Legal question for college paper
This is a discussion on Legal question for college paper within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I am taking a criminal Justice course in college and I am not to sure. The question is If Law Enforcement use tricks, deceptions, and ...
June 20th, 2008 09:34 PM
Legal question for college paper
I am taking a criminal Justice course in college and I am not to sure. The question is If Law Enforcement use tricks, deceptions, and lies to obtain a confession from a suspect does this contradict the intent of the Fifth Amendment? I know the use of tricks is Entrapement but and I know the fifth amendment protects u from testifying against your self and double jepordy
XD .45, Glock 23, SIG 229, Mossberg 590A, M&P 15 Rossi 641, RIA 1911
If You Want To Know The Mind Of A Man Listen To His Words
June 20th, 2008 09:34 PM
June 20th, 2008 09:50 PM
Unnecessary Evil: Police Lying in Interrogations, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 425 (1996)
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969)
People v. Jordan, 597 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
State v. Baldwin, 125 N.C. App. 530 (March 4, 1997)
State v. Jackson, 308 N.C. 549 (1983)
The law review article and those case should get you moving in the right direction.
June 20th, 2008 10:29 PM
Lying is not entrapment, entrapment has a very specific legal definition and thats not it.
You can as an LEO say pretty much whatever you want during an interview, but more often than not lying will come back to bite you and its not a recommended method.
June 21st, 2008 01:20 AM
one thing LEO's use in interrogation is you're guilty mind,they may lead you to believe they know more than they actually do and that to protect yourself they need you're side of the story,that is not entrapment if you put yourself at the crime scene,or try to say yeah I was there but beavis did it
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
June 21st, 2008 05:47 AM
Sadly, another reason to let your lawyer do the talking...
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
June 21st, 2008 08:38 AM
Whatever you say can and will be held aginst you.
If the police are interviewing you, after 10 or 16 hours you'll be close to, if not past, your 'breaking' point. You'll say/believe just about anything if the stress of the situation has weakend your resolve.
Shut up and lawer up. The police want a confession and a convection.......they can say what they want(pretty much) but you, however, shouldn't.
"Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet. CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, quoted on Fox & Friends, 8 Jul, 2008
(Sometimes) "a fight avioded is a fight won." ... claude clay
June 21st, 2008 08:47 AM
Originally Posted by goldshellback
Lawyer up - Good advice
However, it should be remembered by all of us that most LEOs want a confession and a conviction only of the guilty party. Deception of the person being interrogated is allowed by the courts. Lying to any officer of the court is not.
June 21st, 2008 10:24 AM
Here's a good (but long) video of a law professor & police officer talking on why you should not talk to the police. Have your lawyer do it for you. The police officer (bottom video) talks more about lying to the suspect to get a confession.
Washington Ceasefire - Law Professor Explains Why Innocent Citizens Should Never Speak to Police Officers (video)
June 21st, 2008 12:59 PM
Legally, I'm sure you know what the definitions/limits are; your paper seems to be asking for an opinion on/analysis of the question than a regurgitation of the textbook answer.
Entrapment isn't the simple use of tricks or lies; it's when the authorities induce someone to commit a criminal act that they wouldn't ordinarily be disposed to. Asking someone if they want to buy or sell drugs and getting an affirmative response is not entrapment, nor is posing as a member of a criminal gang and introducing the members to another undercover who will sell them illegal items that they want.
Entrapment occurs when, let's say, an undercover officer goes to a pharmacist and asks to buy some scrips illegally, and the pharmacist refuses. The UC then concocts a story, appealing to the pharmacist's emotions, about how his uncle who is in fantastic pain from cancer can't get or afford the medications properly. After a week, the pharmacist breaks down and sells the pills illegally. The pharmacist can successfully say he was entrapped.
But I'm also confused about whether you want to know about police "tricks" in terms of investigation (lying about their identity as an undercover, etc., for purposes of gathering information about criminal activities) or in terms of an interrogation by known officers either before or after an arrest. There's also the the possibility of a law enforcement officer posing, say, as a jail inmate and getting the suspect to admit the truth without knowing he's talking to a cop...
So what exactly is the issue you want to discuss in your paper?
July 2nd, 2008 09:14 PM
July 2nd, 2008 09:18 PM
July 27th, 2008 01:24 PM
The unfortunate point made by the police officer was that reality runs contrary to the widely touted concept that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The truth is any person who finds him/herself sitting next to a defense attorney, while a uniformed officer's testimony differs with that of the defense will already have two strikes against them as far as most juries are concerned.
Originally Posted by bluelineman
I have sat as a member of the jury on two criminal cases where at least a few jury members stated during our deliberation that they had already decided the defendant was guilty just because: "no one other than a guilty person would be in the defendant's chair in the first place."
Sad, but true.
"Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. It undergoes continual change; but this change is not [an improvement]. For everything that is given, something is taken."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
By mimi1001 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 05:29 PM
By EW3 in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
Last Post: April 27th, 2008, 12:45 PM
By Smooth23 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: February 19th, 2008, 09:49 PM
By Superhouse 15 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: November 6th, 2007, 10:37 PM
By BillR in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: June 8th, 2007, 12:32 AM
Search tags for this page
confess vs lawerup to police
Click on a term to search for related topics.