It’s #STFUfriday!
When cops ask you questions, ask for a lawyer and then STFU:
- I am not discussing how I’m doing or where I’m going.
- Am I free to leave?
- I am not answering any questions.
- If they ask to search anything: "I do not consent to a search."
- I want to talk to a lawyer.
You got arrested. You can’t make bail. The only calls you can make are collect calls from the jail.
The calls are recorded and monitored. You have no choice!
STFU about the case on those calls! 🧵
Let’s center the broader problem here. People with means can make bail and then have private conversations with anyone they want. Poor people get held, their visits are normally limited and not private, and their calls are recorded and monitored. Two systems. It’s not right.
Do they actually record and listen to those calls? Yes! Prosecutors regularly use those calls as investigative tools. /2
I realize that amendments 4, 5, and 6 have been set on fire since I took crim pro, but can you clarify what is sufficient v. not sufficient to invoke the right to remain silent? Asking for general educational purposes, not for legal advice.
@HG
"I'm not talking to you. I want a lawyer." That should get it done.
The point is that you have to be clear and unambiguous. And once you've invoked the right to counsel or silence or BOTH, you need to then actually STFU. They will say you waived your invocation by re-initiating discussion. Don't do that.
Relevant prior threads:
https://mastodon.social/@D_J_Nathanson/112498116177252670
@D_J_Nathanson @HG @D_J_Nathanson i worked as a legal assistant for a pro bono firm for a few years and one of the new lawyers told me, if you ever get pulled over for being under the influence, never ever ever do the sobriety field test and say take me to jail.
im not sure if thats true and i dont drink anymore, but it always stuck with me.
@emily_rugburn @HG @D_J_Nathanson That one is tricky because the law varies very widely from state to state. The Supreme Court has approved using that refusal against you in a later criminal trial for OUI. It does not violate the federal constitution.
However, states like Massachusetts and several other states have held that introducing that refusal at a later trial violates the state constitution or state statutes. So you want to get state-specific advice from someone who practices there.
Dave Nathanson
Human Ghostwriter
sonja