Post by i***@yahoo.comSo let say a detective calls you on the phone or shows up at your home
and wants to ask you some questions about a crime of which they have
no evidence that you were involved in nor a witness to but are trying
to determine if you were involved or perhaps a witness to. In other
words you are a person of interest. I know that everyone has a right
to remain silent and you don't have to answer any questions from the
police no matter what but what would they do if you flat out refused?
It's hard to imagine them just saying: ok have a nice day then we
won't bother you anymore. So what would they do?
While admittedly subject to special case qualifications:
At least if one has not first gotten well informed advice from
a knowledgeable lawyer experienced in dealing with these issues, it is
almost never helpful and also is almost always potentially self
damaging to speak with police if there is any reason to believe, and
very often even if there is only reason to guess, that the police may
charge the person they are trying to question with a crime.
Also for an unrepresented person, it too often is an also
seriously self damaging mistake to believe and rely on assurances from
police attempting to question someone who has any reason to believe
that that someone may be charged with a crime to the effect that the
police will confer some sort of immunity from prosecution in exchange
for answers or otherwise "help" by charging him or her with a less
serious offense than would otherwise be the case, etc.
But especially if-when there the you in question has even
slight doubt about whether to speak with the police, it also can be a
mistake - even if, possibly, also in some instances not harmful and
maybe even desirable - to act on the basis of the sort of confusing
and, unless explained further, apparently very questionable
assumptions you make in what I assume is your hypothetically stated
scenario quoted above by which you frame your questions.
For example, you in effect ask a reader of your posting to
assume about the you in question that the police detective does not
have any evidence that that you was involved in the commission of the
crime the officer is investigating, but you do not post facts that
would answer any of these questions that such a baldly made assumption
raises -
Do you as newsgroup poster merely assume but without a
reasonably well founded factual basis that the detective and her or
his police officer colleagues actually have no evidence that the you
to whom you refer was involved with what they beleive - or, perhaps,
do not believe but may claim anyway - is a crime?
Does the you in question have his or her own reasons
and, if so, what are the reasons to believe that the the police may
learn that he or she probably particpated in the commission of a crime
or may be told by someone else that that you had participated in the
commission of a crime?
Beyond assumption, has the detective in question said
explictly that the police do not have any such evidence?
And even if the detective did say exactly that, what
if any facts in addition to such a statement does the you in question
know or even have well founded reason to believe that the officer did
not say this untruthfully or otherwise unreliably?
You also combine in your posting two ordinarily very different
scenarios and seem to assume that each poses the same sorts of
considerations for the person the police are attempting to question.
However, in reality it is one thing for the police to investigate and
try to decide wheteher to charge someone with a crime and almost
always quite another matter for police to question someone solely for
the purpose of trying to confirm that he or she may have information
about the commission of a crime by another person including so that
the police can decide whether she or he might become a heplful witness
for the prosecution if theyand the prosecutor do prosecute that other
person.
And even in connection with the second of these alternatives,
choosing among what may be significantly competing considerations
often makes it important to the person the police are trying to
question even if only as a witness first to try to answer at least
these questions for himself or herself:
What if anything does such a person know about the
events the police are investigating, including but not necessarily
limited to its degree or not of emergency (maybe the police are trying
to obtain a description for a fleeing robber?), to induce that person
to answer police questions in furtherance of the proverbial, "Be a
'good' citizen!" and, "Help stamp out crime!" sorts of rationales?
If the person did observe the acts in question that
the police know or presume to be crimes or knows other pertinent facts
about the persons who did those acts and the person's inclination is
to lie to the police, ought one reason not to speak with the police at
al without the advice of counsel be that the police may later become
motivated to prosecute that person for whatever may be the
jurisdiction's crimes making prosecutable and punishable lying to law
enforcement officers or otherwise interefering with governmental
administration?
Are there likely to be personal consequences even if
maybe from criminal misconduct by others if the person says things to
the police as a result of which they conclude that he or she is an
potentially important witness and, if so, what if anything,
realisticaly estimated, will the police do and maybe not to to protect
against retaliation?
In other words, to what extent is it or is it not
probable that you focusing on your your question about what the they
who are police would do if the you in question does not answer the
detective's or the detective's colleagues' questions is diverting your
attention from what the they who is the targeted defendant or that
person's colleagues or family probably would do depending on your
answer to the previous question?
And in connection with your, what would the police do?
question if the you to whom you refer decides not to speak with the
police, what if any facts does that you know or have reason to believe
that would make whatever is the, They would do this: _____ answer
worse for that you? Arrest you though, you say, the police have no
evidence that that you committed a crime?