Interesting Miranda Ruling from Supreme Court

[swansont]

Okay, so a maximum of 8.4% (60% of 14%), and a minimum of 0.28% (14% of 2%), which has a mean of 4.06%. That's the number of cases where a wrongful conviction resulted from a false confession, if those studies are accurate.

 

I can live with that.

 

From false confession? I think that's staggeringly high. Not all innocent people who are browbeaten or tricked by the police will confess to the crime, which does not reflect well on the system. This is one area where I think zero tolerance should apply.

[Sisyphus]

The thing is, if you're more willing to convict based solely on iffy confessions, that's a big incentive for police to push for them more, inevitably raising the number of wrongful convictions.

 

Another thing to consider is that those false confessions are probably very unevenly distributed - i.e. there have to be some cops getting much more than their share.* I have a very strong aversion to empowering dirty cops. The association with authoritarian regimes (you know everyone arrested in North Korea "confesses" sooner or later) doesn't help.

 

*I have no direct evidence for that, just common sense and anecdotal experience.

[King, North TX]

surely it is also your right to voluntarily waive those rights.

 

put simply, if you feel the situation could be quickly resolved by allowing a police officer to perform a search of your car then you are allowed to do that.

 

it is also your right to complicate matters by kicking up a stink as well.

 

personally, i'd have no problem with a police officer searching my person or car or house as long as they have what i'd consider a reasonable reason for it. i'm not too fussed and i don't have anything to hide.

 

Oh my...

 

I urge you to re-think your stance on 'consenting to be searched'. The stop is going to be 'longer' if you consent to the search. Once you consent to be searched, you can be placed in the squad car, while they order canine units.

 

The officer should be ushered along his way by denying every offer to be searched. If the officer had probably cause, he'd search you WITHOUT your permission. If you then had nothing criminal on your person that you did not otherwise disclose (never do that either), like say a pocketknife or box cutter, you would be allowed to leave. But upon search, if they DID find an undisclosed weapon or a little beer at the bottom of a crushed can, you could be charged...

 

NEVER relent to a search. Simply ask the officer if he has a warrant or probable cause. When he says no, then say "Then no, you may not search me or my property."

 

Then you'll be on your way, because he has no reason to hold you.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A staggering percentage of convictions are made on confession.

 

It's very important that if you are ever arrested (assuming you actually are innocent) that you say absolutely nothing other than what is required of you.

 

In Australia all you are required to give police is

Identification

(correct) Name & Address

and in some cases your Origin & Destination (ie if you're picked up travelling somewhere)

 

...

 

It's sorta the same here. Except in Arizona, all that you are required to provide an officer, is your name and current residence. Not a formal I.D., or any kind of papers.

[insane_alien]

Oh my...

 

I urge you to re-think your stance on 'consenting to be searched'. The stop is going to be 'longer' if you consent to the search. Once you consent to be searched, you can be placed in the squad car, while they order canine units.

 

The officer should be ushered along his way by denying every offer to be searched. If the officer had probably cause, he'd search you WITHOUT your permission. If you then had nothing criminal on your person that you did not otherwise disclose (never do that either), like say a pocketknife or box cutter, you would be allowed to leave. But upon search, if they DID find an undisclosed weapon or a little beer at the bottom of a crushed can, you could be charged...

 

NEVER relent to a search. Simply ask the officer if he has a warrant or probable cause. When he says no, then say "Then no, you may not search me or my property."

 

ahem, you seem not to have read the part about the probable cause where i mentioned, i'd only consent if the officer did have what seemd to be a good reason.

 

infact, this has actually happened to me. what happened was a police sniffer dog seemed interested in the contents of my bag(there were no drugs in it, only a box of tools which also contained a stanley knife). what happened was the police officer gave me the choice of consenting to be searched for drugs or taken down to the police station and searched there. i consented for him to search my bag there and then(the sniffer dog was only interested in the bag, not me.). i even told him about the stanley knife in the toolbox when he asked me if there was anything sharp i nthe bag.

