BAA Member, Local Sub-Elite who ran 14:53 at BAA 5k arrested for looking like Boston Bomber

Rund al'Thor wrote:

Oh my goodness ... I posted on this thread under "Runner Patrol" "Runner Number One" or whatever, and this one.

I am a defense attorney and I don't know why my other post was deleted. But here goes.

Answering the cop's questions is exactly what got Dan out of this situation. He was behind the 8-ball so to speak because he was acting suspicious - running with no shirt, no ID, near a threatened building, in the early morning after a shootout with terrorists, while one of them was still on the loose. And he fit the description for the one that was still alive and unaccounted for. Being "stopped" by the cops was completely legitimate.

He was "detained" (placed in the control of the cops) because he had no ID in those circumstances. The cops ask him questions looking for "reasonable suspicion" that he's the suspect. They got answers and eliminated that possibility because he spoke honestly with them. If he'd been evasive - or if he'd remained silent, which is one way of being evasive - they would have found reasonable suspicion and arrested him.

If that happened, he'd go to jail. If he didn't talk then, there's no way he'd be bailed out on personal recognizance, so he'd be held until he could have an arraignment and a bail hearing and assigned counsel. With a Friday morning arrest, that hearing might have taken place on Friday ... or it might have taken place the following Monday morning. And if you're a terror suspect, there's no way you're getting out on bail until someone convinces the court that you're not the terrorist (with evidence). Given all of these circumstances, saying JUST your name probably wouldn't even do that, because they would still be suspicious as to why you didn't answer the other basic questions they'd asked.

I've been to hearings where people identify themselves and then refuse to speak, even to their attorney - cops, judges, and the prosecutors don't like it, and if the arrest is legitimate (i.e. based on reasonable suspicion, as it would have been here) then they're not going to let you go until the process plays itself out. "The process" can take weeks or months, during which time ... he'd be in jail.

You have plenty of rights as a suspect. It's not always a good idea to exercise them - because the state has the authority to totally screw you when you choose to. This isn't a very republican/libertarian/whatever approach, but it's reality. Do you think people go to jail, get imprisoned, or get sued because they want to?

Sally Vixxxens wrote:

neighnotney wrote:

I was thinking about preemptively responding to this argument but decided not to, because I figured no one would actually think that. While it may feel unnatural to stand there mute, it is well within your rights, and the officers know that. When you talk to an officer he is not thinking of ways that your story absolves you, he is thinking of ways that it implicates you. Officers know that it is smarter for you to not say anything. They may be annoyed by it, but of course they know that. Their whole tactic is to get you to say something that could potentially implicate you. So while you may feel like you are being suspicious by not defending yourself or responding to the officers' questions, they actually know that you are doing what is best for you.

You obviously have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested for being silent. Being silent is not evidence of guilt. A cop who has detained someone for looking like a terrorist isn't going to let that person go because he says, "Oh, I'm just out for a run!" He isn't going to let that person go for being silent either. But in one situation the person has simply given the officer fodder, whereas in the other he has not.

So rather than being open and honest which led to his being released, you think he should have remained silent and been hauled off to the slammer? What sense does that make?