Police Interrogation: No lawyer will save you; you must save yourself

We’ve all seen the cop show where the police are sweating a confession out of the accused and just as the killer is about to admit his guilt, the defense lawyer rushes in and cuts off the interrogation by shouting: “Don’t answer that! This interview is OVER!”

Apparently defense lawyers (like the Terminator) are able to barge into secure areas of the police station anytime they want. Guess what?  This NEVER happens.

When the police arrest someone and want to question them they first must read the suspect his rights as set forth in the US Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Most cops will carry a card from which the rights are read:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

  • Number 1 is good to know, especially when read by a police officer, who–at this particular moment–is not your friend.
  • Number 2 is so blunt and honest it makes me want to cry. Read it again. Notice how “anything you say” can be used against you. So if you tell the truth, they can use that against you. And if you tell a lie–and they later find out–they will use that against you. Consider the meaning of remaining silent. It’s for the best. Just say: “I want to talk to a lawyer first.”
  • Number 3 gets a little tricky. It seems to say that if you ask for a lawyer, they get one in for you. News flash: THEY WON’T. But they have to stop asking questions (which is the main point here).
  • Number 4, like number 3, should not be misunderstood to mean that you will see a lawyer anytime soon. If it’s a Friday night, it would be a miracle if you saw the public defender before next week.
  • Number 5 just says you can confess to all, part or none of the crime. You can stop confessing whenever you want.

Another thing to keep in mind about these rights is that they are the rights of the accused, not his lawyer. If your spouse has hired a lawyer and sent the lawyer straight to the jail, he will not be rushing in to stop the questioning. You will not see him or even know he is in the building until the police are finished with their questions.

That is the bottom line: no suspect is going to talk to a lawyer until the police have finished their questioning (one exception being a DWI-related case where suspect is permitted to call a lawyer, IF THEY ASK TO).

If the police are smart–and many are–they will not let a suspect talk to ANY OUTSIDER until they get everything they can from the suspect. That will happen more quickly if the suspect stops all questioning by asking to talk to a lawyer.

Once the arrest and booking is over and the person is (hopefully) bailed out of jail, the accused will need a lawyer, but the case that is eventually presented to that lawyer to defend may be very different, depending on how well the defendant listened to the Miranda warnings and asserted those rights.


Bill would outlaw coolers, “jello shots” & Mardi gras beads on Missouri’s rivers

The legislative season has begun with the pre-filing of new bills for the upcoming session. The hottest proposal is one that creates many new crimes that can only be committed on a river (meaning that these crimes are not crimes on dry land or, presumably, on lakes and ponds). If Senator Delbert Scott‘s Senate Bill 2 becomes law, fun-loving Missourians will want to avoid:

  1. The crime of possessing a “beer bong” (funnels, tubes & hoses used for rapid consumption of alcohol) ON A RIVER.
  2. The crime of possession or consumption of alcohol-laced gelatin (“jello shots”) ON A RIVER.
  3. The crime of possession or use any alcoholic beverage container larger than one gallon ON A RIVER.
  4. The crime of distribution of bead necklaces, if such beads are intended to cause fighting, solicitation of nudity, obscene language or other lewd behavior ON A RIVER.
  5. The crime of possession of styrofoam & plastic coolers ON A RIVER (unless the cooler is made for holding bait)

Having never personally committed the first four crimes myself, I don’t quite know what to what to say. As near as I can tell, most behavior that these new crimes would discourage IS ALREADY A CRIME: peace disturbance, fighting, sexual misconduct, boating while intoxicated. etc.

But new crime #5 is worthy of more scrutiny. This law would nearly outlaw drinking any cold beverage on a river. If one uses the popular recreational river vessel–the venerable canoe–this bill would outlaw carrying any food or beverage at all because Missouri law already requires–under Section 306.325–that any food and beverages carried in canoes, MUST BE KEPT IN A COOLER.

Perhaps this bill is meant to encourage the purchase of aluminum coolers. For crying out loud, if you want to outlaw alcohol on a river, WHY DON’T YOU JUST DO IT?

And is there some good reason why these are crimes can only be committed on rivers, but not on lakes? I’ll bet there are more drunken lunatics in speedboats on our lakes.

I know we must still have some lawmakers who believe in liberty; lawmakers whose first inclination is to vote NO to more regulation and criminalization of (admittedly) bad behavior; and who understand that just because we could make belching and scratching one’s backside a crime, that would not transform Missouri into a heaven on earth.

As for our more totalitarian-minded legislators, they too can vote NO on this bill because it goes way too far in criminalizing innocent conduct while doing a poor job at controlling the underlying problems.