 

so, what happened was he searched the bag, found nothing but what i told him was in there and asked me if i knew where any traces could have come from and i said "no"(i honestly didn't, the bag had been sitting in my cupboard for some weeks although it was sitting on the ground at the trainstation, it is possible that it could have been sitting on the remenants of a joint but it certainly wasn't from me or my house).

 

after a few more questions(mostly about why i had the knife) which i answered truthfully, i was allowed to go on my way. nothing further happened.

 

if i had been taken to the station i would have been detained for far far longer than i was and would have been late.

 

like i said, if i think they have a good reason for stopping me, i will cooperate. if i think they are abusing their powers, i will not.

[Pangloss]

Totally, and I guess any system is going to be flawed, in some regard.

 

Yeah, probably so.

 

 

Vigilantism isn't a good option either...just saying

 

Agreed. That was a really tragic example, btw.

[swansont]

ahem, you seem not to have read the part about the probable cause where i mentioned, i'd only consent if the officer did have what seemd to be a good reason.

 

If he has probable cause, he doesn't need your consent.

[insane_alien]

If he has probable cause, he doesn't need your consent.

 

yes, i am aware of that, my point being that i'd ask for what reason before deciding whether to be cooperative or remain silent and give him more work to do.

 

if the reason was something good, such as the example above where a sniffer dog was indicating me despite me not carrying any drugs, then i'd cooperate fully(this is of course assuming i'm innocent which should be the case).

 

if the reason is something crap, random searches would be one, then i'll not be cooperative.

[Double K]

It's really important to understand your rights.

I can't speak for American law, although I would imagine it's fairly similar.

 

Police really rely on the fact that most people don't know their rights, and they will use their authority to get you to consent when you often really need not to.

 

It really irks me when people give the old "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" addage. I disagree with that, in that if I have nothing to hide, then I have no reason to consent to a search. If a drug dog is indicating I guess that gives an officer probable cause to search you, but in most cases they wont have a dog with them, and I would not be surprised if they could queue their dog to indicate at a person with a command or a certain tug on a leash so it looked like the dog was indicating when in fact its truly not.

[King, North TX]

ahem, you seem not to have read the part about the probable cause where i mentioned, i'd only consent if the officer did have what seemd to be a good reason.

 

infact, this has actually happened to me. what happened was a police sniffer dog seemed interested in the contents of my bag(there were no drugs in it, only a box of tools which also contained a stanley knife). what happened was the police officer gave me the choice of consenting to be searched for drugs or taken down to the police station and searched there. i consented for him to search my bag there and then(the sniffer dog was only interested in the bag, not me.). i even told him about the stanley knife in the toolbox when he asked me if there was anything sharp i nthe bag.

 

so, what happened was he searched the bag, found nothing but what i told him was in there and asked me if i knew where any traces could have come from and i said "no"(i honestly didn't, the bag had been sitting in my cupboard for some weeks although it was sitting on the ground at the trainstation, it is possible that it could have been sitting on the remenants of a joint but it certainly wasn't from me or my house).

 

after a few more questions(mostly about why i had the knife) which i answered truthfully, i was allowed to go on my way. nothing further happened.

 

if i had been taken to the station i would have been detained for far far longer than i was and would have been late.

 

like i said, if i think they have a good reason for stopping me, i will cooperate. if i think they are abusing their powers, i will not.

 

You were right here, good call.

[ParanoiA]

But there are situations where what you feel does not reflect reality. You might be breaking the law in a way you do not know

 

Why even the innocent shouldn't talk to the police:

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/07...-shouldnt.html

 

Just wanted to say thanks for that. It's absolutely scary how innocent you and the officer can both be, yet find yourself being accused by the officer's own, honest mistaken interpretation. I failed the question at the end too.

