The best statement he made, the most valuable IMO is when he says, "If they say you have the right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during any questioning... immediately ask for a lawyer and invoke your right to remain silent. That in and of itself may stop any further questions if a lawyer for you is not immediately available." (paraphrased)
@@dobbysboggart6883 That means the investigators did not have enough to arrest and the system is working. Beating or coercing speech from a suspect is what third world countries do, if that is your idea of "justice" move to sub-Sahara Africa. They beat confessions out of you and then break your arms, put tires over your head encasing you, then light them on fire. Maybe your idea of justice is simply putting people in prison, that you and your kind don't like. Which race do you really hate?
This is a great example of why the populace has contempt for police. That contempt is justified... Simply just not talking will be the best thing one can do.
Simply not talking isn't enough anymore and can be used as evidence off your guilt in some circumstances. You need to clearly and explicitly invoke your right to silence, and right to a lawyer, like with that language.
@@Jumpman67 Maybe not to you, but what matters isn't what it means to you. What matters is what it means to a court, and if a court decides to admit it as evidence, then it's evidence.
@@wasd____ it literally can't be used as evidence and if they try your lawyer or judge will strike it down immediately. It is literally your right not to talk
I've taught my kids never talk to the police. Remain silent after invoking your right to remain silent. I can only help you if you do those things in that order. Let your lawyer do the talking.
@@okaro6595 Problem is, it's usually the cops who are getting involved with _them._ Okay, okay, I know what you mean. And yes, it's always better to obey the law than to try to get out from under a criminal charge later. But sometimes innocent people really *do* find themselves under suspicion, and it's those times when it's really important to remember to resist one's natural inclination to be honest and candid and cooperative, and refuse to talk to the police. Here's a remarkable and compelling lecture on the topic by a noted law professor and a detective (it's 46 minutes long, but worth every minute!) : ua-cam.com/video/d-7o9xYp7eE/v-deo.html
I was living in Seattle in a apartment on Queen Ann hill. I was partying pretty hard tons friends over all hours. Some one n the building called the cops said I was selling dope. These 4 detective's where banging on my door. I just got to sleep. They had no warrant to enter. But I did have a warrant for a traffic violation that I didn't know about. So they needed me to open the door. So I ask who. Is it. Cop.says Brian it's john your friend.id been more alert should never answered or opened it. They bum Rush the apartment search I'm cuffed up on the floor. I say got your warrant to search. They ignored me. When they came up empty. The 4 POS take me down to an unmarked subcompact chevy nova looked like Geo metro. They shove me in the middle of the back seat. They shoved my cuffed hands on top of the package tray where the speakers go in the back window is.i couldn't sit in the seat without dislocating my shoulders. These two big 6'+ MF sit on each side of me they both grabbed a shoulder shoved me down in the seat. As the 5 of us are heading to the cop shop about 6 miles away. Cop to my right was this lumber jack looking MF he's reading me the riot act. Finally I said. Dude why don't you practice your Marinda's. Basically I was telling him to shut up. week in jail. They did that cause they didn't find anything unprofessional pos
I found this out the hard way. I never had to call the cops before. Always treated them respect and thought they were there to help us. Nope. I called for help after my ex choked me, beat the crap out of my uncle and destroyed property. He fled before the cops got to my house. They ended up arresting me, labeled my ex as the VICTIM and had to get a lawyer and go to court to get the charges dismissed. I even told them when they got to the house there’s no need for them anymore. I just wanted him gone. I didn’t wanna press charges. Etc. They started asking me questions then I had cuffs on me. No Miranda rights were ever read. I thought they were taking me “downtown” to ask questions and this was a “safety procedure.” I kept asking “what’s going on??!” “Oh you’ll find out soon.” W. T. F.
Every lawyer that I have ever seen, and that includes three close friends who are criminal defense lawyers, all say the same thing- don't talk to the cops. Invoke your right to remain silent, and demand to speak to a lawyer. I have never heard any lawyer say anything else. That would lead me to believe that it is good advice. One lawyer tells me that one thing that the Miranda warning does not include, but should, is that nothing you say can help you. They tell you that what you say can be used against you, but not that second part. A close friend of mine remarks all the time on how stupid most of his clients are. "Did you not know that there were drugs in your car?" "Yes." " So why did you give the cops permission to search?" "I thought that I had to, if I said no, they would search anyway." "If you had to let them, they wouldn't ask permission, would they? If they did search without permission, I could get the evidence thrown out, but since you gave permission, it's in and there's nothing I can do about it."
LOLZ at "Nothing you say can help you" - I love lawyer sayings. Another is "When you go to court, you aren't guaranteed justice, you are guaranteed a shot at justice." Even if you aren't certain of the local ordinances (such as requirement to identify), you can still object and state you are complying under duress. In your example, officers remove you from the vehicle. They ask for your keys to search it. You state "I do not consent to a search." Officers state they have a right to search, if you don't give them your keys they will break your car window and search. Vehicle searches have lots of exceptions that vary by jurisdiction. In this case, the best approach may be to give the officers your keys while stating "I do not consent to a search, I am providing my keys under duress, and threat of officers damaging my vehicle."
@@NeverTalkToCops1 *Your low comprehension on display,* to _fail_ someone would have to request it, you only need an explanation if you don't understand what _"complying under duress"_ means. _"Under duress"_ is "the *unlawful* use of physical force, false imprisonment, threats of violence, or psychological pressure to compel someone to do something they do not want to do." "If a person is acting under duress, *they are not acting of their own free will and so may be treated accordingly in court proceedings."* *You are complying so you aren't risking unwittingly breaking a law* (some objections like the validity of RS and PC require a judge to determine, variations by jurisdiction noted, etc.). In this example, you are complying to prevent the officer from damaging your property, which may or may not be lawful for the officer to do (judge would need to determine if officer had sufficient basis for a warrantless search). *You are stating you're only complying because the officer is threatening additional actions if you don't comply with what you believe to be an illegal order,* which is not legally considered consent or freely complying with a request. - if it is an illegal order, you still have your protections (obtained evidence would not be admissible in court, you can file a civil suit later, etc.). - if it is a legal order, you aren't committing any additional crime by refusal.
@@1SCme - No. The best approach is to let the officer actually destroy your car. And afterwards let your LAWYER destroy them in court and force the city/county/state to buy you a brand new car and contribute to your retirement fund. When dealing with any law enforcement officer, never play the short game.
You should ALWAYS specifically invoke the fifth amendment when you refuse to answer police questions. In Salinas v TX the SCOTUS allowed a prosecutor to use a defendant's silence against him because he did not "formally" invoke any right to remain silent/the 5th amendment.
Exactly right. The SCOTUS said that if a person wants the protection of the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the person has to "claim" it. Which is dead wrong, in my opinion, but what can I do? I'm not a Supreme Court justice. So the result is that if you're ever questioned by the police, always mention the Constitution in general or the 5th Amendment in particular when refusing to answer their questions. ________________________ Edited to correct embarrassing typo 🥴
Without the "silence" that guy could have got away with the double murder. All the police had was his confession (to a friend) and the shotgun shells that matched his gun. And the eye witness testimony of his being at the scene. And leaving the scene, in a matching car. So he was probably innocent.
@@DeputyNordburg funny. But beside the point. The point is the court ruled his silence could be used as evidence against him. It's a precedent that may have bearing in cases where there isn't so much corroborating evidence.
what happens when this fake evidence "accidentally" gets mixed in with real evidence? Say that fake lab report accidentally made its way in with the real evidence and was filed in with real paperwork (seems like it would be very easy to do) and fell thru the cracks - when you have the law producing fake evidence that is asking for major trouble sometime down the line and should be highly illegal.
i have a feeling any legal document would have to have someone sign it and notorize it, if a document was faked there is some way to trace is back. those documents are basically claims by a person of a certian thing. All you would have to do is get the person who signed the document under oath did you sign this document, and if they cant say they did they unravel at that point. Lets say a forged document by a dna scientist said it was your dna and they claimed in was bob smith of department b using sample 12345. you call up bob smith of department b and tell him if he recognizes the document, if he does you grill him like you would any other document, if he doesnt and say that isnt my signature its enough for a document like that to get thrown out.
@@volkswagenginetta 1. Most documents don't have to be notarized. 2. Coroners and other forensic experts write reports every day. I would say it's unlikely that any such person is going to remember, months later at a deposition or trial, which reports he signed and which ones he didn't. The risk that a fake report might get mixed in with the real evidence is too great for fake reports to be allowed at all. Indeed, when I was in law school back in the '90s, I recall a Supreme Court case that specifically prohibited the police from producing fake evidence (while still allowing them to lie to suspects). That was a "bright line" that the court created -- and for good reason -- so I'm surprised to hear Andrew Flusche say that some jurisdictions still allow it. I thought it had been outlawed nationwide. I don't recall the name of the case, so I'm gonna have to do some research....
@@Milesco 1. Okay I should clarify I don't necessarily mean some specific definition of "notorized" but if someone is claiming something about you there has to be a signature to sign off on it. 2. I just used a specific example. Forensic experts are used to coming to court. They are going to notice if someone is claiming they did work that they didn't. Or it could be some made up name. I was just using an example of how it could be thrown out. I get your argument. I'm just being devils advocate. Fake documents won't hold up to scrutiny if people look into the details.
