my post
I sound crazy.


but seriously.. FUCK THE POLICE

I'm not trying to offend anyone, unless you are a cop.
Mister Dank might be here soon to jump the concept that everybody is a cop lol so I might offend quite a few
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: tomorrowman on May 01, 2012, 02:19 am
I just re-read my post
I sound crazy.


but seriously.. FUCK THE POLICE

I'm not trying to offend anyone, unless you are a cop.
Mister Dank might be here soon to jump the concept that everybody is a cop lol so I might offend quite a few

no, not a cop, giving parking tickets for a living doesn't appeal to me.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: hatedpatriot on May 01, 2012, 02:30 am
Because, numbersfriendofafriend, you cannot talk your way out of it, period.


I don't know why more people do not realize the futility and danger in speaking to the law.

People do the same shit when they get caught with drugs or some other shit. I think people have a fundamental misunderstanding about what a cops job is and what they can and cannot do. Cops serve one purpose these days (once upon a time they protected society and kept the peace), find people who have broken the law and charge them. That's it, that's all they do. Second misconception is the definition of charge. A charge is simply a formal notice that you are suspected of breaking a law. Your guilt in this is decided by a judge (and jury if you lead not guilty), not the cop. The cop lives to issue charges. It makes them feel good to charge many people with many things. You will never ever talk the cop out of charging you. If you have met the criteria and he can charge you, he will, period. This is why you can only hurt yourself by talking. When you go to court, the judge has two pieces of information, what your charge is and the statements the cops took, or the shit you told them thinking it would help LOL. You may have only said "What mail, I dont know about any mail" but unbeknownst to you, the cop noted the statement and noted that you seemed very unsure in this statement as if you were lying. I wont even speculate on what a good prosecuter can do with your statements.

If you find yourself in the company of the cops, they intend to charge you. You will not cooly deny and breeze through the interview then swap nigger jokes out front before they say good bye. They only want you to talk so you can strengthen their case, and the ways in which that can be done are not obvious at all.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that they will do anything any different they planned. They don't decide anything.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: h4xx on May 01, 2012, 02:40 am
This depends what country you are in. The world is not USA some of us can't simply say "I want a lawyer' lol in Russia they beat your face in and then ask if you want a lawyer, then beat you again.

For the west, it's best to not say anything and just ask to see the warrant or ask for a lawyer and say nothing else. In Poland or Hungary they will just punch you in the balls and whip you with electrical cords if they want, there are no rights so you better have plausible deniable encryption
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: hatedpatriot on May 01, 2012, 02:45 am
I think it's safe to say this thread is aimed at americans since this is the home of the police state.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: chrisbarnett on May 01, 2012, 02:52 am
I'm aiming this at the U.S.
Sorry h4xx that you have to deal with that BUT.. that does happen in America just not as nearly as often
The difference is..

Lets say you are being investigated on a charge serious enough (I doubt they would do this with drugs unless you are like a cartel member) for them to resort to violence because you won't talk or they are just mad because their dick is shorter than their pubes and somebody is fucking their wife right now (I'm getting off point) and they beat your ass and beat your ass and beat your ass.

If you were facing serious enough charges for them to beat your ass, more than likely you are a ruthless SOB or you know people that are ruthless SOB or MONEY HUNGRY.

If an American cop was to beat my ass with me in handcuffs, I would have him executed within a week for less than a 1,000$. Cops know this. Money is king. Everybody's head has a price. Their is somebody out there willing to kill for money. always.
It is very easy to find things like
name, address etc of people and cops.
They pull that shit, they get their head cut off like Al Qaeda just captured Bush.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: chrisbarnett on May 01, 2012, 02:56 am
HatedPatriot, you said what I wanted to say just I'm not mature enough to say it.

Could you please head over to my other thread and check it out?
It is about PGP, I just created it in security thread
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 01, 2012, 04:53 am
Hi Chris,

I am actually in the process of writing a guide for people living in the UK for dealing with the Police. Sad to say we're not lucky enough to have a Constitutional right against self incrimination and a right to silence as you do in the Land of the Free but the principles are broadly the same.

On the balance of probabilities it is better simply to remain silent rather than answer any questions. Regarding what you can tell your Lawyer, your conversations are protected by legal privilege i.e they cannot be used against you as evidence. Having said this your legal representative (both in UK & US) cannot repeat anything they know to be untrue.

As such if you were arrested and confided in your lawyer that you're guilty, their only lawful course of action is to recommend you stay silent. If you then tell the Police something inconsistent with this i.e you lie to them and your Lawyer realises this, they will initially ask for the interview to be suspended so they can talk to you privately and if you continue to say things they know are untrue they'll ask to be excused and have another legal advisor appointed for you.

As such you need to think hard about what you tell your Lawyer - in the US there is no material benefit in disclosing your defence early so if you wish you can tell your Lawyer that you have decided not to answer any questions. Your Lawyer will have spoken with the Police who will give a brief overview of any evidence against you and can advise you on whether this is likely to be taken any further.

If you are charged, there'll be plenty of time to devise your legal defence in private with your Lawyer, there's no need to say anything at interview to them or to the interviewing Officers!

V.

Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Smeegol on May 01, 2012, 06:43 am
"Am i under arrest, or am i free to go?"

that's what I was told to say. then IF they do arrest you, demand a lawyer and ONLY a lawyer.

NO MATTER WHAT.

amirite?
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Krazys on May 01, 2012, 09:01 am
"Am i under arrest, or am i free to go?"

that's what I was told to say. then IF they do arrest you, demand a lawyer and ONLY a lawyer.

NO MATTER WHAT.

amirite?
+1

Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: tomorrowman on May 01, 2012, 07:28 pm
"Am i under arrest, or am i free to go?"

that's what I was told to say. then IF they do arrest you, demand a lawyer and ONLY a lawyer.

NO MATTER WHAT.

amirite?

won't they get really suspicious and pissed off if you lawyer up right away? they can be really petty some times. my friend did that to them once and now every time they see him in town they go up to him and ask him how he is doing and what he is up to. talk about wasting tax payer's money.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: dolphinspeak on May 01, 2012, 08:00 pm
I am actually in the process of writing a guide for people living in the UK for dealing with the Police.

I'm very, very, very interested in reading this. It's easy to find information about dealing with the police as US citizen but there isn't as much as information from a UK perspective. It's especially confusing because Scotland and Wales have devolved governments so some UK laws and procedures are slightly different depending on which side of the border you are standing. For example, I've heard that in Scotland MDMA possession is *always* prosecuted whereas in England you might get off with a caution and I have no idea if that's true. If you know anything about the discrepancies between the different UK countries' laws and could include it in your guide it would definitely be one of the most valuable texts for UK users of SR.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: tootiefruitie on May 02, 2012, 02:44 am
these are all acceptable:

"can i call my lawyer now?"
"will you call my lawyer for me?"
"when will my lawyer be here?"
"i'm still waiting on my lawyer"
"if i say the word attorney instead, does that help?"
"am i free to go?"
"oh look, my lawyer is here"
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: 17239friendofafriend on May 02, 2012, 06:42 am
"Am i under arrest, or am i free to go?"

that's what I was told to say. then IF they do arrest you, demand a lawyer and ONLY a lawyer.

NO MATTER WHAT.

amirite?

won't they get really suspicious and pissed off if you lawyer up right away? they can be really petty some times. my friend did that to them once and now every time they see him in town they go up to him and ask him how he is doing and what he is up to. talk about wasting tax payer's money.

that's what Iiiiiii'm saying.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 02, 2012, 07:25 am
"Am i under arrest, or am i free to go?"

that's what I was told to say. then IF they do arrest you, demand a lawyer and ONLY a lawyer.

