Fun fact: if you haven’t been mirandized your silence is admissable, but not your answer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas
The correct answer is to plead the fifth if a cop says hello.
It would be great if our system was set up such that there were people responsible for public safety the way firefighters are and, also like firefighters, don’t have the looming threat of crushing you with the weight of the law, but unlike firefighters don’t need to be ready next to a lot of bulky specialized equipment to be effective.
But it’s not, so…
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
They don’t need to give a warning unless you are in custodial interrogation
They could just put you in a room and not ask questions, have a cop sit there, bait you into wanting to have a conversation since you’re bored (its human psychology to want to talk when you’re bored).
And they could also ask questions before an arrest, those are admissible as long as you weren’t under arrest at the time.
There’s a lot of sheanigans they could try.
They never gave me a miranda warning when I got arrested. I didn’t say anything but I bet the other kids who are less smart would be yapping during the ride to the police station. Those statements would probably¹ be admissible because its not a custodial interrogation (since the cops didn’t technically initiate questioning, the suspect just started talking).
¹I am not a lawyer
Literally wtf, those other kids all just admitted to their crimes and I overheard all of them talking (we got held in the same tiny-ass room). Some of them stole stuff, carjacking, all that stuff. Meanwhile all I did was self-defence. I never admitted to any guilt, but I did say to the cellmates that I “fought back after the other person instigated it” which probably wasn’t worded the most innocent way possible, but that does not really admit guilt.
(btw we were all minors)
gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yeah custodial interrogation is a funny concept but in fairness if you confess to a silent cop because you got bored that’s probably on you
I’m not a lawyer but assuming it’s not just lazy sloppy police work I’m pretty sure what they probably hope for are you all to snitch on each other. Which seems obvious but I’m 99% sure if you all snitch on each other without Miranda they can use your statements against each other just not against yourself. So your statement is valid against your friend, your friend against you, but your own statements aren’t valid against yourselves. Sorry I’m doing a shitty job explaining it but yeah that’s a huge loophole
grue@lemmy.world 3 days ago
It’s not about confessing, it’s about being tricked into saying something innocuous in context that they twist to implicate you anyway.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
To the best of my knowledge you telling someone you did something and them telling the cop is a good example of hearsay, or at least pretty arguable.
Far easier to just have a standard camera in the room, since a video of a confession is far more compelling and sidesteps any arguments about hearsay.
mkwt@lemmy.world 2 days ago
If you confess a crime to anyone, that’s an admission against party interest. And it can usually come in under that hearsay exception. It’s pretty common for cops to testify to what the defendant said in custody, and also for jailhouse snitches to testify to what the defendant said in custody (i.e. this is not a special cop hearsay exception).
And the kicker is that this doesn’t help you, the defendant. Anything you say will be used against you, but it can’t ever be used for you. Because as soon as you’re trying to introduce your own prior statements, it’s inadmissable hearsay and not an admission against interest any more.
You’re right though that it’s going to be an argument on this every time.