If you agree to be questioned or are arrested, then you have a lawyer who can be present during any and all police interviews. Post-Arrest Questioning If you are arrested for a crime and booked into jail, then the police must inform you of your Miranda rights before they can question you. These rights include:
Full Answer
· The police are not allowed to question you after you have asked for a lawyer. However, if you agreed to talk to them after they read you your Miranda rights and you did so voluntarily (without pressure, duress, coercion, etc), then the questioning is legal and the answers you gave can be used against you.
2. Because they think that if they ask for a lawyer, the police will think they are guilty. This is not true. It is ALWAYS smart to ask for a lawyer. 3. Because they want to tell their story. Don’t tell your story to the police. After you speak to your lawyer, you can talk about how to tell your story. Ok, here are the 5 Reasons you should ...
The Supreme Court has ruled that both rights must be clearly and unequivocally invoked in order for statements made later to be ruled inadmissible. If someone were to invoke their Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but then continue to answer questions from the police willingly, they would run the risk of the court finding a waiver of their Fifth Amendment rights.
The answer is simply, "No". If you ask for a lawyer, they must stop questioning you. You may be in the interrogation room for a while. But they are not waiting for you to waive your rights. They are deciding what to do. Maybe waiting for another person to show to corroborate what you have already told them. Or waiting for a transportation officer.
After an arrest, when the police place you in an interview room, your answer to the first question should be, “I am invoking my right to remain silent. I want to contact my attorney.”
Your right to an attorney during criminal prosecutions is provided by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
If the police call you or show up at your door asking for an interview, politely tell them that you are happy to cooperate at a future date when you have spoken with a lawyer. Then, contact a criminal defense attorney. They can advise you on whether or not it is smart to speak with the police. If you agree to be questioned or are arrested, then you ...
If you are arrested for a crime and booked into jail, then the police must inform you of your Miranda rights before they can question you.
Your attorney should move to suppress the statements. While I do not know if that will be successful, it is certainly something that should be done pre-trial or in limine.
The police are not allowed to question you after you have asked for a lawyer. However, if you agreed to talk to them after they read you your Miranda rights and you did so voluntarily (without pressure, duress, coercion, etc), then the questioning is legal and the answers you gave can be used against you.
Can they continue to question you? Yes. Officers are often encouraged to continue asking questions as the answers can lead to evidence indirectly that can be used against you. Can they use your answers against you? Probably not. As posted above, the demand for a lawyer must generally be clear and unequivocal. Officers often read you your Miranda rights and immediately begin questioning. If you answer the...
No police cannot and no, those statements cannot be used against you. However, a lot of the time, the police will state in their report, they you waived your Miranda rights. You would have to prove that you didn't and then you could suppress any statements made in violation of Miranda...
Simply asking for a lawyer does at some stage of a police contact does not prevent them from Mirandizing you and then asking for a Miranda waiver. If they read you your rights and then you asked for a lawyer and admitted that in the police report or recorded it, then you will be able to suppress those statements.
5 Reasons to Ask for a Lawyer when questioned by Law Enforcement. If you are in the military, the military police (or other law enforcement personnel) have to tell you what crime you are suspected of before they question you. They also have to tell you that you have a right to remain silent. And they have to tell you that anything you say can be ...
They want to talk to you because they have some evidence that you committed a crime. It could be a statement from someone who believes they saw you commit a crime. Or it could be a statement by one witness who lied to the police to get you in trouble.
Even if you are innocent and you tell the truth, you will always give the police some information that can be used to help convict you.
Even if you are innocent and tell the truth and you don’t tell the police anything incriminating, there is still a chance that your answers can be used to crucify you if the police do not recall your testimony with 100% accu racy. Example : “I don’t know who killed John. I’ve never touched a gun in my life.”.
Hopefully, this gives you the basic idea of why it is never a good idea to talk to law enforcement. It is natural for people to want to prove they are innocent, but it backfires. While you should always be respectful, always ask for a lawyer. Always.
This is not true. It is ALWAYS smart to ask for a lawyer.
Even if you are innocent and tell the truth and do not tell the police anything incriminating, your answers can still be used to crucify you if the police have evidence that something you told the police was false.