NO MATTER WHAT.

amirite?

won't they get really suspicious and pissed off if you lawyer up right away? they can be really petty some times. my friend did that to them once and now every time they see him in town they go up to him and ask him how he is doing and what he is up to. talk about wasting tax payer's money.

The answer to your question is yes they may be pissed off by you repeating the mantra, "I have nothing to say / I want a laywer" and they may very well be suspicious - what matters is the reason why i.e you've not said anything incriminating so you can't be charged.

When I was last arrested, it was because a girl had called the Police and said a tall man with dark hair had tried to grab her near where I lived and worked. The Police nabbed me on my way home after work and kept me in overnight as by the time they'd arrested me and got a photograph for identification purposes the victim was already asleep. (She'd had a hard day after all and it was around 2AM)

 As I mentioned, I'd actually been working at the time this girl said she'd been attacked - the officers arrested me on the way home as I loosely matched the description of the criminal, being tall with dark hair (sterling detective work...).

I knew I had witnesses if needs be and I also knew that the victim would fail to identify me - obviously when the truth came out they tried to say I'd prolonged things by refusing to answer any questions and demanding a Solicitor but there was absolutely no incentive for me to cooperate. Even if I had, the Police wouldn't have let me go until the victim had been shown my photograph in any case, plus I didn't really want a couple of grunts in uniform showing up at the bar where I worked and quizzing the staff and patrons, as it would have been embarrassing for me and bad for their business.

They told me quite candidly they found my refusal to answer questions as disappointing and suspicious. They also tried to provoke a reaction asking about my sexual fantasies and if I was able to satisfy my girlfriend in bed (they knew about her from a picture they'd found in my wallet).

They also tried to mislead me (unlike in the US, the Police generally speaking can't lie during interrogations) by saying the victim had declined to make a written statement, no doubt in the hope I'd not see any harm in opening up. However, in the UK when people under 18 are involved, a statement recorded onto DVD is admissible in court. I don't know for certain but I think the officers in question did this as when I called them out on it, they remained silent(!).

As I will explain in my guide this weekend, this techniques are not typical but obviously Officers will get more desperate the less you say to them. To get information from you it's crucial they establish a rapport and when you answer "no comment", you're preventing that from happening. T

hey may well get angry and upset but if that's the worst that happens, you're much better off than someone who's charged with an offence!

V.





Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 02, 2012, 07:50 am
I am actually in the process of writing a guide for people living in the UK for dealing with the Police.

I'm very, very, very interested in reading this. It's easy to find information about dealing with the police as US citizen but there isn't as much as information from a UK perspective. It's especially confusing because Scotland and Wales have devolved governments so some UK laws and procedures are slightly different depending on which side of the border you are standing. For example, I've heard that in Scotland MDMA possession is *always* prosecuted whereas in England you might get off with a caution and I have no idea if that's true. If you know anything about the discrepancies between the different UK countries' laws and could include it in your guide it would definitely be one of the most valuable texts for UK users of SR.

Hi dolphinspeak,

Thanks for your interest, I am still preparing the material for this guide, which I will produce in written form on here but probably also put on my Youtube channel in a "Bitesize" format - you're absolutely right in saying that this is a topic Americans often talk about - it seems they're much more engaged politically than we are in Britain and more concerned with Civil Rights.

The reason I am doing this is partly because as you say, the advice given is different depending on whether you live in Scotland or England & Wales. The focus is going to be on modern "interview" i.e interrogation methods employed by Police in the UK. I have managed to get hold of a training manual for Police Officers written by a Professor Eric Shepherd who literally wrote the book on the new model they have for interviewing whereby the emphasis is now on what's called the "Conversation Management Approach".

Very briefly, this involves establishing a rapport with a suspect so that they'll be more likely to open up, using open ended questions.

If you believe what you read on the Internet, as soon as you're arrested the Police will drag you into a cell and say something along the lines of:

"Your mate in the cell's told us everything, so get in that interview room and sign the confession statement now you little bastard or we'll lock you up and throw away the key!!"

This is silly and dangerous advice, you're much more likely to have a member of CID come up to you and say,

"Hi, my name is Dave Jones, I'm the CID officer in charge of your case. Before we get started I'm just going to get myself a coffee, we can fix pretty much any drink you want, shall I get you something?"

This is partly so they can establish a rapport with you but also so they can monitor your behaviour and responses when answering a question truthfully.

Once again, the advice on most UK civil rights websites seems to think that the Police are interested in getting a confession from you - in actual fact in the absence of a confession, lies are more useful to them. They already know the truth (or at least think they do!) and so are interested in hearing your account of events. Obviously if you tell them anything which they can prove to be untrue, this can go badly for you at court, which is why on the balance of probabilities it's in your best interests to remain silent.

I say "balance of probabilities" as since 1994, the Right to Silence has been watered down slightly as evidenced through the Caution given to suspects in England and Wales which will be along these lines.

"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if, when questioned, you do not mention something which you later rely on in court."

The law was changed at the request of the Police who said that too many suspects were simply remaining silent on arrest, knowing they had everything to lose by talking and nothing to gain.

Now in England and Wales there is a small, theoretical risk that if you do refuse to answer questions it may harm your defence. I say theoretical because what it really means is :

IF you are arrested AND you refuse to answer questions on interview AND there was enough evidence to charge you anyway AND the CPS (not the Police!) decide you're to be charged AND the case goes to court AND you plead Not Guilty AND you choose to present evidence in your defence THEN the Prosecution MAY cross examine you and ask why you didn't mention it before.

There's no doubt it's a risk but there's a much greater one of accidentally incriminating yourself in some way by answering questions or innocently saying something which the Police believe they can prove is untrue.  There are also a number of exceptions to the above rule where what is called "adverse inferences" cannot be drawn from your silence e.g if you simply sit in your cell and refuse to go into the interview room. (Further reading : http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/)

Once again I'll go into more detail in my guide but as you'll see from the above link, most people believe that they can get around this problem by asking for a Solicitor and then saying in court they remained silent on legal advice. Although you should always ask for a Solicitor and they will most probably advise you not to answer any questions, a jury is allowed to decide for themselves whether you did so because you were innocent or because you were trying to hide the truth.

My point quite simply is that you're much less likely to end up in front of a jury in the first place if you refuse to cooperate with the Police interview!

Anyway, I'll put it all in the guide, just bear in mind that the Police have been specifically trained in interrogation techniques to establish a relationship with you that will make you more likely to be forthcoming. Your only real defence under the circumstances is to say nothing.

V.


 


Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: BigFlake on May 07, 2012, 05:26 am
This topic always pisses me off!  The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution is one of our Bill of Rights.  Yes...RIGHTS!  It kills me that when a citizen exercises this right, they are presumed to be hiding something and probably guilty.  But, if they "cooperate" with the police, incriminating themselves in the process, it's considered your civic duty. 

It's been said before...NEVER EVER TALK TO THE POLICE.  Anything you say WILL DEFINITELY be used against you if possible.  NEVER will it be used to defend you.

Don't say a word to the police and get a lawyer ASAP.  Don't help the police make their case against you!!l

I'm sorry if this has previously been said in this thread, but this topic always burns me up.  >:(
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Diamond on May 07, 2012, 06:15 am
Ehh, it's not QUITE that simple. Even if you remain silent, they may start talking AT you and your silence to certain questions may be taken (depending on the jurisdiction) as acquiescence to an unwarranted search.

