Why do suspects always talk to police

If you don't talk, you might walk.

Shut up and let your lawyer provide the correct answers.

Everyone has the right to remain silent.

Few have the ability.

Nice job excusing your terrible actions of hitting a girl, but to the point. You were arrested. That is different, yes they will take you to an interrogation room where you should’ve asked for a lawyer and let him speak for you. I think OPs question was more along the lines of if you’re not arrested and LE wants to talk to you. In that case you do not have to talk to them or go with them anywhere. It’s not what they know it’s what they can prove. You can’t talk your way out of the facts of what happened so let LE figure it out on their own.

Officer friendly wrote:

Usually when someone gets arrested it’s because they were doing something wrong, and their immediate reaction is to want to get released, so they try talking their way out of it or blame someone else.

F off, pig ?

I think there's a public perception by a lot of people that innocent people have nothing to hide.

Anytime you read a news story about someone not talking to the police or wanting to lawyer up first before talking, the comments section will nearly unanimously assume that the party is guilty.

I could be wrong, or I could be displaying my age since I was a kid when it happened, but I think a lot more of this mindset started as the result of the first OJ Simpson criminal trial. Now, people seem to think that anyone that hires a lawyer is automatically guilty.

Runnerdude444 wrote:

Police go to school to learn how to make people talk. It also helps that many suspects are usually under the influence of something and have very little understanding of the US Justice system.

lol good one

Hourunner wrote:

Real answer is a lot of them simply do not know that they do not have to talk to police. Of course when you’ve been arrested they read you your rights. However when being questioned those rights aren’t read to you so many don’t know they have the right “to remain silent “. ..

That is not true.

In most states suspect interviews are recorded by law. We have been doing that in my state for juveniles for about 15 years and with adults for about 12 years. Most states now do this. At the beginning of the interview the Miranda is always given. It is re-done even if previously given on scene so there is no doubt about it at a later motion hearing. As near as I can tell this is SOP everywhere.

MKE Prosecutor wrote:

Hourunner wrote:

Real answer is a lot of them simply do not know that they do not have to talk to police. Of course when you’ve been arrested they read you your rights. However when being questioned those rights aren’t read to you so many don’t know they have the right “to remain silent “. ..

That is not true.

In most states suspect interviews are recorded by law. We have been doing that in my state for juveniles for about 15 years and with adults for about 12 years. Most states now do this. At the beginning of the interview the Miranda is always given. It is re-done even if previously given on scene so there is no doubt about it at a later motion hearing. As near as I can tell this is SOP everywhere.

In some cases yes and in formal interviews yes but not always. Not all departments have resources for that. LE isn’t traveling around with cameras recording every person they talk to. But the point is many people (I teach HS) especially teens don’t know that they don’t have to talk to LE and that they can simply close the door, walk away, etc. A lot of people don’t even know that public defenders are free so when offered a lawyer they talk anyhow. Again, this is coming from the 18 year olds I teach (mostly poor minorities) They simply don’t know how it works except for the ones that are in gangs or have incarcerated family members who have been taught otherwise.

.

Thought I;d share this. Our first law lecture was watching this youtube in class

Mal Content wrote:

Star wrote:

If you’re an innocent suspect, of course you would talk to the police and explain things.

If you’re guilty, you want to appear to be be innocent, and therefore you talk.

Why do you have to explain anything if you have the right to remain silent? Why do you have to prove to them you are innocent? Your "explaining things" = you proving you are innocent.

Trust me, they don't like it when you clam up. 50% of arrests and convictions is you opening your piehole.

So you're telling me that if you were brought in for questioning of a crime that you did not commit, you would clam up and not say anything?

People with a lot of experience in the criminal justice system learn the ropes quickly and understand that they can avoid prosecution by painting a picture that will make it difficult for police to prosecute them. If you assaulted someone, tell the police that they swung at you first. If you get caught stealing your ex-girlfriend's car, tell the police she let you borrow it and never asked for it back. Police and prosecutors are generally overburdened and just go for the low hanging fruit. So, crooks know that if they make it difficult for law enforcement, they may never get charged.

I think people talk for a variety of reasons.

I am limiting this to statements made in a formal setting at the police station.

Often they talk because:

1. They think they can talk their way out of the problem. This usually does not work. Once you are arrested they are not simply going to let you go.