 

I just wish they would have talked a moment or two about respectfully remaining silent and/or refusing to talk with law enforcement. Somehow, I see me being detained for hours on end in retribution, despite my insistence of a lack of probable cause to do so.

[swansont]

Just wanted to say thanks for that. It's absolutely scary how innocent you and the officer can both be, yet find yourself being accused by the officer's own, honest mistaken interpretation. I failed the question at the end too.

 

I just wish they would have talked a moment or two about respectfully remaining silent and/or refusing to talk with law enforcement. Somehow, I see me being detained for hours on end in retribution, despite my insistence of a lack of probable cause to do so.

 

Yeah, I was fascinated by it, and the whole premise of the lawyer's presentation is that there is no malice assumed on the part of the police and prosecution.

 

As far as I know any recourse for being detained without cause is after the fact — you can sue for violation of your civil rights. Asserting your 5th amendment right does not give them probable cause.

[padren]

Just as a point of interest:

 

Part one: Law Professor James Duane explains why innocent people should never talk to the police:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

 

Part two: "Don't Talk to the Police" by Officer George Bruch (From same lecture)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&hl=en&emb=1#

[swansont]

Just as a point of interest:

 

Part one: Law Professor James Duane explains why innocent people should never talk to the police:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

 

Part two: "Don't Talk to the Police" by Officer George Bruch (From same lecture)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&hl=en&emb=1#

 

Those are the videos in my link

[padren]

Those are the videos in my link

 

Doh!

Sorry, I completely missed that, guilty as charged.... I shouldn't have posted so fast and kept my fool mouth shut!

 

I will say though - you did link to some great videos

[Phi for All]

Those are the videos in my link

But your link is giving a 404 Error now, so thanks padren.

[swansont]

But your link is giving a 404 Error now, so thanks padren.

 

What did you do to my link?

 

My link gives no such error. The quoted link in ParanoiA's post is improperly rendered, as if it were copy/pasted, because it has ellipses in it.

 

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/07/eight-reasons-even-innocent-shouldnt.html

is correct

 

 

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/07...-shouldnt.html

is not

 

(hover over the link to see the actual difference in url)

[Phi for All]

So what if you're being questioned by a police officer but they haven't charged you with anything? You're not in the station, you're on the street and a policeman approaches you and wants to ask some questions about something you might have witnessed. Do you clam up because he might misinterpret what you say and use it against you?

 

What did you do to my link?

So you admit it *is* your link! (turns to judge) No further questions, your honor....

[CharonY]

Furthermore the defendant maliciously accuses an innocent bystander of fiddling with his links. Links that now he admits to be his.

(Interesting talk btw.).

[Double K]

So what if you're being questioned by a police officer but they haven't charged you with anything? You're not in the station, you're on the street and a policeman approaches you and wants to ask some questions about something you might have witnessed. Do you clam up because he might misinterpret what you say and use it against you?

 

So you admit it *is* your link! (turns to judge) No further questions, your honor....

 

Absolutely!

But you know, use your discretion...

If you've obviously not been involved in something provide a statement to police. There's a big difference between providing a statement, and being questioned though. Make sure he has his notepad out, and writes down verbatim what you just said. It can't be mis-interpreted that way. If he's not writing it down, ask him to take his book out and write it down. If he/(she) refuses, then you are well within your rights to refuse to co-operate on the grounds that what you say is subject to mis-interpretation. Alternatively, request that you go to the station and have your statement recorded on tape.

[Phi for All]

Make sure he has his notepad out, and writes down verbatim what you just said. It can't be mis-interpreted that way.

But the video stated that they can use parts of an interview and leave out the rest. So what if I tell the officer I saw a guy emerge from a store with a blue laptop computer under his arm, run across the street and get into a green car and drive away. I don't have anything on the car because I wasn't paying that much attention, but because the cop has no one else he decides to charge me because I knew the odd color of the computer that was stolen. The prosecutor convinces a jury that the person in the green car was my accomplice and since I fit a general description of the suspect, I'm suddenly in big trouble.