You are correct in not bothering to deny the crime, but in addition to requesting a lawyer, you should make it clear that you wish to leave if allowed, and that you DO NOT CONSENT to an search whatsoever.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 07, 2012, 06:22 am
This topic always pisses me off!  The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution is one of our Bill of Rights.  Yes...RIGHTS!  It kills me that when a citizen exercises this right, they are presumed to be hiding something and probably guilty.  But, if they "cooperate" with the police, incriminating themselves in the process, it's considered your civic duty. 

It's been said before...NEVER EVER TALK TO THE POLICE.  Anything you say WILL DEFINITELY be used against you if possible.  NEVER will it be used to defend you.

Don't say a word to the police and get a lawyer ASAP.  Don't help the police make their case against you!!l

I'm sorry if this has previously been said in this thread, but this topic always burns me up.  >:(

Hi Bigflake,

Naturally we have touched on this before but in the first instance I am afraid to say not all of us are lucky enough to live in the USA and enjoy a Constitutional right against self incrimination! To forestall all your objections, I would move to N. America if I could, believe me!

Also as Diamond says below, silence can be taken to imply consent under certain circumstances. Also even in the USA, silence under questioning can be pointed out at trial - nevertheless I still think you're quite right in saying one should refuse to answer any questions beyond those necessary to establish your identity, medical conditions and of course whether you want a lawyer.

V.

Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: lostintime on May 07, 2012, 02:45 pm
Friend, I hate to sound like a arrogant jackass....

BUT DON'T DO THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just!!!!! say!!!!!! lawyer!!!!!!!

FUCK THE POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT SHOULD BE EVERY PERSONS ATTITUDE!!!!!! IN NO WAY DO THE POLICE SERVE YOU AS A CITIZEN! ALL THEY DO IS WASTE YOUR TAX MONEY!
cops don't even deal with murderers etc. the people that will be trying to get you to break will be a drug force team. the people we are against!

I don't give a fuck if you are in church, dressed up, with a bible in your hand preaching the word of God.
DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE! DO NOT TRY TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A GOOD CITIZEN! THIS IS WHAT WILL FUCK YOU!
and even if it doesn't.... your mentality should be FUCK THE POLICE!

I will never, ever... ever never.. talk to the police. I don't care if my daughter has been raped, abducted, and murdered. I will not talk to the police. I will handle shit myself with my own investigation and justice.
FUCK THE POLICE

''Protect'' and serve.
they don't serve shit besides unconstitutional devious bullshit
and the 2nd amendment is what protects you. not the bitch ass cops.


I fucking the police. Fuck all police. and I've even been let go every single time I've been caught with weed. (3 times) while driving. while hotboxing. and I was alone each time.
and one time was on a college campus.
THAT COP IS STILL A MOTHERFUCKER! he didn't do me a favor by letting me go. FUCK THAT. he interrupted my session and confiscated my weed. which is stealing from me.
and I should give a crack headed nigger 100$ to go cut his throat and every other cop out there.

FUCK THE POLICE! ANYBODY WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A PUSSY ASS BITCH WHO THINKS THE POLICE ARE THERE TO PROTECT THEM. THEY DON'T DO SHIT FOR YOU AND NEVER WILL!
fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkkk the policeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I don't care for the police either....but you sound like a total piece of shit!
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Veetano on May 07, 2012, 04:08 pm
The #1 rule I know about lawyers is that, never tell them if you did it or not.

Even if they forwhatever reason pressure you, say no. And act with complete confidence.

After all, you are paying the lawyer to defend you. Going to him, he is automatically assuming you didn't do it. He doesn't want to know if you did it or not.

The lawyers sole purpose is to get you out of trouble with the law or lessen a sentence if enough evidence is present(such as video of you doing xxx). Don't confess, not even to a lawyer.

Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: dave00 on May 07, 2012, 10:41 pm
Very good advices for all
Well done
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 08, 2012, 06:59 am


Hi Bigflake,

..... Also even in the USA, silence under questioning can be pointed out at trial -...

V.
No way this is true! I've sat as a juror in a murder trial and in the prosecutor's opening statement, he suggested that the defendant remained silent because.... Bingo! Mistrial, he really fucked up.  A new jury had to be picked. You cannot ever suggest in court the defendant remained silent--that's his 5th amendment right.

Sounds like an interesting experience you had but this isn't what I said. I said that silence can be pointed out at trial, in the case the Prosecutor was in danger of speculating as to why the defendant remained silent - this is a matter for a jury to decide both in the USA and UK, which is why the trial Judge quite rightly suspended the sitting and drew in some jurors from the pool.

The point I really wanted to emphasise that even in a jurisdiction where the right to silence is not qualified, a jury could still choose to convict in the absence of the defendant accounting for their presence in a particular place for instance, or failure to provide an explanation as to why certain items were found in their homes or about their person.

What's important to bear in mind is that you ARE far less likely to end up in front of said jury in the first place  if you keep your mouth shut during a Police interview!

V.

Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Smeegol on May 13, 2012, 08:34 am
what's a really foppish dandy sounding way to ask for a lawyer?

"I'd like to request legal council, officer. That would be jolly good, sir." tips top hat
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Duckman on May 13, 2012, 11:50 am
Hi Chris,

I am actually in the process of writing a guide for people living in the UK for dealing with the Police. Sad to say we're not lucky enough to have a Constitutional right against self incrimination and a right to silence as you do in the Land of the Free but the principles are broadly the same.

On the balance of probabilities it is better simply to remain silent rather than answer any questions. Regarding what you can tell your Lawyer, your conversations are protected by legal privilege i.e they cannot be used against you as evidence. Having said this your legal representative (both in UK & US) cannot repeat anything they know to be untrue.

As such if you were arrested and confided in your lawyer that you're guilty, their only lawful course of action is to recommend you stay silent. If you then tell the Police something inconsistent with this i.e you lie to them and your Lawyer realises this, they will initially ask for the interview to be suspended so they can talk to you privately and if you continue to say things they know are untrue they'll ask to be excused and have another legal advisor appointed for you.

As such you need to think hard about what you tell your Lawyer - in the US there is no material benefit in disclosing your defence early so if you wish you can tell your Lawyer that you have decided not to answer any questions. Your Lawyer will have spoken with the Police who will give a brief overview of any evidence against you and can advise you on whether this is likely to be taken any further.

If you are charged, there'll be plenty of time to devise your legal defence in private with your Lawyer, there's no need to say anything at interview to them or to the interviewing Officers!

V.

I have some experience of UK courts.

In my opinion the UK legal system is much fairer than the US system.

Firstly, in the US you keep hearing people coaching others to make sure they ask for a lawyer.  In the UK its almost impossible to not get a lawyer.  In the UK the police are required to explain that you need a lawyer.  Get you to sign a form stating that you have been informed of this, then ask you to make a decision, then get you to sign a form stating that decision.  Then in a taped interview, they will state who is present and again if you dont have a lawyer they will state, on tape, that you do not have a lawyer present and is because you have decided to be interviewed without one as they have explained to you that you are entitled to one.  If you dont have a lawyer, and who does?, then they will go and get you one for free (legal aid).  The only "tactic" that the UK police might use is they might tell you that you have to wait a few hours for the lawyer and so you might decide to do the interview without one. 

You should tell your lawyer everything and then ask him what to do.

When you give an interview you have the option to reply "no comment" however, it will be explained that failing to provide an answer when questioned may hamper your defense as you may later rely on these answers in a court of law.  However "no comment" can be interpenetrated however the lawyers want in a court of law.

i.e. "are these your drugs?"   ......   "No comment"  ...........   when you get to court they will read back your interview and I guarantee they will say something along the lines of no innocent person would have given that answer to that question.  They will then infer that your no comment interview was a tactic being used to give up as little information as possible so as you could wait until trial, by which point you will have seen the prosecutions entire case, so you can then come up with some lies that fit with the case against you.

So when asked "are these your drugs" your lawyer is either going to instruct you to not answer.. in which case do what he says, or he is going to ask for documentation showing the legality of the search they used.  If the search is legal, and the lawyer thinks you have no chance of getting off then its probably best to confess all now, sentences are always shorter for those who confess early.

You are very unlikely to end up in this situation for a small amount sent in the mail.  You aren't even in possession until after its been delivered.  The police are not going to try any elaborate scam to catch someone with 2g of weed in the post, after all anyone could have sent that for any number of reasons.  Send your boss (who you dont like) some drugs in the post.  Then ring up the police and tell that you suspect he is ordering drugs via the postal service.  When you go to work the next week the only thing that will have happened is your boss will have had some free drugs delivered in the post and the police will not have lifted a finger.

So if you find yourself being arrested in the UK, you will be given a lawyer, its actually quite difficult to end up in an interview without one and secondly there will be some evidence against you.  Your lawyer is not there to "get you off"  he is there to ensure that the law is followed.  The law is that  possession of drugs is illegal and the fact that you are sat in an interview means that you were caught with some in your possession.  Your lawyer cant "get you off" he can convince the police they  dont have a case due to technical reasons, i.e legality of the search, plausible denibility  etc, but often there wot be any technical reasons and you just have to fess up and take the consequences as the longer you deny it the harsher the sentence becomes.



Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Duckman on May 13, 2012, 12:01 pm
Sounds like an interesting experience you had but this isn't what I said. I said that silence can be pointed out at trial, in the case the Prosecutor was in danger of speculating as to why the defendant remained silent - this is a matter for a jury to decide both in the USA and UK, which is why the trial Judge quite rightly suspended the sitting and drew in some jurors from the pool.

The point I really wanted to emphasise that even in a jurisdiction where the right to silence is not qualified, a jury could still choose to convict in the absence of the defendant accounting for their presence in a particular place for instance, or failure to provide an explanation as to why certain items were found in their homes or about their person.

This si definately true in the UK

What's important to bear in mind is that you ARE far less likely to end up in front of said jury in the first place  if you keep your mouth shut during a Police interview!

V.

This is not usually true.  The police dont usually round up a large group of random people, interview them and then pick candidates to sent to trial.  If you are sat in that interview then they know you are guilty. If you are sat there on a possession charge, what you say, has little effect on the fact that you were caught in possession.  All you are doing in a situation like this is making it harder on yourself.  If you are caught with drugs and they ask "are these your drugs" and you say "no" or "no comment" the police arent left wondering whose drugs these really are and what they should do next.  In cases of small amounts, by admitting to it you probably receive a formal caution there and then, but if you dont admit to it you find yourself in front of a judge or magistrate, who is going to view the charge in black and white.. possession is illegal, you were found in possession, so the correct verdict here is.........????????????
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 13, 2012, 12:54 pm
It's true that in some cases the Police are allowed to exercise their discretion and issue a Caution rather than have a case taken to court. If you think this is a realistic prospect however, this is something your Solicitor will discuss with the interviewing officer(s) prior to interview.

I partly blame myself for this as I haven't had time to put together the guide I promised about Police Interview techniques in the UK despite the fact I now have two of their training manuals on the subject(!) but the decision about whether to press charges for all except very minor crimes is now in the hands of the CPS, not the Police themselves.

As such if a Police officer offers to drop the charges from crime X if you admit to crime Y, they are attempting to mislead you. (As I will discuss in my treatise, this is not something a career minded CID officer will do due to the likelihood of running into trouble with their superiors and the CPS, given that the offer has no merit.)

If it's a case of simple possession of a personal quantity of a drug and they wish to issue you with a verbal/written Caution, they will let your legal adviser know this in advance. You can then discuss this in private with your Solicitor. There is no need for you to talk during the interview process itself though you will have to indicate your acceptance of the Caution.

Although what you've said is true, unless the Police proactively offer to do this, I still maintain you are far less likely to end up in front of a Jury of your peers if you refuse to comment. This doesn't mean you shouldn't listen of course and indeed there are times when it will be pertinent to make a statement to the Police but these are extremely rare and you will receive little if any mitigation for an early confession at the Police Station - the real leniency is exercised by pleading guilty in court.

V.

Sounds like an interesting experience you had but this isn't what I said. I said that silence can be pointed out at trial, in the case the Prosecutor was in danger of speculating as to why the defendant remained silent - this is a matter for a jury to decide both in the USA and UK, which is why the trial Judge quite rightly suspended the sitting and drew in some jurors from the pool.

The point I really wanted to emphasise that even in a jurisdiction where the right to silence is not qualified, a jury could still choose to convict in the absence of the defendant accounting for their presence in a particular place for instance, or failure to provide an explanation as to why certain items were found in their homes or about their person.

This si definately true in the UK

What's important to bear in mind is that you ARE far less likely to end up in front of said jury in the first place  if you keep your mouth shut during a Police interview!

V.

This is not usually true.  The police dont usually round up a large group of random people, interview them and then pick candidates to sent to trial.  If you are sat in that interview then they know you are guilty. If you are sat there on a possession charge, what you say, has little effect on the fact that you were caught in possession.  All you are doing in a situation like this is making it harder on yourself.  If you are caught with drugs and they ask "are these your drugs" and you say "no" or "no comment" the police arent left wondering whose drugs these really are and what they should do next.  In cases of small amounts, by admitting to it you probably receive a formal caution there and then, but if you dont admit to it you find yourself in front of a judge or magistrate, who is going to view the charge in black and white.. possession is illegal, you were found in possession, so the correct verdict here is.........????????????
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Duckman on May 13, 2012, 01:30 pm
The CPS basically look at the likelihood of a conviction before deciding if you should go to court.

They like to have a high success rate as its a figure their usefulness and funding is based on.

The problem you have is that possession is a crime and almost all drugs cases have a possession charge.  Other than disputing the legality of the search there isnt much you can do to change the fact that you were caught with something that its illegal to be caught with.

You are right that pleading guilty in court is the same as admitting guilt to the police so you dont really loose anything by not admitting your guilt early, but by the same token you dont really gain anything by not admitting guilt in something like a possession charge because its just so open and shut.

On possession charges, where the quantity is small, the police have the discretion on whether or not to refer it to the CPS or to offer a formal caution, being as its up to them, you are probably better off admitting early and hoping for the caution.

Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 13, 2012, 04:49 pm
It's really a matter for you and your Solicitor to decide but yes in the case where possession can be proven and it's a personal quantity, you may be able to escape going to court by accepting a written caution.

I've posted on boards before about this as there seems to be a belief that accepting a package containing controlled drugs doesn't amount to possession - sadly under UK law the presumption is that it does, unless the defendant can demonstrate they were unaware of the contents. A rather fine line to walk legally and as I explained before my Barrister friend said she simply told her client to stop talking nonsense when he tried to instruct her to form a defence on these grounds.