If the attorney has not yet had time to confer with their client and learn the truth, how things went down, etc to work on strategy then silence is golden. Sometimes after speaking with the client they decide that certain statements are necessary.
Another reason attorneys don’t burst in is that the very moment a potential criminal asks for an attorney then questioning stops immediately. There is no reason for an attorney to burst up in there when their client is sitting there often alone. If they invoke their right to silence or ask for an attorney’s counsel then any questioning conducted from then on is garbage and an officer will be flushing the case down the toilet to continue.
If someone were to invoke their Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but then continue to answer questions from the police willingly, they would run the risk of the court finding a waiver of their Fifth Amendment rights. There are two separate rights that you want to invoke when asking for a lawyer.
In many states in the US, you will be required to sign a statement affirming that you have been advised as to your rights. If you refuse, you will be advised again, either in front of witnesses, who will then sign an affidavit saying they witnessed it, or it will be on videotape.
If the judge found you to be indigent, he would appoint counsel for you. The judge, not the defendant, decides whether the defendant can afford to hire a lawyer. I've seen several cases where a defendant had resources, but didn't want to expend them on legal counsel.
Also, anything you say that would tend to be exculpatory or lend to your innocence will neither be recorded or introduced in court on your behalf. So give them only the basic information needed to book you and is required for a bond and remain quiet.
The first is your Sixth Amendment right to counsel; the second is your Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer any questions. The Supreme Court has ruled that both rights must be clearly and unequivocally invoked in order for statements made later to be ruled inadmissible.
The moment you say "I won't say anything without my lawyer", or some equivalent, the police must stop their questioning. They told you that you have the right to remain silent and to demand an attorney, and the moment you tell them you're exercising those rights, anything more they ask is very likely to be thrown out in court anyway. They'll stop.
So if you are arrested, the only thing you say is "I do not want to talk without my attorney present." And then (other than asking for basic needs), mean that, and keep your mouth firmly shut.
If you're guilty, they may not have sufficient evidence, or it may be weak without you incriminating yourself and you may get things plea bargained to nothing. If you're innocent, well, innocent people have been convicted before of crimes they didn't commit, and often because what they said in an interrogation was twisted around. The only reason the police arrest you is because they think you're guilty, and nothing you say will help you and it stands a very good chance of hurting you. The officer has a lot more experience at this than you do, and you're not going to outwit them.
Failure to do so will almost inevitably result in that evidence being suppressed at trial.
The police are allowed to detain and interrogate you in order to determine whether or not probable cause exists for an arrest. This can last hours if necessary, but if they can’t develop PC for an arrest, they have to let you go. What this period of time is, is dependent on the facts at hand, and is a judgeme.
It's the 5th amendment -- the right not to make the choice to incriminate yourself under oath or perjure yourself.
They can, however, restart the interrogation if you voluntarily restart the conversation without coercion or prompting. You can make basic requests, such as for food or water or to use the restroom, without that, but if you start discussing the situation or the crime again voluntarily, they may be able to restart questioning. If they do, though, you can always reiterate "I don't want to make any statement without my lawyer present." And then, once again, they must stop.
If the suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal statement concerning the right to legal counsel following an unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel, the officer does not need to stop and ask clarifying questions. Three days later, the detectives interviewed Medina again.
An explicit request for an attorney requires all questioning to cease. If the suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal statement concerning the right to legal counsel following an unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel, the officer does not need to stop and ask clarifying questions.
96 (1975)), the Supreme Court allowed a second interrogation after the suspect had invoked the right to remain silent upon consideration of four factors: The interrogation immediately ceased when the defendant said he did not want to talk anymore.
Though commendable, the reminder was constitutionally unnecessary. In Maryland v. Shatzer (559 U.S. 98 (2010)), the Supreme Court held officers need not give renewed Miranda warnings during subsequent interrogations unless 14 days had passed since a break in custody and an effective initial Miranda warning.
Medina argued he merely began a routine conversation about something unrelated to the murder. The court acknowledged truly routine conversation about an unrelated topic would not signal a suspect’s desire to talk about the murder. However, the court disagreed that Medina’s conversation was more than just routine or unrelated to the crimes charged. When Medina invoked his right to an attorney in the first interrogation, he immediately followed with:
Medina asked the court to suppress the statements obtained during the two interrogations, claiming detectives continued to question him after he plainly invoked his right to an attorney during the initial questioning. The trial court agreed and granted his request; the state appealed.