2. The suspect is using the interview to try and get information from the police. The suspect is trying to figure out what the police know and so talking provides a way to try and get this information.

3. They want to tell their side of the story. Closely related to #1 above, but a little different. In #1, the suspect may be lying in this one they are telling the truth and trying to explain.

4. Fear that if they don't talk they will "look guilty." They will, but I can't use that at trial.

Often people who have been through the system a few times are most likely to "invoke."

Some people are just arrogant and have to talk. It becomes a game to them.

I think the key here is what the nature of the crime is and what the nature of the police's interest in you is. I always talk to the police when I get pulled over for traffic violations. I almost never get tickets. In my experience, I am more likely to get away with a warning if I admit my mistake or just assure the cop I am not drunk by having that meaningless ten minute conversation about who knows what. If I were to refuse to answer any questions when he pulls me over for a broken taillight at midnight on a Friday, he would very likely give me a ticket; by being nice and letting him see I'm not intoxicated, I am quite likely to get away scot-free. Let's imagine my wife was murdered, which is a scenario in which I would find myself as a person of interest simply due to my relationship with her. i would very likely talk to the police, at least to a point, because I would want them to clear me as soon as possible so they could continue the investigation. I also think there would be a decent chance that my talking to them would reveal information that would indicate I didn't do it and am genuinely devastated by the event. Sure, there's some chance that the police could pursue me anyway, and my words could be twisted and used against me. But there are also tons of cases where a husband refused to talk, and that caused the police to zero in on him due to a "hunch." So while I generally wouldn't talk to the police if I was a person of interest in an investigation of any seriousness, there are some instances where I think it makes sense.

You can still refuse to answer questions even if you are arrested. In fact, if you are arrested, you almost certainly should refuse to answer questions.

I think the opposite is often true. People who have experience know to not talk to the police. Crafting some sort of storyline creates something that can be disproved. If you are going to create that kind of storyline, do it at trial, not during questioning.

Star wrote:

So you're telling me that if you were brought in for questioning of a crime that you did not commit, you would clam up and not say anything?

So you'd sit in a room and be harassed for 6 hours by 2 idiots for a crime that you didn't commit?

I know all the logic for not talking. Sometimes it makes sense to talk if you aren't being arrested. I think I would have been very inconvenienced at best if I didn't talk the last time cops were waiting by my car to talk to me.

I was in a small town in New England, and had parked legally on a side road to go running. When I got back, the cops had been waiting for me for a while. They said some had reported a suspicious car, snd that the house I was parked kind of near had been burglarized in the past. That was the second time in a couple weeks in the same neighborhood too, though different cops/border of another small town. The first time, it was also oeople, mire than one, I think, calling anout my car parked legally near an intersection. I showed ID, and they ran that and I'm sure my car's plates. Both times, if I had flatly refused to talk though, I imagine I would have been hauled in to be questioned.

I think the proper way to address a situation where police want to interview you is to advise "officers, let's have a discussion about this topic over a box of doughnuts."

Uncle Rico wrote:

I think the proper way to address a situation where police want to interview you is to advise "officers, let's have a discussion about this topic over a box of doughnuts."

They would probably know you were a classy, fancy sort of person based on the "gh" version of "doughnuts" as well. That alone would probably let you walk.

Remember, the police can lie to you legally, but you can't do same. Don't know how that passed Supreme Court????

Remember, the police have to convince the prosecutor/DA. The less information you reveal, the harder their job.

Oh, and you can refuse to be "brought in" for questioning.

You don't think the police can (and will) lie to you?

I don't understand Miranda at all. Why hasn't someone challenged the TIMING of reading Miranda Rights? All Miranda Rights do is advise you not to FURTHER incriminate yourself. The horse has already left the barn.

Again, all Miranda Rights do is advise you not to FURTHER incriminate yourself. Key word is - FURTHER.

Mal Content wrote:

I don't understand Miranda at all. Why hasn't someone challenged the TIMING of reading Miranda Rights? All Miranda Rights do is advise you not to FURTHER incriminate yourself. The horse has already left the barn.

Again, all Miranda Rights do is advise you not to FURTHER incriminate yourself. Key word is - FURTHER.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Miranda ("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 an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.") What is complicated about this?

Miranda only needs to be read to you once you are "in custody." If you are not in custody you don't get the warning, but can still assert the 5th.