@@volkswagenginetta _"Fake documents won't hold up to scrutiny if people look into the details."_ Well, I would like to think that's true....but the idea of the police being allowed to create fake evidence makes me _extremely_ uncomfortable. The risk is just too great. As noted in the video, even a prosecutor was fooled.
I was actually just thinking about that the other day, "If I'm required by law to tell the truth to officers of the law (under the correct circumstances), are they required to tell me the truth?" Apparently not always. Thank you, Mr. Flusche!
The courts have repeatedly ruled that cops can lie to suspects to extract confessions, and cops are trained to manipulate you into confessing. Dont trust a word a cop says.
Police are allowed to lie, present fake evidence, create false evidence and break any law they wish in order to get you convicted of a crime. You might think no way, but who is there to stop them, you? They do as they wish because they have the power to do so and if you think another cop will stop them or the courts then you are sadly mistaken. Most police protect each others backs, never talk to them and never trust them. Those with ultimate power are most assuredly going to abuse it.
These tactics are gaslighting to the extreme, and such psychological torture could result in a perfectly innocent detainee (especially a terrified minor) to confess to something they did not do. Likely hundreds of innocent men in the past were sent to the gallows or electric chair on the basis of police lies and false evidence used to extract a “confession.”
there are multiple documented examples of such things, including the time a mentally ill person (iirc someone in their 20s?) was tortured into confessing
Thus why the U.S incarcerates more people, at 2 million, than any other country on the planet. Most police are taught to lie and are corrupt. You need to wake up if you think they are here to protect you.
It's even worse because... today as we speak cops in some developing countries will just beat a confession out of you. It likely even happens in developed countries too, though rarely and of course unofficially. And in the past this was much more common.
@@Kmangod incarceration is a trillion dollar business in the United States. The prison-industrial complex is much like big oil or the NRA. Money is funneled from these prison operators directly into politicians’ accounts. Given that reality, there is every incentive to lock up as many Americans as possible. This is EXACTLY why the US puts away more people per capita than any other nation. It doesn’t stop there because some (not all) public defenders work for the same outfit.
@@trumpisaconfirmedcuck5840 When an individual is under psychological or physical duress, especially when they’re presented with false evidence or false testimony, getting them to confess to a deed they did not commit is not especially difficult. Sometimes a juvenile is told, “just admit you did it and the judge will just give you probation.” Fifty years later, he’s still in prison for trusting this lying cop.
Mr. Flusche, several years ago there was a case where the police did NOT read the suspect the Miranda warning. The court ruled that "in today's world everyone knows their rights and the Miranda warning was no longer necessary." Do you know anything about this case? Was that challenged? Thanks for a great channel!
In general, a custodial interrogation makes a Miranda warning necessary. If an individual has not been taken into custody and the individual has been given no reason to feel that he is barred from leaving, no Miranda warning is necessary and a police officer is free to use any of the individual's responses and statements against him. But, with millions of cases per year in the U.S., "new law" is being made constantly. It is best to simply say one time, "I must have a lawyer present" and then say nothing further and avoid responding to questions, even innocent-sounding ones.
I believe it might have been United States v. Patane (2004). I believe it was based on the "public safety" exception. Ie, "Where's the bomb?" type question. Although in the United States v. Patane case it was "Where's the gun?" I'm not sure that's the case I'm remembering but it's about the right time. However what the news report said was the Miranda Warning is no longer needed because "everyone knows their rights" and that the Miranda Warning had become part of the culture due to it's use in movies and TV. This may not have been a USSC case it could have been a lower court. I'm sorry that's all I can remember. But I do remember the statement about "TV" and movies being one of their reasons. (Which I completely disagree with of course.)
@@geoh7777 yes, don't even identify yourself until in the position where your state legally requires it. Was arrested once and they got my information at booking correct, but the charges presented by the DA were for someone else. Unfortunately the court did the wrong thing and changed the charges to me rather than dismissing under false identification.
@@stickman-1 unfortunately, no. Many people claim to know their rights, but don't know all of them and or understand the ones they think they have. A number of liberties are expressed in the United States Bill of Rights, but people also have to consult the massive collection of other laws that differ in their application for a situation, from United States Code, State Constitution, State Regulations, and down through local laws, as well as case laws. For a time, I was a government employee, under United States Code Title 18, it's a class B felony to issue threats, death threats, and assault government employees. The police in my state disagree, and even once in the few times they did show up where I had made multiple calls on a civilian repeatedly threatening me both when off duty and the six times when I was on duty, "There's no such thing as United States Code Title 18." My state also has had entire chapters on self defense, which gave been eroded to almost non-existence over the years, and even though there's still state recognition under state constitution and state regulations of selfdefense, they claim even the idea of selfdefense doesn't exist, unless you are a cop, "That's different (Officer Ash, my high school LEO back in 2006)."
These sorts of things should be taught in every high school across the country; classes on "government" are required but I can only imagine the pushback and crying foul if basic rights and how the police can and do violate them on a regular basis was brought up... My big takeaway from "never talk to the police" is based around confirmation bias. If they are talking to you about something, they already have it in their heads on what it is all about and are looking for "evidence" to support their bias...
gee. Maybe we could also teach, in grammar school, middle school and high school, obey the law and follow the law. And then the lessons like this, after that.
@@wandery2k We actually are, though it's fairly subtle. Schools have rules, and punishments for not following them. School staff are effectively the police.
@@wandery2k Comprehension is needed by you. This video says nothing about you even being guilty. Innocent people are arrested, interrogated and convicted daily. Shut up and lawyer up. Guilty or not, say nothing except "I want my lawyer".
"The police can lie to you!" Me: Well that's incredibly unfair... "They can also use fake evidence" Me: F*ck that! What's next?! The police can disguise themselves as your lawyer?
@@phlodel USUALLY "public legal defense" needs reform just as much as the rest of the legal system...but like everywhere else there *ARE* good people out there--- one of the problems really is that the system INCENTIVIZES them putting as little effort into any one case as possible so much that railroading becomes the only real way to guarantee you don't fall behind.
@@abigailhowe8302 The slang term for public defender is "dump truck". Sure, their job is to minimize time spent on each case. That means they can't support a not guilty plea. The best you can hope for with a public defender in most cases is a good plea bargain. There just isn't any allowance for the possibility that a defendant is actually innocent.
@@phlodel _"If you have a public defender, your lawyer is in league with the cops and prosecutor, helping them to convict you."_ *That's not true.* What IS true is that they are overworked, so they are not able to provide the most vigorous defense that they could under better circumstances. But that's a far cry from being in cahoots the the cops. They are not.
The question that comes to my mind is, can they detain one for questioning based on forged evidence? Seems an easy thing to do if a forgery passes muster with DAs and judges.
I had an instance in Ohio, where the cops were trying to accuse me of something. Some girl was starting some crap, because I beat up her boyfriend, so she was trying to say I was coming around to intimidate her, or something. Totally lying. But the cops tried to pull a "we got you on video," story on me! Knowing I wasn't there, and there was no way they could have a video, I laughed as I said, "no you don't!" And they just backed off.
You'd think the fact that a police officer has a history of lying would undermine the credibility of their testimony. Surely, every case they've given evidence on would be contaminated. Can't they be prosecuted for obstruction of justice?
If you lie to the police, it's a felony. If police lie to you, it's SOP. Every lawyer I have met says the same thing. Shut up. There was one time, I unknowingly accepted stolen tools from a relative. It just happened that I worked near the guy that the tools were stolen from. The cops told me that they had me. I had 2 stolen tools, and that was enough to get a conviction for the theft. They guy who owned the tools would not sign a complaint against me, because 1, I never tried to hide them, and 2, I never took his name off them. I told the cops that if they had enough, then they didn't need anything from me, and I wanted my lawyer. They told me I was free, but I had to let them know if I went out of town. My lawyer told me if they had any evidence against me, he would be bailing me out, not talking to me in his office. 3 months later I went to Antarctica for 6 months. We never heard anything from the cops. Smiles!
... went to Antartica for 6 months. But did you tell the police you were going? LOL! Seriously, though, I do wonder if police have the authority to keep people from leaving town, without an arrest or conviction. If I were told to stay, is it legal for me to go?
It's a shame people don't comprehend the meaning of 'everything you say can and will be used against you'. Just ask for an attorney and shut your mouth. Settle in for a long wait. The only other words might be 'can I use the bathroom'. If you do, touch nothing that you can't flush down the toilet (like toilet paper).
There was an older guy that grew up around me. He was a drug addict, thief, and just all around bad guy that was always in-and-out of prison. A lot of the teenagers thought he was "cool." I always knew what he was and kept my distance. However, he did say one thing that always stuck with me, and that was, "NEVER TALK TO THE COPS." You can't really make things better, but you sure as heck can make them worse!
@@brucesmith9144 and _Escape the Matrix_ : Both of you are 100% correct. The rules are one-sided and biased against the interviewee. (That is, the person being asked the questions) Under the rules of evidence, anything you say can be used against you, but anything you say _cannot be used in your favor._ This is because anything you say out of court is "hearsay" and therefore not admissible. But the hearsay rule has many exceptions, including statements by a "party opponent" (i.e., *_you_* in a case where you're the defendant). So it's a "Heads I win, tails you lose" situation, and the only thing you can do is invoke your right to remain silent and then shut the hell up. (And demand a lawyer, of course, if you're in custody.)