If the attorney refuses to answer your question, simply hang up on him or her. Just because the person is an attorney, that is no license to be rude.
If the attorney does not represent the client, which I would ask to be confirmed in writing, then you have no obligation to provide any information regarding a case. In some situations, (such as if YOU were an attorney yourself), it would be an ethical violation for you to say anything.
Furthermore, if you or your company is involved with litigation and represented by an attorney already, any other attorneys should never contact you but should go through your attorney directly. This is an ethical rule. If the person tries to contact you again instead of your attorney, let your attorney know right away.
If a person is really an attorney, they'll have an identifying number with the Oregon State Bar (this answer applies to Oregon). You can then check them out professionally at osbar.org. Oddly, if the client has asked that the lawyer keep his name confidential, then the lawyer can't tell you who he represents. However, I'm pretty sure that you can then refuse to answer any questions in other words, you don't give any information until they tell you who's asking. Your company should have legal representation, and you need to tell your company's attorney about this contact.
If you don't like the comments, hang up the phone.
An attorney is not allowed to disclose who they are working for, unless they have that person's permission. Attorneys,for example, are not allowed to post a listing of their clients, unless each clients has given permission to be on the list. It is rarely in the client's best interest to have it revealed who their attorney is, and so the attorney should rarely ask to list such things. But, if an attorney is representing a person in a particular matter and if they are contacting an opposing party, then they should say who they are representing. But, this is not always the case and it depends what the situation is. For example, lawyers are allowed to act on someone's behalf and not reveal who they are working for, or even that they are working for anyone. This is often the case, especially in big real estate bargaining. However, if someone calls you for information and you are not satisfied that they have a right to know, you do not need to answer or give them any information at all. If a lawyer is representing a person and is going to discuss or negotiate on the person's behalf, they will let you know they are engaged to represent the person in that dealing. If there is a court case pending and a lawyer is officially representing a party, they will put their name on the court filings, and will often send letter saying whom they represent. Often, a lawyer may seek information on behalf of a client, but not want to reveal for whom they work. It is up to you to decide whether you wish to give such a person information. The one main thing a lawyer cannot do is lie and say they represent someone they do not represent. So if you ask a lawyer whom they represent in the matter, if anyone, the lawyer is not allowed to falsely name someone. But, they can refuse to answer, and you can refuse to discuss with them. However, in some locations, there are special rules about a lawyer acting as a real estate agent being allow to bluff certain things. To accurately answer your question, I would need all the details.
The identity of a client is usually considered to be confidential information - so the attorney was correct in not answering your question. Usually, it is only after the client grants permission to the lawyer to reveal the relationship - then the attorney is permitted to do so.
The DSS lawyer is correct. A party who is represented by counsel cannot be contacted directly by opposing counsel unless that party and opposing counsel expressly authorized direct contact.
That is correct - he should not be talking to you without your attorney's permission.
No, they cannot talk to you directly. All communication has to go through the lawyers in order to protect your rights and attorney-client privilege.
A defendant who phones his or her attorney with a request for information can indicate a willingness to speak with the lawyer's associate, secretary, or paralegal. The lawyer may be too tied up on other cases to return the call personally, but may have time to pass along information through an assistant.
As defined by ethical rules, a lawyer's duty to keep clients informed has two primary components: to advise the defendant of case developments (such as a prosecutor's offered plea bargain or locating an important defense witness), and. to respond reasonably promptly to a defendant's request for information.
Defendants should insist that their lawyers adhere to their ethical obligation to inform them about the progress of their cases. As defined by ethical rules, a lawyer's duty to keep clients informed has two primary components: 1 to advise the defendant of case developments (such as a prosecutor's offered plea bargain or locating an important defense witness), and 2 to respond reasonably promptly to a defendant's request for information.
The duty to keep clients informed rests on attorneys, not clients. But on the theory that if the attorney screws up it's the client who usually suffers, here are a couple of steps that defendants can take to try to secure effective communication with their lawyers: