Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Concerning interrogations

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LINY
    replied
    If they are a suspect and a Miranda warning has been given, they can lie, so long as it is not coercive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jiu-Jitsu Cop
    replied
    [QUOTE=Ex Army MP;2685195]Only a moron would give such advice. The burden of proof is on the state so unless they had proof beyond a reasonable doubt, what good could come of confessing? None.

    Hey, hey, hey, I think you are missing the point here. Let them confess, put it on tape, write an apology letter and ask for the death penalty if it applies. Sure would make my job easier.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jiu-Jitsu Cop
    replied
    Originally posted by willbird View Post
    Thats some darn scary stuff, granted it was a long time ago....but still, within my lifetime.
    Yep the gun to the head is scary, yep scary its not allowed. JK
    Also many of the case laws in there were not truley what we were looking for. It startes to cover the softening up of a suspect by talking about football teams, hometown, people they know, etc

    Leave a comment:


  • Ex Army MP
    replied
    Originally posted by pfchell View Post
    can limit them because you have the right to keep your silence until trial. that's it. if you know how to shut your mouth and blow in the dice. my suggestion is if you knew you done wrong, you should admit and get over it.
    Only a moron would give such advice. The burden of proof is on the state so unless they had proof beyond a reasonable doubt, what good could come of confessing? None.

    And another thing, you have the right to remain silent all the way through, not just until trial.

    Leave a comment:


  • willbird
    replied
    E.g., Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519 (1968) (police withheld food and prevented sleep during eighteen-hour interrogation); Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U.S. 35 (1967) (police officers held gun to the head of wounded individual to extract confession); Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737 (1966) (police placed individual in closed cell without windows, provide limited food, and use coercive tactics for sixteen days).
    Thats some darn scary stuff, granted it was a long time ago....but still, within my lifetime.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneAdam12
    replied
    The key being after the suspect invokes Miranda, the suspect then initiates the contact with police.

    It doesn't have to be the interrogationg officer, it could be any officer in any jurisdiction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jiu-Jitsu Cop
    replied
    Ok I have looked for the case law. Here is one where the defendant refers to the term softening up during interrogation. It is based on a conversation with detectives while on an airplane. Sorry but they quote sooooo many case laws from here that I am tired for now. Some of the case laws do not directly relate but this should get the ball rolling for you.

    Mickey v. Ayers ninth circuit court of appeals june 7 2010

    Mickey also argues that Landry's gift of a mint from Mickey's home undermined the voluntariness of Mickey's confession by “softening up” Mickey. But the totality of the circumstances convince us that Mickey's will was not overborne by the gift. The mint was given at 8 p.m., but the first incriminating statement did not occur until four hours later, with several hours of calm small talk that continued the earlier small talk intervening. Given that Mickey acted the same before and after the mint, it is hard to see how the mint is “causally related” to Mickey's statements. Connelly, 479 U.S. at 164. Additionally, this type of behavior is a far cry from the type of police behavior typically associated with coercion. E.g., Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519 (1968) (police withheld food and prevented sleep during eighteen-hour interrogation); Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U.S. 35 (1967) (police officers held gun to the head of wounded individual to extract confession); Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737 (1966) (police placed individual in closed cell without windows, provide limited food, and use coercive tactics for sixteen days). We conclude that Mickey's in-flight statements were voluntary.
    Miranda and Edwards, however, only apply to interrogations, which consist of “any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). Casual conversation is generally not the type of behavior that police should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. United States v. Tail, 459 F.3d 854, 858 (8th Cir.2006) (“Polite conversation is not the functional equivalent of interrogation.”); United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 849 (11th Cir.1984) (“Incriminating statements made in the course of casual conversation are not products of a custodial interrogation.”). Here, on the airplane the police asked no questions and only responded to Mickey's desire for small talk. They engaged in casual conversation of the type generally not subject to Edwards.

    Mickey argues that the small talk, though casual, does not fall under this general rule. In his view, Landry had reason to know his behavior might elicit an incriminating response because he was “softening up” Mickey by participating in a discussion of the connections between their two families, including Landry's knowledge of Mickey's brother's suicide. But, Landry did not intend and had no reason to know that his statements about his various family members and how they interacted with Mickey's family were likely to elicit an incriminating response in the context of a conversation ranging from California, philosophy, and politics to family, food, and football. See United States v. Hackley, 636 F.2d 493, 498 (D.C.Cir.1980) (holding that a statement from a conversation about defendant's cousin in which police mentioned their inability to reach her after her arrest was not interrogatory). Here, the small talk was not interrogational. Moreover, Mickey initiated the discussion of California connections between the two men. His words and deeds thus can be “fairly said to represent a desire” to “open up a more generalized discussion relating ․ indirectly to the investigation.” Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1045 (1983). Since Mickey was not interrogated and, in any event, initiated the discussion on the airplane, his Miranda and Edwards rights were not violated on the flight.
    Last edited by Jiu-Jitsu Cop; 03-15-2011, 12:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jiu-Jitsu Cop
    replied
    Originally posted by Zeitgeist View Post
    Can you cite the case law on this one, I'd like to read it for clarification....def. good info.

    Yes but give me until Tuesday when I go on my days off so I can look it up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vorkon
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd_jones View Post
    Read more post less you'll be amazed at how much you learn, and could possibly get the majority of your questions answered.
    Sometimes I like to post on these topics just to read what I post. Sort of like someone that likes to hear them selfs talk!

    Leave a comment:


  • Zeitgeist
    replied
    Originally posted by Jiu-Jitsu Cop View Post
    The problem with this question (at the top of the post) is that when it comes to interrogation there is sooo many case laws out there that you do have to be careful. I will touch on a few things you can and can not do but in reality you could spend a day teaching a class on just this subject. As a result you will not get all possible answers here on a forum.
    1) An officer can lie to a suspect during interrogation by saying something like your accomplice confessed and said he was with you.
    2) An Officer can not make promises such as you will get a reduced sentence if you confess ( I am not sure on a federal level on this statement).
    3) An Officer can not "Soften" a suspect. Such as you can not start the interrogation with a converstation about the suspect's favorite basketball team then try to use that in the interview to say something like, "hey us Lakers fans need to stick together, you shouldn't lie to another Lakers fan." There is a case law on doing this.4) You can not use religion saying something like you will burn in hell if you do not confess.
    5) you can not use force or threat of physical injury in order to obtain a confession.
    There is a long class you could take on Miranda Rights and spontaneous statements. We could go on an on about what can be done or not. I stopped watching programs like CSI and Law and Order because of how many laws would have been broken by the actor/cops on the show.
    Can you cite the case law on this one, I'd like to read it for clarification....def. good info.

    Leave a comment:


  • HeadDoc
    replied
    Part of the problem is that there aren't actually "rule books" that you can use to look it up and know if a technique is or is not allowed. There is case law which is helpful, but case law only comes about when someone challenges the interrogation technique under which they were convicted. What this means is that LEOs may be using something which they believe to be perfectly acceptable and which has been used for decades when suddenly the penalty flag is thrown and that technique can't be used any more. Sometimes the court's logic is so convoluted that it leaves the LEOs scratching their heads but they are required to abide by the decision. In general, any technique which would tend to make an innocent person confess is prohibited but the variations of that are almost infinite. "We have a witness who says you did it" is usually acceptable because the suspect can say, "Your witness is wrong." On the other hand, for the officer to falsely say, "I saw you myself do it" is not acceptable because the suspect knows that in court the officer has more credibility and an innocent person might be tempted to take a plea bargain rather than try to defend against a lie in court.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jiu-Jitsu Cop
    replied
    The problem with this question (at the top of the post) is that when it comes to interrogation there is sooo many case laws out there that you do have to be careful. I will touch on a few things you can and can not do but in reality you could spend a day teaching a class on just this subject. As a result you will not get all possible answers here on a forum.
    1) An officer can lie to a suspect during interrogation by saying something like your accomplice confessed and said he was with you.
    2) An Officer can not make promises such as you will get a reduced sentence if you confess ( I am not sure on a federal level on this statement).
    3) An Officer can not "Soften" a suspect. Such as you can not start the interrogation with a converstation about the suspect's favorite basketball team then try to use that in the interview to say something like, "hey us Lakers fans need to stick together, you shouldn't lie to another Lakers fan." There is a case law on doing this.
    4) You can not use religion saying something like you will burn in hell if you do not confess.
    5) you can not use force or threat of physical injury in order to obtain a confession.
    There is a long class you could take on Miranda Rights and spontaneous statements. We could go on an on about what can be done or not. I stopped watching programs like CSI and Law and Order because of how many laws would have been broken by the actor/cops on the show.

    Leave a comment:


  • kingsman
    replied
    Keep your mouth shut until you get an attorney. Thats the advice I give my relatives even though none has ever been in trouble with the law.

    Leave a comment:


  • Justsaying
    replied
    Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post
    As both of you know , I spent the vast majority of my career in Corrections...................but I am still a Certified Police Officer (inactive) in Iowa. I am pretty careful to stay out of threads like this-----or even in the traffic section (unless I can expand on an applicable Iowa law/code) because it has been sooooooo long since I did those types of jobs.

    I tend to stick to my expertise-------------or at least things I am comfortable in knowing I have up to date knowledge of.

    You have valuable info to add, I like reading what you have to say. Babysitting the thugs, from what I have seen on TV is hard and dangerous work. I have watched Lock Up and other shows that National Geographic has done on the subject, not a job for everyone, there are some extremely dangerous people/animals in prison.


    Point taken.
    Last edited by Justsaying; 03-12-2011, 08:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowa #1603
    replied
    Originally posted by Justsaying View Post
    .
    Originally posted by wyofirebirdbaby View Post
    !
    As both of you know , I spent the vast majority of my career in Corrections...................but I am still a Certified Police Officer (inactive) in Iowa. I am pretty careful to stay out of threads like this-----or even in the traffic section (unless I can expand on an applicable Iowa law/code) because it has been sooooooo long since I did those types of jobs.

    I tend to stick to my expertise-------------or at least things I am comfortable in knowing I have up to date knowledge of.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5638 users online. 350 members and 5288 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X