Andrew, you rock!!!! I love your channel, and I think you're awesome. I loved the "ad placements" here - I would absolutely hire you if I needed a defense lawyer.
Even if you are not arrested but police want to talk with you (ie: person of interest) is reason enough to insist on a lawyer. The average person has no idea what they are fishing for, and the fact they have to ask questions may indicate the police don’t have all the information they need.
Suspect in court asked "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god?" Meanwhile the detectives lying their ass off to get a confession.. 🤔
When I was 16, I asked for a lawyer and they sent in some guy that was supposedly a lawyer. They are not supposed to interrogate a minor. The police have no honor and do not respect the law. I asked several questions and it became clear quickly that he was a detective and was lying about being a lawyer. He would nod his head affirmative, but wouldn't say he was a lawyer. I asked if he worked for the police department and he folded up his papers and left. I later saw him and he was a detective. The police are allowed to lie to you without recourse, but if you lie to them, they will charge you with a crime.
Yeah that didn't happen. The cops aren't stupid and nobody would put themselves in a position of doing something like that. Posing as a lawyer the way you're suggesting would constitute practicing law without a license (which is a felony) and trying to get information out of you regarding a crime by posing as a lawyer, also a felony. Theres about a dozen or so other laws being violated in that scenario So no, nobody is going to get themselves put in prison and sued into oblivion just to get a 16 year old to talk
I had a cop in my gaming group in Fresna, CA. 2 stories: 1 they used Xerox machine as a lie detector. After suspect answered they hit print and a paper with the word "lie" was inside. 2. The pulled out a blank video tape and told suspect the tape was of him committing crime. I was pretty shocked because apparently these were successful.
Love the content.. even up here in Canada we have some slight differences.. but its amazing when you reply with conviction that you can see hesitation in their reply.. then you know you got them! Thank you!!
I get a kick out of watching the so-called Law and Order shows, like Law and Order in it's various flavors, Blue Bloods and others, and counting the civil rights violations made by the cops. The problem is that too many people buy into that, thinking that's the norm. IT'S NOT! It's TV garbage! My advice is to practice saying what Andrew recommends here until it's burned into your brain, so you don't fall back into the TV garbage game should you find yourself in a situation.
@@josephhautzenroeder7512 Totally agree! These shows paint cops as the good guys, even when they resort to questionable (or outright unethical) tactics. Even back then, years ago, I didn't like it when Det. Briscoe and Curtis (for example) would demand information from the owner of a restaurant or other private business, and if the person didn't roll over, they would threaten to conduct an illegal search, shutting down the business for the rest of the day and causing great inconvenience and disruption to the business, etc. 😡
@@trumpisaconfirmedcuck5840 “The beginning of political wisdom is the realization that despite everything you’ve been taught, the government is not really on your side; indeed, it is out to get you.” ~Robert Higgs
The District Attorney's usually help to fabricate facts and evidence as well. Even speaking to your own lawyer can be tricky because then he consults the DA.
@@LightStorm. It takes money to sue. That's where they have the poor guy. His justice is what he can afford to pay, probably nothing. In America you get as much justice as you can afford, no more.
@@jamescrabb8766 You don't need to sue, you simply have him disbarred for professional misconduct and ethical violations. a DA getting involved in something like that would end up in prison
@@LightStorm. Nope, it's highly illegal. That doesn't mean they won't try to, but in the case mentioned at the beginning, the fake DNA report got the cops in trouble with the Judge. The only time false documents are permitted is if it's a matter of witness protection, or undercover work.
That's outrageous in itself (first 90 seconds) . But if the judges etc can't tell the fraudulent document from the legit ones: Who's to say they're not using these fake documents as entered evidence and during trials too?
Yup, I had a cop tell me he had dashcam footage proving my story was false. I was trying to get them to arrest the guy that tried to run me off the road. The other guy was trying to get me arrested for not stopping on the freeway after trying to run me off the road. Well, after the cop told me that dashcam footage said I was wrong, I realized that he was lying to try to get me to say something against myself. It's at that point I gave up on talking to them.
If you don’t have the ability to remain silent. Learn that and get it down before you ever leave the house again. Good advice sir. I’m really enjoying your channel👍🏻🇺🇸
After asking for a lawyer, just sit back and close your eyes. "Wake me up when my lawyer gets here." That way you can ignore their questions and don't need to worry about what to look at.
If arrested don't tell them anything except, "I want a lawyer." They aren't your friend, aren't there to help you, are there to get what THEY want. KEEP QUIET...
Protect yourself by saying I refer all questions to my attorney. I will not make any statements nor submit to any field sobriety tests. Always assume EVERYTHING an officer says is a lie. Don't get into any small talk. Sign the ticket, ask if you are free to go. Never consent to anything. Never go the police station if requested.
Simply put...when ever taken to an isolated interview room, say nothing! Demand to leave! Everything you say can be used against you...even the innocent can confess, by hours of psychological tortural questioning...they can and will twist questions for a desired purpose..."silence is golden, but their eyes still see."
It's so funny to me that it's perfectly fine for cops to lie to us, but it's illegal for us to lie to cops. As usual, we are held to a MUCH higher standard than the people holding us to those standards.
As usual another great video. I think there is a misconception about the police reaction to the questions; Am I free to go?, Am I being detained? Or Am I under arrest? I doubt any police officer will answer these questions if the person is free to go, is not being detained, or is not under arrest. I watched a traffic stop video where the person stopped, asked if he was free to go. The police would not answer the question so, he left and they just stood there while he was leaving. Maybe you could do a video on what to do or say when the police change the subject or refuse to answer the questions; Am I free to go?, Am I being detained? or Am I under arrest?
I suspect their training says they should never answer 'yes or no' questions, which puts the onus on the person stopped to make a potentially wrong decision whether to stay or go.
Also , if they decide to hold you don't talk to ANYONE , if someone comes up to you and asks "What are you in for "? Tell em "Parking tickets". The friendlier they are , the worse they are . Don't talk to a shrink , because it may not be one . If they put you in a room with a light ,a table and a chair for an hour alone , that's what will make many spill the beans , DUMMY UP , tell 'em "I want Andrew Flusche ! NOW " ! I only know this because I watch a lot of crime shows .
4:30: Is that police officer physically handling the evidence and getting his greasy fingerprints all over it, on top of breaking the chain of custody and secure evidence storage?
Cops kinda scare me, so if I ever got pulled over even if I was innocent I’d be acting suspicious and nervous just because of the people and situation, how do I avoid doing this in case they try to use it against me? I’m only 15 and have never encountered the police before, but I just wanna know in advance
the vast majority of casual interactions with police are uneventful. If you're not doing anything "illicit" you really don't have anything to worry about aside from a possible traffic ticket. if you ARE doing something they would be interested in, then you best learn to PRETEND you have nothing to worry about XD
In many jurisdictions, police cannot interrogate minors (or even expect answers from what you might think are really simple easy questions) without a legal guardian being present. Check to see if that is the case for your state.
@ Fi Fi : Cops kinda scare me, too, and I'm a full grown adult! So I sympathize with you. 😊 It's hard to give general advice because every situation is different. All I can really say is that if the police are asking you questions that appear to be looking for information that would incriminate you, politely tell them you can't answer any questions.
Never never never answer any question or give them any information ever. Get pulled over, hand them the license, registration and insurance. Say nothing except I am invoking my 5th amendment right to remain silent. You never have to give a SS# or phone #. You never have to say where you are headed to or coming from. You do not have to answer questions about where you live or what you are doing. You say NOTHING except, I require my attorney be present during any and all questions and conversations with law enforcement. Furthermore I am exercising my right to remain silent.
@@shannonp4037 you are never under any direct OBLIGATION to give them information when you can invoke the right to remain silent...however... blanket hamming on the 5th is your right, SURE... but it is not likely to make too many friends on the side of the road. *DISCRETION* is the key to safely and effectively exercising your rights. Hence why my advice was given the way it was. --- nonetheless, you gave honest, ACCURATE information +1 for you
Thanks AF. Another great video, this video is "10 best list", police often DELAY saying "you are under arrest" becuz then the arrested person would be "read his rights" {Mirandized) which triggers PPL to "lawyer up". PPL think they can "convince" police to release them. EVERYTIME the police are talking to you...they are making a case against YOU, they WANT YOU !!! Say I want a Lawyer NOW, invoking the 5th amendment, then shut your mouth. and refuse a "visit" to police station.
Repeat after me ALL Americans .... "I do not answer questions. I assert my 5th Amendment right." That's all you say to police or anyone except your attorney. There is NO upside to talking to police, only degrees of down sides.
Thank you, as someone who would probably just believe them and think I don't remember for some reason, I could have potentially admitted to a crime I know nothing about.
Based off what you have said along with other lawyers, if people just plead the fifth and then shut up the outcomes might be better for the majority of people.
They will throw random stuff at you too. I was in jail for possession once and this detective kept trying to get me to admit he had my fingerprints on some window. One of my few smug interrogation moments.
Always state "I will be happy answer any questions that have been reviewed by my lawyer or with my lawyer present". Don't tell them, but the fact that you don't have one may delay things a bit.
@@bindingcurve I understand that, but I see on TV (The First 48 and such shows) that a person is being "interviewed" for hours and hours and then will be "arrested" and the cops read them their rights. Not that I plan on being arrested, but I've always wondered. A lot of people may have asked for a lawyer at the very beginning if they had been read their rights.
You still have your rights. I suggest: 1. At the outset, unless there's a reason to believe officers are pursuing more, give nothing answers. Example - traffic stop: Officer asks where you are going - tell him you're just driving north, then flip back asking him why you were stopped. Officer asks if you know how fast you were driving - flip back and ask if that is related to the reason he stopped you. If he continues... 2. State you do not wish to answer questions - if you go broader to declaring the 5th or that you wish to remain silent, then later saying anything other than providing ID in some jurisdictions, you can be considered to have waived your 5th amendment rights. 3. State you wish to have an attorney present. Don't limit it to questioning. If you are not a a police department building, an attorney does not have to travel to your location, and you do not have to converse by phone. 4. State you cannot afford an attorney and will need 1 provided. Most jurisdictions don't have a definition of this - multimillionaires have gotten publicly paid defense attorneys. This is to bring fishing expeditions to a close - officer would need to go to his supervisors for an attorney, and they know the 1st thing an attorney would say is to not answer any questions. 5. If they persist in asking questions, accuse them of violating your rights, ask to speak to a supervisor, ask for their identification, ask about how to file a complaint, and ask how to access their body cam video.
@@alindgr1 It's simple, just close you eyes and say nothing and take a nap. If the cops start assaulting you, you have bigger problems and there is really no point in talking.
If the judge can't tell the difference how can they trust any evidence that police force submits in that case? This seems like something that should backfire in court.
So if you get a lawyer, and invoke the 5th do you have to answer any interrogation questions at all. I mean after you have a lawyer present can you just remain silent and give them absolutely nothing at all and put everything in their lap to prove, wether or not you are guilty or innocent?
1. *Isn't it better to state "I do not wish to answer your questions"* or similar instead of invoking the 5th amendment directly or saying "I wish to remain silent"? If you do the latter 2, then speaking (except for giving identification where required) can be considered to have waived your right. Example - you may wish to get the officer's identification, ask about how to file a complaint, challenge the existence of a sufficient reasonable suspicion, challenge the extension of the detention if you aren't answering questions, etc. 2. Request a lawyer "I would like to have a lawyer/attorney present." You aren't restricting to questioning - if the detention continues, you will probably want a lawyer even if they aren't interrogating at the moment. A lawyer does not have to go to your current location if away from a police office, and you do not have to discuss with them by phone as an alternative. 3. State "I cannot afford a lawyer, I will need 1 provided." In most jurisdictions they don't have a test to determine if you can afford a lawyer - millionaires have had publicly paid attorneys - maybe you're rich, but you believe you will need that money for retirement, provide for your family's business ventures, or other uses. For the initial stages, any lawyer will do - if it goes to trial, then you can switch over to a preferred attorney. This discourages fishing by law enforcement officers - they need to justify the additional expense to their department to continue fishing, and they know a lawyer will immediately tell their client (you) to remain silent. 4a. If the officers ask any question other than identification (likely, they are trained to try to invoke a statement after declaring your right to remain silent), accuse them of violating your rights, request their supervisor, request the officer's name in document (written) form, request to file a complaint, and ask the procedure for obtaining their body cam footage. If speaking with a supervisor, deliver a key facts only description of the officer's misconduct (he doesn't have sufficient RS, the detention is being illegally extended, he refused to recognize your rights, etc.) with the assumption the officer lied to his supervisor. 4b. After they have had time to run your identification, challenge their continuation of the detention as illegal since they aren't actively advancing an investigation because you aren't answering questions. If detention continues, follow 4a.
Police: "Well, I have evidence of your DNA all over the crime scene." Suspect: "Oh yeah? Well I evidence of your wife's DNA all over my bed, so we're even." 🤣
If the system were really for justice, an attorney would be present at every interrogation to act on behalf of the suspect unless the suspect dismissed them
They can't use fake evidence if you are represented during questioning. Don't fall for the crap "if you cooperate it will go easier on you." Let your attorney "negotiate." And don't talk to fellow inmates while being held. They are either police plants or people looking for something to help themselves.
Refreshing to know that there are some lawyers who still have your virtues and don't have to have $ to do a service for those who can't afford it or just need direction on how to proceed! Thank you for your insight .
4:45 that stock clip reminded me to ask this question: Can facial/body expressions be used by police as evidence in court, even after you invoke your 5th Amendment right?
Do NOT wait till you are read your rights to invoke the right to remain silent and have an attorney present during question. The second law enforcement starts asking you questions, your reply should be, "I invoke my Constitutional right to remain silent and not answer questions without the presence of a lawyer." Even if it's a speeding ticket, do not answer questions.
My favorite I'm waiting to use is "It's not my job to help you investigate me." Also, the cops will never say "Anything you say can and will be used to help you in a court of law."
If a private citizen can be criminally charged for lying to the cops or the courts, the cops and the courts should be subject to the same restrictions and consequences
The thing I don't understand is, how do people wind up in an interrogation room at all with the police? I mean, either they asked you to voluntarily come down and answer a few questions. which you should always answer "no" to, or they arrested you and took you against your will to an interrogation room, in which case the one and only thing you should say is "I want a lawyer," and they cannot question you from that point on. So how are these people being shown fake evidence during an interrogation?
They can't share any evidence of any kind with anyone in the manner you're suggesting barring those involved in prosecuting and investigating the case. Legit or otherwise. That would be a breach of confidentiality and compromise the case, not to mention the jury pool
Your situation in Virginia sounds like the balancing test under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 that we have in New Zealand about "improperly obtained evidence." This basically balances the seriousness of the impropriety with the seriousness of the offending and probative value of the evidence. I completely disagree with this and think all improperly obtained evidence should be automatically excluded.
Flusche's videos are an immense public service. I'm very grateful to him for making them.
Same. I hope he keeps creating them for a Long Time. Hell, I'd prolly call this guy just to get a reference to a good lawyer in MY State ;)
The best statement he made, the most valuable IMO is when he says, "If they say you have the right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during any questioning... immediately ask for a lawyer and invoke your right to remain silent. That in and of itself may stop any further questions if a lawyer for you is not immediately available." (paraphrased)
Except if real criminals use this knowledge to dodge justice.
@@dobbysboggart6883 That means the investigators did not have enough to arrest and the system is working. Beating or coercing speech from a suspect is what third world countries do, if that is your idea of "justice" move to sub-Sahara Africa. They beat confessions out of you and then break your arms, put tires over your head encasing you, then light them on fire. Maybe your idea of justice is simply putting people in prison, that you and your kind don't like. Which race do you really hate?
@@debbiestimac5175 ... Wow. You really straw manned me.
This is a great example of why the populace has contempt for police. That contempt is justified... Simply just not talking will be the best thing one can do.
Spend your 72'hr. In jail. Lot better than throwing your life away.
Simply not talking isn't enough anymore and can be used as evidence off your guilt in some circumstances. You need to clearly and explicitly invoke your right to silence, and right to a lawyer, like with that language.
@@mkuhnactual silence is never evidence of guilt.
@@Jumpman67 Maybe not to you, but what matters isn't what it means to you. What matters is what it means to a court, and if a court decides to admit it as evidence, then it's evidence.
@@wasd____ it literally can't be used as evidence and if they try your lawyer or judge will strike it down immediately. It is literally your right not to talk
"Fake Evidence?" *NO WAY.* Cops have badges and costumes, and stuff.
cops are liars to the bone. They would lie to protect themselves, lie just to lie. No honor. The Supremes gave them carte blanche and they use it
😅
I've taught my kids never talk to the police. Remain silent after invoking your right to remain silent. I can only help you if you do those things in that order. Let your lawyer do the talking.
Yep, that's good advice!
I
think it is better to tell them not to get involved with cops in the first place.
@@okaro6595 Problem is, it's usually the cops who are getting involved with _them._
Okay, okay, I know what you mean. And yes, it's always better to obey the law than to try to get out from under a criminal charge later.
But sometimes innocent people really *do* find themselves under suspicion, and it's those times when it's really important to remember to resist one's natural inclination to be honest and candid and cooperative, and refuse to talk to the police. Here's a remarkable and compelling lecture on the topic by a noted law professor and a detective (it's 46 minutes long, but worth every minute!) : ua-cam.com/video/d-7o9xYp7eE/v-deo.html
I was living in Seattle in a apartment on Queen Ann hill. I was partying pretty hard tons friends over all hours. Some one n the building called the cops said I was selling dope. These 4 detective's where banging on my door. I just got to sleep. They had no warrant to enter. But I did have a warrant for a traffic violation that I didn't know about. So they needed me to open the door. So I ask who. Is it. Cop.says Brian it's john your friend.id been more alert should never answered or opened it. They bum Rush the apartment search I'm cuffed up on the floor. I say got your warrant to search. They ignored me. When they came up empty. The 4 POS take me down to an unmarked subcompact chevy nova looked like Geo metro. They shove me in the middle of the back seat. They shoved my cuffed hands on top of the package tray where the speakers go in the back window is.i couldn't sit in the seat without dislocating my shoulders. These two big 6'+ MF sit on each side of me they both grabbed a shoulder shoved me down in the seat. As the 5 of us are heading to the cop shop about 6 miles away. Cop to my right was this lumber jack looking MF he's reading me the riot act. Finally I said. Dude why don't you practice your Marinda's. Basically I was telling him to shut up. week in jail. They did that cause they didn't find anything unprofessional pos
I found this out the hard way. I never had to call the cops before. Always treated them respect and thought they were there to help us.
Nope.
I called for help after my ex choked me, beat the crap out of my uncle and destroyed property.
He fled before the cops got to my house.
They ended up arresting me, labeled my ex as the VICTIM and had to get a lawyer and go to court to get the charges dismissed.
I even told them when they got to the house there’s no need for them anymore.
I just wanted him gone. I didn’t wanna press charges. Etc.
They started asking me questions then I had cuffs on me.
No Miranda rights were ever read.
I thought they were taking me “downtown” to ask questions and this was a “safety procedure.”
I kept asking “what’s going on??!”
“Oh you’ll find out soon.”
W. T. F.
Every lawyer that I have ever seen, and that includes three close friends who are criminal defense lawyers, all say the same thing- don't talk to the cops. Invoke your right to remain silent, and demand to speak to a lawyer. I have never heard any lawyer say anything else. That would lead me to believe that it is good advice. One lawyer tells me that one thing that the Miranda warning does not include, but should, is that nothing you say can help you. They tell you that what you say can be used against you, but not that second part. A close friend of mine remarks all the time on how stupid most of his clients are. "Did you not know that there were drugs in your car?" "Yes." " So why did you give the cops permission to search?" "I thought that I had to, if I said no, they would search anyway." "If you had to let them, they wouldn't ask permission, would they? If they did search without permission, I could get the evidence thrown out, but since you gave permission, it's in and there's nothing I can do about it."
LOLZ at "Nothing you say can help you" - I love lawyer sayings. Another is "When you go to court, you aren't guaranteed justice, you are guaranteed a shot at justice."
Even if you aren't certain of the local ordinances (such as requirement to identify), you can still object and state you are complying under duress.
In your example, officers remove you from the vehicle. They ask for your keys to search it. You state "I do not consent to a search."
Officers state they have a right to search, if you don't give them your keys they will break your car window and search.
Vehicle searches have lots of exceptions that vary by jurisdiction. In this case, the best approach may be to give the officers your keys while stating "I do not consent to a search, I am providing my keys under duress, and threat of officers damaging my vehicle."
If you had friends who were cops, they would say the exact same thing
@@1SCme You have failed to demonstrate how complying under duress works for you. Citation needed.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 *Your low comprehension on display,* to _fail_ someone would have to request it, you only need an explanation if you don't understand what _"complying under duress"_ means.
_"Under duress"_ is "the *unlawful* use of physical force, false imprisonment, threats of violence, or psychological pressure to compel someone to do something they do not want to do." "If a person is acting under duress, *they are not acting of their own free will and so may be treated accordingly in court proceedings."*
*You are complying so you aren't risking unwittingly breaking a law* (some objections like the validity of RS and PC require a judge to determine, variations by jurisdiction noted, etc.). In this example, you are complying to prevent the officer from damaging your property, which may or may not be lawful for the officer to do (judge would need to determine if officer had sufficient basis for a warrantless search).
*You are stating you're only complying because the officer is threatening additional actions if you don't comply with what you believe to be an illegal order,* which is not legally considered consent or freely complying with a request.
- if it is an illegal order, you still have your protections (obtained evidence would not be admissible in court, you can file a civil suit later, etc.).
- if it is a legal order, you aren't committing any additional crime by refusal.
@@1SCme - No. The best approach is to let the officer actually destroy your car. And afterwards let your LAWYER destroy them in court and force the city/county/state to buy you a brand new car and contribute to your retirement fund.
When dealing with any law enforcement officer, never play the short game.
You should ALWAYS specifically invoke the fifth amendment when you refuse to answer police questions. In Salinas v TX the SCOTUS allowed a prosecutor to use a defendant's silence against him because he did not "formally" invoke any right to remain silent/the 5th amendment.
Exactly right. The SCOTUS said that if a person wants the protection of the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the person has to "claim" it. Which is dead wrong, in my opinion, but what can I do? I'm not a Supreme Court justice.
So the result is that if you're ever questioned by the police, always mention the Constitution in general or the 5th Amendment in particular when refusing to answer their questions.
________________________
Edited to correct embarrassing typo 🥴
Without the "silence" that guy could have got away with the double murder. All the police had was his confession (to a friend) and the shotgun shells that matched his gun. And the eye witness testimony of his being at the scene. And leaving the scene, in a matching car. So he was probably innocent.
@@Milesco you might want to edit your comment. self-insemination is getting yourself pregnant. self INCRIMINATION is telling on yourself lol
@@DeputyNordburg funny. But beside the point. The point is the court ruled his silence could be used as evidence against him. It's a precedent that may have bearing in cases where there isn't so much corroborating evidence.
@@mehardin Who is "he"? Who is the silent person who was convicted?
what happens when this fake evidence "accidentally" gets mixed in with real evidence? Say that fake lab report accidentally made its way in with the real evidence and was filed in with real paperwork (seems like it would be very easy to do) and fell thru the cracks - when you have the law producing fake evidence that is asking for major trouble sometime down the line and should be highly illegal.
i have a feeling any legal document would have to have someone sign it and notorize it, if a document was faked there is some way to trace is back. those documents are basically claims by a person of a certian thing. All you would have to do is get the person who signed the document under oath did you sign this document, and if they cant say they did they unravel at that point. Lets say a forged document by a dna scientist said it was your dna and they claimed in was bob smith of department b using sample 12345. you call up bob smith of department b and tell him if he recognizes the document, if he does you grill him like you would any other document, if he doesnt and say that isnt my signature its enough for a document like that to get thrown out.
Did you say “accidentally?” Please.
@@volkswagenginetta 1. Most documents don't have to be notarized.
2. Coroners and other forensic experts write reports every day. I would say it's unlikely that any such person is going to remember, months later at a deposition or trial, which reports he signed and which ones he didn't.
The risk that a fake report might get mixed in with the real evidence is too great for fake reports to be allowed at all. Indeed, when I was in law school back in the '90s, I recall a Supreme Court case that specifically prohibited the police from producing fake evidence (while still allowing them to lie to suspects). That was a "bright line" that the court created -- and for good reason -- so I'm surprised to hear Andrew Flusche say that some jurisdictions still allow it. I thought it had been outlawed nationwide. I don't recall the name of the case, so I'm gonna have to do some research....
@@Milesco
1. Okay I should clarify I don't necessarily mean some specific definition of "notorized" but if someone is claiming something about you there has to be a signature to sign off on it.
2. I just used a specific example. Forensic experts are used to coming to court. They are going to notice if someone is claiming they did work that they didn't. Or it could be some made up name. I was just using an example of how it could be thrown out.
I get your argument. I'm just being devils advocate. Fake documents won't hold up to scrutiny if people look into the details.
@@volkswagenginetta _"Fake documents won't hold up to scrutiny if people look into the details."_
Well, I would like to think that's true....but the idea of the police being allowed to create fake evidence makes me _extremely_ uncomfortable. The risk is just too great. As noted in the video, even a prosecutor was fooled.
I was actually just thinking about that the other day, "If I'm required by law to tell the truth to officers of the law (under the correct circumstances), are they required to tell me the truth?" Apparently not always. Thank you, Mr. Flusche!
Well, they can get into problems with filing false evidence with the court.
There can’t be any kind of relationship built on trust when only one party is held accountable for lying
The courts have repeatedly ruled that cops can lie to suspects to extract confessions, and cops are trained to manipulate you into confessing. Dont trust a word a cop says.
You are NOT required by law to tell the truth to officers of the law. Tell them nothing.
Police are allowed to lie, present fake evidence, create false evidence and break any law they wish in order to get you convicted of a crime. You might think no way, but who is there to stop them, you? They do as they wish because they have the power to do so and if you think another cop will stop them or the courts then you are sadly mistaken. Most police protect each others backs, never talk to them and never trust them. Those with ultimate power are most assuredly going to abuse it.
These tactics are gaslighting to the extreme, and such psychological torture could result in a perfectly innocent detainee (especially a terrified minor) to confess to something they did not do. Likely hundreds of innocent men in the past were sent to the gallows or electric chair on the basis of police lies and false evidence used to extract a “confession.”
there are multiple documented examples of such things, including the time a mentally ill person (iirc someone in their 20s?) was tortured into confessing
Thus why the U.S incarcerates more people, at 2 million, than any other country on the planet. Most police are taught to lie and are corrupt. You need to wake up if you think they are here to protect you.
It's even worse because... today as we speak cops in some developing countries will just beat a confession out of you. It likely even happens in developed countries too, though rarely and of course unofficially.
And in the past this was much more common.
@@Kmangod incarceration is a trillion dollar business in the United States. The prison-industrial complex is much like big oil or the NRA. Money is funneled from these prison operators directly into politicians’ accounts. Given that reality, there is every incentive to lock up as many Americans as possible. This is EXACTLY why the US puts away more people per capita than any other nation. It doesn’t stop there because some (not all) public defenders work for the same outfit.
@@trumpisaconfirmedcuck5840 When an individual is under psychological or physical duress, especially when they’re presented with false evidence or false testimony, getting them to confess to a deed they did not commit is not especially difficult. Sometimes a juvenile is told, “just admit you did it and the judge will just give you probation.” Fifty years later, he’s still in prison for trusting this lying cop.
Mr. Flusche, several years ago there was a case where the police did NOT read the suspect the Miranda warning. The court ruled that "in today's world everyone knows their rights and the Miranda warning was no longer necessary." Do you know anything about this case? Was that challenged? Thanks for a great channel!
What case was that?
In general, a custodial interrogation makes a Miranda warning necessary. If an individual has not been taken into custody and the individual has been given no reason to feel that he is barred from leaving, no Miranda warning is necessary and a police officer is free to use any of the individual's responses and statements against him.
But, with millions of cases per year in the U.S., "new law" is being made constantly.
It is best to simply say one time, "I must have a lawyer present" and then say nothing further and avoid responding to questions, even innocent-sounding ones.
I believe it might have been United States v. Patane (2004). I believe it was based on the "public safety" exception. Ie, "Where's the bomb?" type question. Although in the United States v. Patane case it was "Where's the gun?" I'm not sure that's the case I'm remembering but it's about the right time. However what the news report said was the Miranda Warning is no longer needed because "everyone knows their rights" and that the Miranda Warning had become part of the culture due to it's use in movies and TV. This may not have been a USSC case it could have been a lower court. I'm sorry that's all I can remember. But I do remember the statement about "TV" and movies being one of their reasons. (Which I completely disagree with of course.)
@@geoh7777 yes, don't even identify yourself until in the position where your state legally requires it. Was arrested once and they got my information at booking correct, but the charges presented by the DA were for someone else. Unfortunately the court did the wrong thing and changed the charges to me rather than dismissing under false identification.
@@stickman-1 unfortunately, no. Many people claim to know their rights, but don't know all of them and or understand the ones they think they have. A number of liberties are expressed in the United States Bill of Rights, but people also have to consult the massive collection of other laws that differ in their application for a situation, from United States Code, State Constitution, State Regulations, and down through local laws, as well as case laws. For a time, I was a government employee, under United States Code Title 18, it's a class B felony to issue threats, death threats, and assault government employees. The police in my state disagree, and even once in the few times they did show up where I had made multiple calls on a civilian repeatedly threatening me both when off duty and the six times when I was on duty, "There's no such thing as United States Code Title 18." My state also has had entire chapters on self defense, which gave been eroded to almost non-existence over the years, and even though there's still state recognition under state constitution and state regulations of selfdefense, they claim even the idea of selfdefense doesn't exist, unless you are a cop, "That's different (Officer Ash, my high school LEO back in 2006)."
These sorts of things should be taught in every high school across the country; classes on "government" are required but I can only imagine the pushback and crying foul if basic rights and how the police can and do violate them on a regular basis was brought up...
My big takeaway from "never talk to the police" is based around confirmation bias. If they are talking to you about something, they already have it in their heads on what it is all about and are looking for "evidence" to support their bias...
They were in mine. It was an elective intro to law class. Was pretty cool.
gee. Maybe we could also teach, in grammar school, middle school and high school, obey the law and follow the law. And then the lessons like this, after that.
@@wandery2k We actually are, though it's fairly subtle. Schools have rules, and punishments for not following them. School staff are effectively the police.
@@wandery2k Comprehension is needed by you. This video says nothing about you even being guilty. Innocent people are arrested, interrogated and convicted daily. Shut up and lawyer up. Guilty or not, say nothing except "I want my lawyer".
It used to be taught in schools. See how quick the country turns to shit when you dumb down education?
The only thing that needs to come out of your mouth is "lawyer".
Well, my opinion of the Commonwealth blue just dropped another notch. Thank you for the information. You are my new legal council. :)
"Whebn tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes necessary." To paraphrase a great man.
Good thing I denied any knowledge of their "fake evidence "
The shameless self-plug at 1:51 & at 4:24 are hilarious!
"The police can lie to you!"
Me: Well that's incredibly unfair...
"They can also use fake evidence"
Me: F*ck that! What's next?! The police can disguise themselves as your lawyer?
If you have a public defender, your lawyer is in league with the cops and prosecutor, helping them to convict you.
@@phlodel USUALLY
"public legal defense" needs reform just as much as the rest of the legal system...but like everywhere else there *ARE* good people out there---
one of the problems really is that the system INCENTIVIZES them putting as little effort into any one case as possible so much that railroading becomes the only real way to guarantee you don't fall behind.
@@abigailhowe8302 The slang term for public defender is "dump truck". Sure, their job is to minimize time spent on each case. That means they can't support a not guilty plea. The best you can hope for with a public defender in most cases is a good plea bargain. There just isn't any allowance for the possibility that a defendant is actually innocent.
That was on an episode of "Hill Street Blues".
@@phlodel _"If you have a public defender, your lawyer is in league with the cops and prosecutor, helping them to convict you."_
*That's not true.* What IS true is that they are overworked, so they are not able to provide the most vigorous defense that they could under better circumstances. But that's a far cry from being in cahoots the the cops. They are not.
The question that comes to my mind is, can they detain one for questioning based on forged evidence?
Seems an easy thing to do if a forgery passes muster with DAs and judges.
I had an instance in Ohio, where the cops were trying to accuse me of something. Some girl was starting some crap, because I beat up her boyfriend, so she was trying to say I was coming around to intimidate her, or something. Totally lying. But the cops tried to pull a "we got you on video," story on me! Knowing I wasn't there, and there was no way they could have a video, I laughed as I said, "no you don't!" And they just backed off.
No you don't have a video, because there weren't any cameras there when I beat her up. 😬 Oops! Just shut up!
that sounds like a confession you were there though. might have been better to say lets watch the video then
Why did you commit assault and battery?
You'd think the fact that a police officer has a history of lying would undermine the credibility of their testimony. Surely, every case they've given evidence on would be contaminated. Can't they be prosecuted for obstruction of justice?
They can't lie in court. And there is a list of cops D.A. will NOT call to testify because of past history.
@@bindingcurve Brady List?
@@bindingcurve haha Ever contest a traffic ticket?
@@ctibpo991 I'm talking about serous cases, and if they establish a history of perjury, they will not be called back to testify.
@@abigailhowe8302 That's just a slang term, there is officially no such thing......
If you lie to the police, it's a felony. If police lie to you, it's SOP.
Every lawyer I have met says the same thing. Shut up. There was one time, I unknowingly accepted stolen tools from a relative. It just happened that I worked near the guy that the tools were stolen from.
The cops told me that they had me. I had 2 stolen tools, and that was enough to get a conviction for the theft. They guy who owned the tools would not sign a complaint against me, because 1, I never tried to hide them, and 2, I never took his name off them.
I told the cops that if they had enough, then they didn't need anything from me, and I wanted my lawyer.
They told me I was free, but I had to let them know if I went out of town. My lawyer told me if they had any evidence against me, he would be bailing me out, not talking to me in his office. 3 months later I went to Antarctica for 6 months. We never heard anything from the cops.
Smiles!
How can you tell when a cop is lying? Their lips are moving.
... went to Antartica for 6 months. But did you tell the police you were going? LOL! Seriously, though, I do wonder if police have the authority to keep people from leaving town, without an arrest or conviction. If I were told to stay, is it legal for me to go?
Great information - as always. This should be taught in high school - but the government would never allow it.
I am a high school teacher and regularly tell my students this
It's a shame people don't comprehend the meaning of 'everything you say can and will be used against you'. Just ask for an attorney and shut your mouth. Settle in for a long wait. The only other words might be 'can I use the bathroom'. If you do, touch nothing that you can't flush down the toilet (like toilet paper).
There was an older guy that grew up around me. He was a drug addict, thief, and just all around bad guy that was always in-and-out of prison. A lot of the teenagers thought he was "cool." I always knew what he was and kept my distance. However, he did say one thing that always stuck with me, and that was, "NEVER TALK TO THE COPS." You can't really make things better, but you sure as heck can make them worse!
You cannot talk your way out of an arrest, but you sure can talk your way into one.
@@brucesmith9144 and _Escape the Matrix_ : Both of you are 100% correct. The rules are one-sided and biased against the interviewee. (That is, the person being asked the questions) Under the rules of evidence, anything you say can be used against you, but anything you say _cannot be used in your favor._ This is because anything you say out of court is "hearsay" and therefore not admissible. But the hearsay rule has many exceptions, including statements by a "party opponent" (i.e., *_you_* in a case where you're the defendant).
So it's a "Heads I win, tails you lose" situation, and the only thing you can do is invoke your right to remain silent and then shut the hell up. (And demand a lawyer, of course, if you're in custody.)
@@Milesco live long and phosphor. 🖖 Good post.
@@brucesmith9144 Thanks, Bruce! 😉👍
Andrew, you rock!!!! I love your channel, and I think you're awesome.
I loved the "ad placements" here - I would absolutely hire you if I needed a defense lawyer.
Even if you are not arrested but police want to talk with you (ie: person of interest) is reason enough to insist on a lawyer. The average person has no idea what they are fishing for, and the fact they have to ask questions may indicate the police don’t have all the information they need.
If a cop shows you evidence and he/she wants you to confess, they are lying. If they have evidence against you, they don't need your confession.
Suspect in court asked "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god?"
Meanwhile the detectives lying their ass off to get a confession.. 🤔
When I was 16, I asked for a lawyer and they sent in some guy that was supposedly a lawyer.
They are not supposed to interrogate a minor. The police have no honor and do not respect the law.
I asked several questions and it became clear quickly that he was a detective and was lying about being a lawyer.
He would nod his head affirmative, but wouldn't say he was a lawyer.
I asked if he worked for the police department and he folded up his papers and left.
I later saw him and he was a detective.
The police are allowed to lie to you without recourse, but if you lie to them, they will charge you with a crime.
But they are not allowed to pose as lawyers. That's way beyond the line.
Yeah that didn't happen. The cops aren't stupid and nobody would put themselves in a position of doing something like that. Posing as a lawyer the way you're suggesting would constitute practicing law without a license (which is a felony) and trying to get information out of you regarding a crime by posing as a lawyer, also a felony. Theres about a dozen or so other laws being violated in that scenario
So no, nobody is going to get themselves put in prison and sued into oblivion just to get a 16 year old to talk
I had a cop in my gaming group in Fresna, CA. 2 stories: 1 they used Xerox machine as a lie detector. After suspect answered they hit print and a paper with the word "lie" was inside.
2. The pulled out a blank video tape and told suspect the tape was of him committing crime.
I was pretty shocked because apparently these were successful.
Love the content.. even up here in Canada we have some slight differences.. but its amazing when you reply with conviction that you can see hesitation in their reply.. then you know you got them! Thank you!!
You provide valuable information brother: Most people don’t know how corrupt policing is.
I get a kick out of watching the so-called Law and Order shows, like Law and Order in it's various flavors, Blue Bloods and others, and counting the civil rights violations made by the cops. The problem is that too many people buy into that, thinking that's the norm. IT'S NOT! It's TV garbage! My advice is to practice saying what Andrew recommends here until it's burned into your brain, so you don't fall back into the TV garbage game should you find yourself in a situation.
Used to love watching Law & Order when I was younger. Now watching it pisses me off for the same things you said.
They call it Copaganda shows.
@@josephhautzenroeder7512 Totally agree! These shows paint cops as the good guys, even when they resort to questionable (or outright unethical) tactics. Even back then, years ago, I didn't like it when Det. Briscoe and Curtis (for example) would demand information from the owner of a restaurant or other private business, and if the person didn't roll over, they would threaten to conduct an illegal search, shutting down the business for the rest of the day and causing great inconvenience and disruption to the business, etc. 😡
Legal, moral and just are not the same thing. Something can be “legal” and also “wrong” morally/ethically and/or unjust.
Which is why the law sucks.
@@trumpisaconfirmedcuck5840 “The beginning of political wisdom is the realization that despite everything you’ve been taught, the government is not really on your side; indeed, it is out to get you.”
~Robert Higgs
The District Attorney's usually help to fabricate facts and evidence as well. Even speaking to your own lawyer can be tricky because then he consults the DA.
That would be considered malpractice/ a ethical violation so you could sue
@@LightStorm. It takes money to sue. That's where they have the poor guy. His justice is what he can afford to pay, probably nothing. In America you get as much justice as you can afford, no more.
@@jamescrabb8766 or just goto the media help expose them
@@jamescrabb8766 You don't need to sue, you simply have him disbarred for professional misconduct and ethical violations. a DA getting involved in something like that would end up in prison
Let's also not forget that falsifying evidence, even to coerce a confession, is illegal 8 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud
So police can’t use fake evidence against you?
@@LightStorm. Nope, it's highly illegal. That doesn't mean they won't try to, but in the case mentioned at the beginning, the fake DNA report got the cops in trouble with the Judge. The only time false documents are permitted is if it's a matter of witness protection, or undercover work.
@@XtomJamesExtra so in cases were someone had already committed a crime?
@@LightStorm. In what sense do you mean?
@@XtomJamesExtra like we’re they arrested someone for a crime and they know they committed it but used false evidence to get them to confess
That's outrageous in itself (first 90 seconds) . But if the judges etc can't tell the fraudulent document from the legit ones:
Who's to say they're not using these fake documents as entered evidence and during trials too?
Yup, I had a cop tell me he had dashcam footage proving my story was false. I was trying to get them to arrest the guy that tried to run me off the road. The other guy was trying to get me arrested for not stopping on the freeway after trying to run me off the road.
Well, after the cop told me that dashcam footage said I was wrong, I realized that he was lying to try to get me to say something against myself. It's at that point I gave up on talking to them.
If you don’t have the ability to remain silent. Learn that and get it down before you ever leave the house again. Good advice sir. I’m really enjoying your channel👍🏻🇺🇸
After asking for a lawyer, just sit back and close your eyes. "Wake me up when my lawyer gets here." That way you can ignore their questions and don't need to worry about what to look at.
Ask for YOUR lawyer, not just ANY lawyer.
I only hope I can trust my court appointed defence attorney. She misspelled my middle name on the motion to suppress.
Love your channel!
If arrested don't tell them anything except, "I want a lawyer." They aren't your friend, aren't there to help you, are there to get what THEY want. KEEP QUIET...
Protect yourself by saying I refer all questions to my attorney. I will not make any statements nor submit to any field sobriety tests. Always assume EVERYTHING an officer says is a lie. Don't get into any small talk. Sign the ticket, ask if you are free to go. Never consent to anything. Never go the police station if requested.
Simply put...when ever taken to an isolated interview room, say nothing! Demand to leave! Everything you say can be used against you...even the innocent can confess, by hours of psychological tortural questioning...they can and will twist questions for a desired purpose..."silence is golden, but their eyes still see."
It's so funny to me that it's perfectly fine for cops to lie to us, but it's illegal for us to lie to cops. As usual, we are held to a MUCH higher standard than the people holding us to those standards.
That's why everyone hates cops these days. Public servants my a$$!
Thank you for bringing this out!
I love this channel! Thanks for all you do Sir.
As usual another great video. I think there is a misconception about the police reaction to the questions; Am I free to go?, Am I being detained? Or Am I under arrest? I doubt any police officer will answer these questions if the person is free to go, is not being detained, or is not under arrest. I watched a
traffic stop video where the person stopped, asked if he was free to go. The police would not answer the question so, he left and they just stood there while he was leaving.
Maybe you could do a video on what to do or say when the police change the subject or refuse to answer the questions;
Am I free to go?, Am I being detained? or Am I under arrest?
I suspect their training says they should never answer 'yes or no' questions, which puts the onus on the person stopped to make a potentially wrong decision whether to stay or go.
Wow, NJ and FL did something right! Thanks for the info
Also , if they decide to hold you don't talk to ANYONE , if someone comes up to you and asks "What are you in for "? Tell em "Parking tickets". The friendlier they are , the worse they are . Don't talk to a shrink , because it may not be one . If they put you in a room with a light ,a table and a chair for an hour alone , that's what will make many spill the beans , DUMMY UP , tell 'em "I want Andrew Flusche ! NOW " ! I only know this because I watch a lot of crime shows .
Dude, I will just take a nap in the chair.
@@bindingcurve Stay out of situations (If U can) in the 1st place .
"Littering."
@@MuzixMaker "I'm just here for the sex, Buttercup".
4:30: Is that police officer physically handling the evidence and getting his greasy fingerprints all over it, on top of breaking the chain of custody and secure evidence storage?
In Mi, I have heard it successfully argued that it is assumed you know your rights due to all the law enforcement shows on TV....
Yet another very informative video. Thank you Andrew.
Counselor, your doing the work of the Lord my friend & I salute you. Respect & Subscribed!
Cops kinda scare me, so if I ever got pulled over even if I was innocent I’d be acting suspicious and nervous just because of the people and situation, how do I avoid doing this in case they try to use it against me? I’m only 15 and have never encountered the police before, but I just wanna know in advance
the vast majority of casual interactions with police are uneventful. If you're not doing anything "illicit" you really don't have anything to worry about aside from a possible traffic ticket.
if you ARE doing something they would be interested in, then you best learn to PRETEND you have nothing to worry about XD
In many jurisdictions, police cannot interrogate minors (or even expect answers from what you might think are really simple easy questions) without a legal guardian being present. Check to see if that is the case for your state.
@ Fi Fi : Cops kinda scare me, too, and I'm a full grown adult! So I sympathize with you. 😊
It's hard to give general advice because every situation is different. All I can really say is that if the police are asking you questions that appear to be looking for information that would incriminate you, politely tell them you can't answer any questions.
Never never never answer any question or give them any information ever. Get pulled over, hand them the license, registration and insurance. Say nothing except I am invoking my 5th amendment right to remain silent. You never have to give a SS# or phone #. You never have to say where you are headed to or coming from. You do not have to answer questions about where you live or what you are doing. You say NOTHING except, I require my attorney be present during any and all questions and conversations with law enforcement. Furthermore I am exercising my right to remain silent.
@@shannonp4037 you are never under any direct OBLIGATION to give them information when you can invoke the right to remain silent...however...
blanket hamming on the 5th is your right, SURE... but it is not likely to make too many friends on the side of the road.
*DISCRETION* is the key to safely and effectively exercising your rights. Hence why my advice was given the way it was.
---
nonetheless, you gave honest, ACCURATE information
+1 for you
Thanks AF. Another great video, this video is "10 best list", police often DELAY saying "you are under arrest" becuz then the arrested person would be "read his rights" {Mirandized) which triggers PPL to "lawyer up". PPL think they can "convince" police to release them. EVERYTIME the police are talking to you...they are making a case against YOU, they WANT YOU !!! Say I want a Lawyer NOW, invoking the 5th amendment, then shut your mouth. and refuse a "visit" to police station.
Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer
Maybe you should consider merch. I’d dig a “Lawyer Up & Shut Up” shirt
The word "I" is not a more formal form of "me" - they are different words. Using "I" instead of "me" doesn't make you sound more sophisticated.
So Wise , Thank You.
Repeat after me ALL Americans .... "I do not answer questions. I assert my 5th Amendment right." That's all you say to police or anyone except your attorney. There is NO upside to talking to police, only degrees of down sides.
Thank you, as someone who would probably just believe them and think I don't remember for some reason, I could have potentially admitted to a crime I know nothing about.
If it's repugnant to the Constitution, it's rendered null and void.
Based off what you have said along with other lawyers, if people just plead the fifth and then shut up the outcomes might be better for the majority of people.
They will throw random stuff at you too. I was in jail for possession once and this detective kept trying to get me to admit he had my fingerprints on some window. One of my few smug interrogation moments.
When it first started I said to myself tell them I want my copy of that....... and absolutely don't answer a question
Mr. Flusche, what rights do I have while being "interviewed" by the police before Miranda rights are read? Should I request a lawyer then?
Always state "I will be happy answer any questions that have been reviewed by my lawyer or with my lawyer present". Don't tell them, but the fact that you don't have one may delay things a bit.
@@bindingcurve I understand that, but I see on TV (The First 48 and such shows) that a person is being "interviewed" for hours and hours and then will be "arrested" and the cops read them their rights. Not that I plan on being arrested, but I've always wondered. A lot of people may have asked for a lawyer at the very beginning if they had been read their rights.
You still have your rights. I suggest:
1. At the outset, unless there's a reason to believe officers are pursuing more, give nothing answers. Example - traffic stop:
Officer asks where you are going - tell him you're just driving north, then flip back asking him why you were stopped.
Officer asks if you know how fast you were driving - flip back and ask if that is related to the reason he stopped you.
If he continues...
2. State you do not wish to answer questions - if you go broader to declaring the 5th or that you wish to remain silent, then later saying anything other than providing ID in some jurisdictions, you can be considered to have waived your 5th amendment rights.
3. State you wish to have an attorney present. Don't limit it to questioning. If you are not a a police department building, an attorney does not have to travel to your location, and you do not have to converse by phone.
4. State you cannot afford an attorney and will need 1 provided. Most jurisdictions don't have a definition of this - multimillionaires have gotten publicly paid defense attorneys.
This is to bring fishing expeditions to a close - officer would need to go to his supervisors for an attorney, and they know the 1st thing an attorney would say is to not answer any questions.
5. If they persist in asking questions, accuse them of violating your rights, ask to speak to a supervisor, ask for their identification, ask about how to file a complaint, and ask how to access their body cam video.
@@1SCme Nice, thanks.
@@alindgr1 It's simple, just close you eyes and say nothing and take a nap. If the cops start assaulting you, you have bigger problems and there is really no point in talking.
My me an wife an kids have a lawyer. Legal shield. 26.00 dollars a month . Might check into it ..
Thank you! I wish I'd seen this a few months ago.
I suggest when you display your name and phone number, make the number bigger and more visible (center of the screen)
If the judge can't tell the difference how can they trust any evidence that police force submits in that case? This seems like something that should backfire in court.
So could they just fake a murder and make all the evidence?
Need a body for conviction. They could do a murder and fake all the evidence tho
Florida Police are TOTALY allowed to LIE to you.
So if you get a lawyer, and invoke the 5th do you have to answer any interrogation questions at all.
I mean after you have a lawyer present can you just remain silent and give them absolutely nothing at all and put everything in their lap to prove, wether or not you are guilty or innocent?
1. *Isn't it better to state "I do not wish to answer your questions"* or similar instead of invoking the 5th amendment directly or saying "I wish to remain silent"?
If you do the latter 2, then speaking (except for giving identification where required) can be considered to have waived your right.
Example - you may wish to get the officer's identification, ask about how to file a complaint, challenge the existence of a sufficient reasonable suspicion, challenge the extension of the detention if you aren't answering questions, etc.
2. Request a lawyer "I would like to have a lawyer/attorney present." You aren't restricting to questioning - if the detention continues, you will probably want a lawyer even if they aren't interrogating at the moment. A lawyer does not have to go to your current location if away from a police office, and you do not have to discuss with them by phone as an alternative.
3. State "I cannot afford a lawyer, I will need 1 provided." In most jurisdictions they don't have a test to determine if you can afford a lawyer - millionaires have had publicly paid attorneys - maybe you're rich, but you believe you will need that money for retirement, provide for your family's business ventures, or other uses.
For the initial stages, any lawyer will do - if it goes to trial, then you can switch over to a preferred attorney.
This discourages fishing by law enforcement officers - they need to justify the additional expense to their department to continue fishing, and they know a lawyer will immediately tell their client (you) to remain silent.
4a. If the officers ask any question other than identification (likely, they are trained to try to invoke a statement after declaring your right to remain silent), accuse them of violating your rights, request their supervisor, request the officer's name in document (written) form, request to file a complaint, and ask the procedure for obtaining their body cam footage.
If speaking with a supervisor, deliver a key facts only description of the officer's misconduct (he doesn't have sufficient RS, the detention is being illegally extended, he refused to recognize your rights, etc.) with the assumption the officer lied to his supervisor.
4b. After they have had time to run your identification, challenge their continuation of the detention as illegal since they aren't actively advancing an investigation because you aren't answering questions. If detention continues, follow 4a.
Police: "Well, I have evidence of your DNA all over the crime scene."
Suspect: "Oh yeah? Well I evidence of your wife's DNA all over my bed, so we're even." 🤣
I got hip to this tactic when I watched an episode of The First 48 and the crooked detectives concocted a witness statement out of thin air.
Great information! Thank you!
If the system were really for justice, an attorney would be present at every interrogation to act on behalf of the suspect unless the suspect dismissed them
They can't use fake evidence if you are represented during questioning. Don't fall for the crap "if you cooperate it will go easier on you." Let your attorney "negotiate." And don't talk to fellow inmates while being held. They are either police plants or people looking for something to help themselves.
"If you have enough evidence to convict me, why do you need me to say anything more?"
Exactly. If the evidence was real, you'd already be behind bars waiting for your court date!
Refreshing to know that there are some lawyers who still have your virtues and don't have to have $ to do a service for those who can't afford it or just need direction on how to proceed!
Thank you for your insight .
Uh, don't think you're gonna get a lawyer to defend you for free. Public defenders are worthless!
4:45 that stock clip reminded me to ask this question: Can facial/body expressions be used by police as evidence in court, even after you invoke your 5th Amendment right?
So just never talk to cops without a lawyer? And even with a lawyer, just shut up and let them talk.... Sounds good to me.
Do NOT wait till you are read your rights to invoke the right to remain silent and have an attorney present during question. The second law enforcement starts asking you questions, your reply should be, "I invoke my Constitutional right to remain silent and not answer questions without the presence of a lawyer."
Even if it's a speeding ticket, do not answer questions.
Makes one wonder how many are in prison convicted on made up fake illegal evidence!
My favorite I'm waiting to use is "It's not my job to help you investigate me." Also, the cops will never say "Anything you say can and will be used to help you in a court of law."
Yes. I've seen them say that on TV. So it must be real!
If you are talking to the cops with out a lawyer and your not the one filing the complaint than you deserve to go to jail.
If a private citizen can be criminally charged for lying to the cops or the courts, the cops and the courts should be subject to the same restrictions and consequences
it's ridiculous that they can lie to you so thoroughly, but lying back is illegal? that's patently unjust. even a child could tell that's unfair.
The thing I don't understand is, how do people wind up in an interrogation room at all with the police? I mean, either they asked you to voluntarily come down and answer a few questions. which you should always answer "no" to, or they arrested you and took you against your will to an interrogation room, in which case the one and only thing you should say is "I want a lawyer," and they cannot question you from that point on. So how are these people being shown fake evidence during an interrogation?
Because by going voluntarily, police already realise they're dealing with a 'soft touch', and as such, will try it on even more.
Would slander/lible laws apply, especially if they share the 'evidence' with others?
They can't share any evidence of any kind with anyone in the manner you're suggesting barring those involved in prosecuting and investigating the case. Legit or otherwise. That would be a breach of confidentiality and compromise the case, not to mention the jury pool
So can they lie to your lower too? Because in that case the lower may advice you to confess or take some plea deal even if you were innocent.
Always remember people the deck is stacked against you.
Your situation in Virginia sounds like the balancing test under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 that we have in New Zealand about "improperly obtained evidence." This basically balances the seriousness of the impropriety with the seriousness of the offending and probative value of the evidence. I completely disagree with this and think all improperly obtained evidence should be automatically excluded.
Yes, you need a bright line rule; otherwise the "balancing test" will always be found to weigh in the favor of the State.
Thank you so much for your videos.
Good information
"Banned the police from using fake evidence" Like that's going to take effect. I needed that laugh.......
They can lie to you but you can't lie to you; that's not a time to try to be reasonable and answer a bunch of questions.
You can lie to you. People do it all the time.
Main takeaway: if they had that much "evidence", you'd be in a cell, not an interrogation room