 

It sucks that the system works against the innocent person who just wants to cooperate with the police.

[D H]

Okay, so a maximum of 8.4% (60% of 14%), and a minimum of 0.28% (14% of 2%), which has a mean of 4.06%. That's the number of cases where a wrongful conviction resulted from a false confession, if those studies are accurate.

 

I can live with that.

 

That was from page 1, so I assume you have been beaten up quite a bit regarding that statement. So, piling on,

 

That is a terrible statistic! What if 4.06% of all plane flights ended with a fatal crash? 4.06% automobile trips involved a collision? 4.06% of all vaccinations resulted in a serious adverse reaction? A 4.06% failure rate is acceptable for things that are completely inconsequential such as infant mortality in light bulbs. It isn't even acceptable for things that are extremely risky such as flying into orbit the Space Shuttle. A 4.06% false positive rate for the government ruining someone's life via a false conviction is IMHO utterly unacceptable.

[Mr Skeptic]

A 4.06% false positive rate for the government ruining someone's life via a false conviction is IMHO utterly unacceptable.

 

Really, it depends a lot on what the alternative is. In many cases, the alternative is simply to do nothing, which is safe. But when it comes to crime, doing nothing means more crime which is unsafe. Lowering the false conviction rate will require lowering the overall conviction rate, almost certainly by a lot more. If you have a serial killer, for example, and you're only 96% sure he's guilty, and you let him go on a 4% chance he's innocent, he's almost certainly going to kill again, which will likewise cost an innocent (or more!) their lives. Of course the false conviction would have the double whammy of ruining one innocent person's life and allowing the criminal to go free and do more evil. But at such a small false positive rate, the people would be better off despite this.

 

So really, the question is what will it cost to lower the false conviction rate? Will halving the false conviction rate from 4% to 2% halve the overall conviction rate? That would probably be unacceptable.

[iNow]

The false conviction rate must forever and continuously approach the zero bound, and has no relation whatsoever to overall conviction rates, which can and should only be appropriately measured using VALID and ACCURATE convictions as your sample.

[CharonY]

This is a typical problem of type I and II errors.

Essentially there are four different outcomes, Innocent and convicted (false positive) innocent and not convicted (true negative), guilty and convicted (true positive) and guilty and not convicted (false negative).

The question is what the relation between these factors are and what an impact of tweaking the system e.g. towards lower false positives (i.e. lowering type I error rate) will have on the false negative rate.

 

However estimating the respective rates is tricky as only an unknown fraction of false positives will actually determined to be so (as by default there are assumed to the true positives, as they have been convicted). Only those that unequivocally prove their innocence (and less than 100% of those will be able to do so, in absence of evidence) will be counted.

Likewise the problem with false negatives.

And finally the form of correlation between those two errors is not really clear. It will likely vary a lot depending on the type of crime, too. Also there are certainly certain elements within the legal system that will have stronger effects on the errors than others. Based on the statistics of exonerated convicts being black has a higher chance of being falsely convicted.

Edited June 11, 2010 by CharonY

[ParanoiA]

So what if you're being questioned by a police officer but they haven't charged you with anything? You're not in the station, you're on the street and a policeman approaches you and wants to ask some questions about something you might have witnessed. Do you clam up because he might misinterpret what you say and use it against you?

 

After watching the videos, I will certainly cooperate and talk with the police as long as I'm not the subject of their investigation. I thought that was more or less implied, but maybe that's just me.

 

You wouldn't want to be an obstacle in a time sensitive situation where further life is at risk, like a kidnapping or something, just because of the potential for honest human error to cost you. That would seem fairly extreme and paranoid to me. But if I'm the subject, in any way, shape or form, then I'm clamming up. That's not paranoia, that's wisdom straight from the horse's mouth.