Having said this, there is no incentive for you to talk to the Police at any stage in the proceedings. As I mentioned your legal adviser will consult with you before the interview commences and will inform you as to whether the Police have made a grounded allegation.

Even in cases of simple possession of controlled drugs your cooperation at an early stage may put you at a disadvantage. This is due to what is called "confirmation bias" in law enforcement circles i.e the officer has made up their mind as to your involvement in a crime before the interview commences. This is not the model of interviewing they are supposed to follow but the natural state of our minds is to practise a form of "inner editing" whereby we simply hear the facts which reinforce our preconceptions and leave the rest.

The interviewing officer is under no obligation to tell your Solicitor everything however. They may say for instance that drugs were found in the vicinity of your home.

At this stage a good Solicitor will ask more probing questions such as where the drugs were found in relation to your home, were your fingerprints found upon the package, do you share the property with anyone else and so on.

As I said, there's no requirement for the Police to make a full disclosure of evidence at this stage - a shrewd interviewer will try to use evidence tactically by revealing enough to try to convince your legal adviser they have what is called a "grounded allegation" i.e reason to believe you are guilty of this crime but not enough so that they cannot later reveal evidence as an ambush manoeuvre to make you seem dishonest.

The advantage to the Police in doing this is that if they fail to disclose enough evidence the Solicitor has a strong case for advising their client to remain silent and succesfully convincing the court that you, their client, didn't answer questions as no significant disclosure of evidence against you was made. It's win-win from your perspective in this case as remaining silent forces the Police to reveal their hand.

Of course you were mentioning instances where the suspect is guilty of an offence. Cooperation is by no means a guarantee of more lenient treatment at this stage.

An excellent case in point occurred to a young couple near where I live who raided a number of boats at various harbours to steal their petrol, when they then sold to friends or traded for beer. By the time they were caught, several boat owners had been interviewed and had been asked to say how much petrol had been stolen and one of the Police officers had the presence of mind to measure the empty fuel canisters from which the petrol had been stolen.

Upon interview, the young man who had actually siphoned off the petrol made a full and frank confession when the question was put to him and signed a confession statement right away. Although he declined a Solicitor, he was later assigned one for the court case, who very quickly spotted there was a huge difference between the capacity of the fuel canisters and the amount of petrol the boat owners said had been stolen - his client had admitted to stealing around £300 MORE of goods than he actually had! So much for making a clean breast of things.

Having said this I have also seen the transcript of a Police Interview with an Arts and Design student who was arrested after his backpack was searched and a Stanley Knife (or Utility Knife if you're American) was found - obviously his explaining the situation was probably a key reason he was let off with a caution. Bear in mind of course that as with drugs, possession of an offensive weapon is a statutory offence under UK law i.e it does not matter what your intentions are, ownership in itself is the crime.

As I mentioned before, I think the onus needs to be on the Police to make such an offer and if they see you're not going to cooperate, they are free to suggest issuing you with a verbal/written caution if you make a frank admission. Obviously you should discuss this with your Solicitor to be certain that you are confessing to the same crime of which they think you are guilty.

V. 

The CPS basically look at the likelihood of a conviction before deciding if you should go to court.

They like to have a high success rate as its a figure their usefulness and funding is based on.

The problem you have is that possession is a crime and almost all drugs cases have a possession charge.  Other than disputing the legality of the search there isnt much you can do to change the fact that you were caught with something that its illegal to be caught with.

You are right that pleading guilty in court is the same as admitting guilt to the police so you dont really loose anything by not admitting your guilt early, but by the same token you dont really gain anything by not admitting guilt in something like a possession charge because its just so open and shut.

On possession charges, where the quantity is small, the police have the discretion on whether or not to refer it to the CPS or to offer a formal caution, being as its up to them, you are probably better off admitting early and hoping for the caution.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Omega Rushmore on May 13, 2012, 07:55 pm
OK, so this is sort of on track with what the OP's question was, but its not related to mail delivery of substances, just what to say to the cops and lawyers:

My buddy had an issue with the cops awhile back when they pulled him over on the freeway after he lit up a Jay and poured the smoke right through the windown DIRECTLY into a motorcycle cop's nose!  Yeah, stupid...

Shit, right away the cop pulled my buddy over and asked for the drivers license/insurance.  This was on a California freeway.

The cop comes back and returns the documents, and asks "ok, now where is the weed"...shit...He points to the console in the center of the dash and gives the cop about 2g of sativa. 

Now, my buddy knows quite well that that is all he has in the car, and that the most they can get him for is "possession", so as the cop returns for a second time and pulls my buddy out of the car, over to the side of the road, the cop asks if he was smoking any of the weed.

My buddy instantly says "Officer, am I under arrest?  Can I leave?" 

Even though his heart was pounding out of his chest and he was coming down really quickly, he still doesn't further "converse" with the cop AT ALL which just intently stared at him, visibly frustrated.

Man, the cop was truly disturbed at this 'Prol' exercising his rigths.  He took out his flashlight and did a "Field Sobriety Check" by flashing the light in each eye and making him track his finger, all the while trying to "converse" and get him to say something more.

You see, my buddy can really handle his high, so the cop was basically checking if he was "intoxicated" at that point and not able to drive properly, but in the end thats not why he was pulled over.   He was pulled over for NO PLATES ON THE CAR! 

Anyways, after about three or four other cops and supervisers pulled up, they ASKED him if they could search the car.  "Sure" he says, knowing there is nothing more in the car.  He wanted to show some good faith and cooperate at this point because he knew that they really didn't have anything more on him other than simple possession.  He didn't make any moving violations or anything similar.

So about 15 minutes pass after a very shitty and quick "search" of the vehicle, and they let him go back into the car and just sit there.

The original cop comes back to the car and has him sign a ticket which had on it "misdemeanor possession under an ounce" and "no license plates" fix it ticket.  He drives off shaken but happy he wasn't going to jail that night.

The next day my buddy calls Bruce Margolin, the marijuana lawyer:
http://www.1800420laws.com/

Bruce asks whether my buddy said anything to the cops and he says no, just if he was able to leave, and Bruce says "Great". 

Then he says that he'll ask the prosecutor for something called "Informal Diversion" basically 15 Narcotics-Anonymous meetings. 

The day of the "trial" arrives, Bruce walks over to the Prosecutors, chit-chats for about a minute or two, probably gave them a special hand shake or something, and asks the Judge for "informal diversion"...Judge scolds my buddy about how bad drugs are and how they can ruin a life, blah, blah, blah...five minutes later he grants "informal diversion" with the agreement of the prosecutor.

15 Narcotics-Anonymous sessions later and $500 to Bruce, and the whole thing went away, Dismissed...

So the lesson here, Guys and Gals, don't talk to the cops other than:

"Am I under arrest officer?  Can I go?"

And get a lawyer that deals with drug-related stuff.  Talk to him only about what charges you are being brought under, and that's it!


Remember, you have a right to remain silent...use it!



Omega
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: oscarzululondon on May 13, 2012, 09:16 pm
I am actually in the process of writing a guide for people living in the UK for dealing with the Police.

I'm very interested in this too. One thing I'm hoping on is that the fresh budget cuts (20%) hurt them too much to allow them to bother with people like us. Personally I wish the cuts were deeper, I've seen plenty of examples where the police have simply too much money and investigate ridiculous things. I'm really glad about the price of rising petrol too, the met have started sending patrol teams out on tamdem bikes recently in my area which is simply hilarious.

The other issue we have in the UK is that when you get arrested, the police do find a lawyer for you but unless you specify one then it's one of their choosing, and every time I've been in trouble its A) either been some dumbfuck lawyer or B) been in cahoots with the police and stitched me up. Someone needs to make a comparison website of good criminal defense lawyers in the UK willing to work on legal-aid.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: davebowman on May 13, 2012, 11:37 pm
Here is a great video where a law teacher and an ex officer tell you why you should never talk to cops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

The law teacher is really funny he talks really fast.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 14, 2012, 12:14 pm
Thanks OscarZulu,

If you read a lot of websites on the topic you'll find that people accuse the Duty Solicitor i.e the free lawyer with which the Police provide you of being "in cahoots" with the Police.

While this is not entirely true, their experience of working in a Police Station is hardly very enjoyable and there have been a number of incidents where irate clients have been unable to distinguish between their Legal Adviser and the Police and ended up attacking them. They also have a huge workload and the hourly rates offered to legal aid Solicitors is a pittance (Suggestion: Sign up to the Crimeline newsletter for Criminal Defence Solicitors, it contains some useful info for lay people like us).

On top of that many female Solicitors have confessed they feel uncomfortable representing male clients who have been accused of harming a woman in some way - while this isn't a problem for drugs related offences, obviously you want a Solicitor who has no qualms whatsoever about fighting your corner so it makes much more sense to use a law firm who can send someone with specific experience of the type of crime of which you've been accused.

This is very important for people like us as if the interviewing officers believe they have evidence obtained through digital forensics, you're going to want an Adviser who has a sound knowledge of the internet and encryption techniques.

Hiring a Solicitor may not cost as much as you thought and almost every firm will at the very least give you a free consultation at the Police Station. You might even find a firm willing to accept a payment plan, so my advice to anyone in the UK is to engage a Solicitor now and not wait for the Police to choose one for you.

V.

I am actually in the process of writing a guide for people living in the UK for dealing with the Police.

I'm very interested in this too. One thing I'm hoping on is that the fresh budget cuts (20%) hurt them too much to allow them to bother with people like us. Personally I wish the cuts were deeper, I've seen plenty of examples where the police have simply too much money and investigate ridiculous things. I'm really glad about the price of rising petrol too, the met have started sending patrol teams out on tamdem bikes recently in my area which is simply hilarious.

The other issue we have in the UK is that when you get arrested, the police do find a lawyer for you but unless you specify one then it's one of their choosing, and every time I've been in trouble its A) either been some dumbfuck lawyer or B) been in cahoots with the police and stitched me up. Someone needs to make a comparison website of good criminal defense lawyers in the UK willing to work on legal-aid.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Cpt. Meow on May 14, 2012, 01:00 pm
This is a pretty thorough summary on how to deal with LE in the US, imo:

http://2po5jdzeffv2kyv3.onion/polyfront/dealingwithpigs.html
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: fsgr on May 14, 2012, 01:22 pm
No Comment
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Aseras on May 14, 2012, 08:04 pm
In the US, you can terminate an interrogation by saying so. Asking for a lawyer alone will not terminate the interrogation. They will badger you to try and get you to say something. If you tell them the interrogation is over they must cease any questioning.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: PlaneMode on May 14, 2012, 08:47 pm
"Am I being arrested?"

"yes"

"what am I being arrested for?"

"blah blah blah charges"

"Lawyer"



~~~~~~


"Am I being arrested?"

"no"

"goodbye"
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 15, 2012, 12:04 pm
In the US, you can terminate an interrogation by saying so. Asking for a lawyer alone will not terminate the interrogation. They will badger you to try and get you to say something. If you tell them the interrogation is over they must cease any questioning.

Really? In that case God Bless America!

V.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Duckman on May 15, 2012, 05:22 pm
I am actually in the process of writing a guide for people living in the UK for dealing with the Police.

It would be good to have such a guide.

One thing I would say is this, you should make it clear in the guide that often there is no way to get off scott free, so often what you are trying to achieve is damage limitation.  In situations like this people sometimes wrongly believe that if they say a certain combination of words in a certain order then they will be home and dry and TBH that isnt really going to be the case if you find yourself being questioned by the police.  The very fact they are questioning you means they probably know 80% of the facts already.. they dont usually round up random people in the hopes that they have done something wrong.

So I think the guide should be more of a practical guide than a theoretical guide as I think, in theory, its still legal to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow after midnight in certain parts of England.  In practice there is no combination of words you could say that would get you off.

In theory its illegal to eat Christmas pudding in the UK (if I remember correctly Oliver Cromwell passed a law banning it and its never been repealed to this day).  In practice no one is being arrested for possession of a seasonal desert!

I really look forward to reading it if you get the time to  put it all together.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: anatta on May 20, 2012, 10:45 pm
I don't think anyone has posted this yet but flexyourrights.org has some really good information on dealing with LE (at least in the US).  They have some videos and some lectures by professors and they make a pretty compelling case why you should never, under any circumstance talk to LE whatsoever.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 21, 2012, 04:03 pm
Thanks Duckman,

I'm very nearly finished Part 1 and think I will post in a separate thread so as not to cause confusion for people living outside the UK - it's probably best to do this in stages as I want to make it easy to digest.

Probably the biggest fallacy I want to clear up is that adverse inferences can't be drawn from your silence if you claim you were doing so under advice from your Solicitor. It is still down to a court to decide whether it was reasonable to do so.

The great Prof. Eric Shepherd himself who designed these interrogation techniques now in force across the UK and has admitted that on the balance of probabilities you're less likely to be charged by keeping quiet.

I think it would be good though to give people a feel for the kind of non verbal cues they can give away and also about the processes used by the Police to obtain and collate evidence. People don't like to think about this sort of thing but of course this won't stop it from happening and of course we all need to be prepared for the possibility!

V.

I am actually in the process of writing a guide for people living in the UK for dealing with the Police.

It would be good to have such a guide.

One thing I would say is this, you should make it clear in the guide that often there is no way to get off scott free, so often what you are trying to achieve is damage limitation.  In situations like this people sometimes wrongly believe that if they say a certain combination of words in a certain order then they will be home and dry and TBH that isnt really going to be the case if you find yourself being questioned by the police.  The very fact they are questioning you means they probably know 80% of the facts already.. they dont usually round up random people in the hopes that they have done something wrong.

So I think the guide should be more of a practical guide than a theoretical guide as I think, in theory, its still legal to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow after midnight in certain parts of England.  In practice there is no combination of words you could say that would get you off.

In theory its illegal to eat Christmas pudding in the UK (if I remember correctly Oliver Cromwell passed a law banning it and its never been repealed to this day).  In practice no one is being arrested for possession of a seasonal desert!

I really look forward to reading it if you get the time to  put it all together.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Duckman on May 21, 2012, 04:56 pm

Probably the biggest fallacy I want to clear up is that adverse inferences can't be drawn from your silence if you claim you were doing so under advice from your Solicitor. It is still down to a court to decide whether it was reasonable to do so.


I actually sat through a court case where this happened.

Guy gave a no comment interview, apparently on his solicitors advice.

When it got to court the prosecution made huge inferences from his silence, the basic premise for these was that an honest person would have known the answer to many of the questions and would have wanted to clear things up there an then.. i.e. were you part of the said conspiracy? .. No comment.   Then in court they say that an honest person would have known if they were or were not a part of the said conspiracy and an honest person would have wanted to assist the police in their inquiries.  So as the "no comment" answer was given, they inferred that the defendant knew that he was a part of the conspiracy and therefore opted for a "no comment" interview.

Obviously this wasn't the crucial piece of evidence that convicted him, but it all helped in putting a case against him.


The other issue was that he claimed that he gave the "no comment" interview under the instructions of his solicitor.  The rebuttal to that was simply that the police had read out the magic words "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court".

Obviously he tried to argue that he didnt know the implications of this but as his solicitor was a trained legal professional he opted to take the "no comment advice".  That didnt really help him as the police were interviewing him and not his solicitor.  They had explained the implications of not answering and although he may or may not have been advised of what to do by his solicitor, it was ultimately his own choice.

They don't take kindly to people giving "no comment" interviews but later having plausible explanations that can be given in court because when it gets to court you know the entire case against you and can therefore play 'fill in the blanks with something relatively innocent'.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 23, 2012, 12:34 pm
Thanks for this Duckman,

Probably the most useful page a lay person can read is the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidelines on adverse inferences.

Obviously it’s written from the perspective of a Solicitor who has been instructed to represent the prosecution but is nonetheless extremely useful.

With regard to the above here’s a choice extract:

“ This principle was further developed in R v Beckles [2005] 1 WLR 2829 in which the Court of Appeal set out a two stage test for juries to consider before drawing an adverse inference:
1.   Did the defendant genuinely rely on the legal advice, i.e. did the defendant accept the advice and believe that he was entitled to follow it? and
2.   Was it reasonable for the defendant to rely on the advice? By way of example, a defendant may be acting unreasonably if he relied on the legal advice to remain silent because he had no explanation to give and the advice suited his own purposes.
Reasonableness does not depend on whether the advice was legally correct or whether it complied with the Law Society's guidelines. R v Argent [1997] Crim.L.R. 449 CA and R v Roble [1997] Crim.L.R. 449, CA. “
(Source: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/#a06)


An excellent case in point c/o the excellent Crimeline newsletter involved an appeal by a man who had maintained silence at interview and during trial and was nonetheless convicted. On appeal this conviction was upheld:

“K v Director of Public Prosecutions, Divisional Court, 30 March 2012

A submission of no case to answer was rejected in the trial of a man convicted of taking a motor vehicle contrary to s.12(1) Theft Act 1968. The court upheld that decision and dismissed the appeal, finding that there was sufficient evidence upon which to convict. Keys fitting the appellant's front door and a mobile phone holding his DNA were found in the vehicle. The appellant had failed to explain their presence by making no comment in interview and declining to give evidence at his trial.”

(Source : Crimeline Newsletter April 2012)


This of course is an extreme example wherein there was clear evidence of a person’s guilt and there was very little that could be said in mitigation except perhaps that the vehicle was stolen as  a matter of necessity. It’s not theft for instance to ride off on someone else’s bicycle because you’re trying to escape from an axe wielding maniac. Your “mensus rheus” (Latin for “guilty mind”) would not be the same as for someone who genuinely wanted to take something for themeselves.

Possession of drugs however is a statutory offence. As I’ve explained in some detail in another thread, the possession itself is the crime. Your only defence would lie in the fact that you cannot be in possession of something of which you are unaware, though it would be down to the defence to prove this.

Nevertheless it’s still overwhelmingly in your favour to remain silent (at least at first!) during Police interview. I will explain why in my next post…

V.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 23, 2012, 12:51 pm
Welcome back,

I thought I’d break this into two parts just to make things easier on the eye.

Remaining silent during Police interview in my opinion is a matter of balancing probabilities. It is more likely you will implicate yourself in a crime and provide evidence useful to the Prosecution than it is that a case will proceed despite you remaining silent and adverse inferences being drawn from the same.

As I explained earlier CID officers are trained to use the “Conversation Management” approach when interviewing. I have managed to obtain some Police training manuals and will go further details in the guide I’m writing but in a nutshell this involves.

-   Collating all the evidence relevant to your case and preparing this in a format they can easily consult – usually in a timeline or storyboard format. They’ll also speak to the Custody Sergeant and get an idea as to your state of mind and obviously any medical issues such as if you’re a smoker and will need to take breaks.

-   Meeting with your Legal Advisor if you have requested one. This is a crucial stage as it is in the interviewing officers interests to make a limited (but not full!) disclosure. If the officer fails to convince your Solicitor that there is a “grounded allegation” against you i.e there are reasonable grounds to suspect you of the crime for which you’ve been arrested.

There are some officers who “don’t do” disclosure – if that happens or the officer reveals nothing meaningful, the Solicitor will read out a standard response c/o the Law Society to the effect that the Police have failed to make any material disclosure and they will advise you to stay silent. If the case proceeds to trial, you will have a strong defence for remaining silent.

Obviously if a Police Officer were to provide your Solicitor with all evidence held on file against you this would allow your Legal Adviser and you to concoct a plausible defence, covering all the facts, so obviously this is not in their interests either.

As I outlined in my earlier post, the interviewing Officer(s) will usually take a middle of the road approach, saying for example that your fingerprints were found at a crime scene.

A *good* Solicitor will then probe further into the matter such as asking where the fingerprints were found in relation to the crime itself, how many of them were there, is there any further evidence and so on. Any refusal to comment by the Police will be noted and will assist your Solicitor in advising you.

Obviously it’s in the Police’s best interest to allow you to try to provide an account at interview and then “ambush” you by revealing further evidence to show you are dishonest. As I will explain, this would be far more damning to your defence than your silence!

-   You will then be given a chance to consult with your Solicitor prior to the interview. Naturally anything I say cannot replace the advice they give you at this stage but I imagine they will tell you to refuse to answer any questions – inferences can be drawn from your silence at this point but it is generally advisable to let the interview play out as the initial questions the interviewing officer will ask are designed to gain information from you, not the other way round.



More in Part 3…
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 23, 2012, 01:34 pm
Part 3 : The Interview : - D


Probably the thing which will take you most aback is how friendly the interviewing officers will be. You’ll have spent some time alone in a cell and may be feeling that you want some company – be strong, now is not the time!

I’ve already given an example of a stock introduction as per “The Conversation Management Approach” which will run along these lines:

“Hi, I’m DC Dave Jones and I’m handling your case. Before we get started I’m just going to get myself a coffee. Our canteen can fix pretty much any drink, can I get you anything before we get started?”

This is a little unlike the “Life in Mars” approach where a suspect is dragged into an interview room until a confession is beaten out of them but is actually more effective!

By being friendly they’re trying to make sure you’re more likely to open up and share information.

Analsying your body language and responses while they ask you if you want a drink or bathroom break will also help them understand how you react when answering a question truthfully. Finally, this also ensures the interview won’t be interrupted by you asking for a drink / to go to the toilet.

When you’re led into the interview room, once again you’ll be told about the format the interview will take. Needless to say everything you say is recorded. Increasingly these days this is done by video (more on this later).

The interviewing officers will introduce themselves and anyone else who is present like a responsible adult and/or your Solicitor who will state their own names for the benefit of the tape. You’ll also be asked to state your own name and address though of course you don’t have to answer.

If your Solicitor has advised you to remain silent, they can also mention it at this stage.

The interview from the officer’s perspective will follow the format of SE3R which in plain English means they will attempt to listen to your account of events once uninterrupted. They will then ask some questions to further clarify your account and finally compare that with the evidence they have to hand to compare any inconsistencies in your narrative.

At this initial stage there is very little to be gained from an early confession. You’ll find the first questions are very open ended e.g

“Please take your time. I’d like you to take me through what happened between when you left your work today and arrived home.”

If you begin talking immediately you’ll find the Police will simply listen to your account at this stage. They will often nod encouragingly and will only ask follow up questions if you stop speaking.

If (as I recommend!) you simply answer no comment, you’ll find they’ll probably try a few more open ended questions to see if they’ll have any more joy e.g

“Please take your time. I’d like you to take me through what happened between when you left your work today and arrived home.”

“No comment.”

“Do you know Mary Bright?”

“No comment.”

“Tell me about your relationship with her.”

“No comment.”


Don’t be surprised if the Police take a short break at this stage – you’re not out of the woods by a long shot but they may want to reevaluate the evidence they hold on file such as forensics, witness statements and so on.

This is an excellent tactic from your perspective as it forces them to reveal their hand to a greater extent and you lose nothing.

The most difficult suspects for them to interview are those who have either been interviewed before and know the dangers of opening their mouths or people who have learned about their interrogation techniques vicariously i.e through the media or from their friends.

If you refuse to cooperate then the interviewing officers will switch their own tactics to asking you questions about the evidence on file. The chief thing you’ll notice about this is that they will leave long pauses after you reply “No Comment.” This is so that when the case comes to court they can claim this was a “Significant Silence” i.e one from which adverse inferences can be drawn.

The good news is that it will give you some idea of the body of evidence against you. They don’t have to reveal everything but they can’t have it both ways : if they fail to disclose something relevant to your prosecution, you can’t be expected to comment on it and no adverse inferences can be drawn from your case at the time of trial.

If there is clear evidence of your guilty and the interviewing officers have already made their minds up to request the CPS charge you (it’s not their decision any more except for minor offences) then adverse inferences cannot be drawn and you lose nothing by remaining silent.

If of course there is a weak case against you and no material evidence i.e they were relying on your confession, then you will be released without charge.

Of course most cases fall between these two extremes. It’s important to bear in mind that Police Officers are trained to detect attempts at deception or people making misleading statements.

Naturally the best liars are those who mingle lies with the truth to give a plausible explanation of events, however the Police believe it is possible to tell from a person’s speech patterns and body language if they are being sincere.

Examine these two statements:

“I was arguing with him when he suddenly grabbed the bottle out of my hand and pushed me away. I helped my hands up and he hit me on the head with it.”

“I was arguing with him, when next thing I knew the bottle was snatched from my hand and I was on the floor bleeding from the head.”

Both of these statements describe a person being attacked but a Police Officer would be more likely to believe the first rather than the second.

You’ll note in the second statement that the interviewee is firstly providing a lot more detail using the passive voice. This is usually done as people shy away from using personal pronouns when being untruthful e.g The door was shut as opposed to the active voice “I shut the door.”

Worse still, people will often use the passive voice along with the active voice – which is perceived by an investigating officer as a weakness in your statement and will be homed in on:

“Yeah, I bought a burger at that café but whoever attacked that woman wasn’t me.”


You may also find you’re asked to repeat yourself. People telling the truth can (and do!) reword it differently each time. A liar is more likely either to repeat themselves using the same wording or to simply give an inconsistent account of events:

“I just want to be sure I’ve understood you correctly. When did you say you left the café?”

“I told you I wasn’t there, I went straight home and watched the match”

“I remember you told me earlier you’d bought a burger at the café.”

“Yeah well I went straight home after and watched the match.”



Of course there are plenty of other reasons you might give an account which doesn’t bear up to close scrutiny – you may well be nervous about being arrested, or simply have a bad memory but this is the nature of the techniques that will be applied to you.

If you feel there is something, which if not mentioned will harm your defence, you should bear in mind you can suspend the interview at any time to talk to your Solicitor, at which point you can explain anything you see fit in private e.g that you were not in the area the crime was committed at the time.

A good Solicitor will probably advise you under these circumstances either to remain silent or to submit a written statement, which they will help you prepare.

If you submit a written statement and refuse to answer further questions, it will be difficult for the Prosecution to persuade the jury to draw adverse inferences from your silence at trial provided your defence in court is entirely consistent with your statement. It also prevents you being subjected to the kind of cross examination in your account that I outlined above.

However any contradictions between your statement and the defence you ultimately present can be pointed out when the case comes to trial. Inferences can also be drawn if you fail to mention anything in your statement that you could reasonably have been expected to mention. In the example I used above, the fact you were not present at the time was committed would probably count!

You can make a written statement both before charge and on being charged. Adverse inferences can still be drawn from your remaining silent before charge but I imagine your Solicitor will advise you on the balance of probabilities to remain silent and see if the CPS agree there is enough evidence to charge you in the first place  - at which point if you feel there’s anything you must say in your defence, your Solicitor can request that you have the opportunity to do so.

V.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: Monty Cantsin on July 29, 2013, 05:10 pm
Here you can watch the reasons given by a detective not to talk to cops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Also: https://ccrjustice.org/files/CCR_If_An_Agent_Knocks.pdf

The same basic rules apply if an agent calls on the phone. You do not have to speak to any agent who spontaneously calls you. Agents
will often say that you are not part  of any investigation. This may not be the truth. Tell anyone who identifies themselves as law enforcement that you will have your lawyer call them back – and then stop talking to them.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: helpmywife on July 29, 2013, 06:05 pm
You tell the lawyer what you want him to present to the judge/DA/Jury etc. Now if you tell him "hey man i actualy kinda did it" or ANYTHING that you cant say to the judge, he must take a affrimitive stance and get you the best possible deal. if you tell him i really didnt do it please get me home asap, he must do his best to do that and fight for you as innocent. IF he doesnt you should fire his ass and report him to the BAR. Thats his job, dont let them push you into doing something you dont want(free city lawyers) ITS UP TO YOU. ANY legal questions about cops and small charges ask away! i cant get into it but i know a lot about that area.
also EVERYTHING the OP sai is true AFTER YOU KNOW your going to jail.AGAIN: AFTER YOU KNOW.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: tbart on July 29, 2013, 06:59 pm
sometimes it conveys better in a video - this one's of a 30 year detective (US) giving a lecture to a class of law students on why not to talk to the cops, including showing examples of how they entrap you - a prosecutor, it's been said, can indict a ham sandwich, if he wants to - fine, let him, just don't ask me to give him any ammo (evidence) - it's a good vid, about 21 minutes, first good example comes at the 5 minute mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

fwiw
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: teaball on July 30, 2013, 01:02 am
Of course you never say anything to the police... I also get a kick out of the " I'd never snitch " group. And some people are so stupid they actually give money to untraceable strangers.
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: PureEnergy on July 30, 2013, 01:08 am
You dont even need to say LAWYER, if you were so inclined to go the route of Common Law and represent yourself.

Under Common Law and The Declaration of Human Rights, if you have harmed no one, you can literally walk away from the Police (they call it resisting arrest). You have to know and understand many facets of these laws and come to grips with statues and acts, and (in my opinion) believe in your soul that you are a free and natural being.

They are lengthy battles, but if you stick to your guns and know your shit, you'll walk away without a conviction because the courts/justice system will always be unable to pursue what they don't understand.

Funny eh, that Police, Judges, Lawyers etc don't even have a fundamental grasp on the foundations of their own system of governance.

Peace to all

PE
Title: Re: 95% of advice on how to handle police is WRONG. also, what to say to lawyer?
Post by: cirrus on July 30, 2013, 05:05 am
This thread is over a year old.