Mad at myself and the snohomish county sheriff's

[rapgood]

It has been upheld in court that the police may lie when undercover and to some extent during official questioning to extract a confession. However, it is my understanding that in all other cases they are supposed to maintain integrity and not lie.

Actually, lying is not limited to undercover work.

There are a number of different interrogation tactics that may be psychologically coercive, rendering a confession involuntary. These include (1) threats of punishment and promises of leniency; (2) threats of adverse consequences to a suspect's friend or loved one; (3) misrepresentation of the evidence against a suspect; and (4) the so-called "false friend" tactic.
United States v. Rodgers, 186 F. Supp. 2d 971, 974 (E.D. Wis. 2002)

The Supreme Court has specifically declined to outlaw all trickery, or even to reach the question of whether an affirmative misrepresentation by law enforcement officials as to the scope and seriousness of an interrogation is sufficient to render a confession involuntary. Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 107 S. Ct. 851, 858 n.8, 93 L. Ed. 2d 954 (1987)

The detective explained that police lie to suspects as part of a commonly used interview tactic. State v. Demery, 144 Wn.2d 753, 757 (Wash. 2001), reversed on other grounds, State v. Notaro, 161 Wn. App. 654, 661 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)

As such, I encourage all to review the video in gogo's posting above for best approach.

 

[LkWd_Don]

It has been upheld in court that the police may lie when undercover and to some extent during official questioning to extract a confession. However, it is my understanding that in all other cases they are supposed to maintain integrity and not lie.

Actually, lying is not limited to undercover work.

I would say that you mssed a good part of my statement, so I will highlight it for you.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I would agree with most of this. Where I do not is that it is not the "Home Alone" portion that the DA/PA has to prove but that you were "home NOT alone" in the case of a DV call.

In the case of a DV report supposedly at ones residence, even a truthful statement of being there all evening is to a degree an admission of having been at the scene of the suspected crime. A truthful statement of "Home Alone" now puts the onus (burden or obligation of proof) squarely on the legal system, if they are going to proceed.

Why say anything? Trust me cops are not there to exonerate you in anyway.

You son'rt know that saying 'home alone' might give them suspicion for something, don't say anything.

I don't care about if they are supposed to be truthful in other areas they simply are not, ask for full declaration next time you are pulled over read how they lie about little things on reports......so even if you do get a good cop you wanna chance it? For your own protection you must act like every utterance they make is a lie or an effort to infringe upon your liberty.

 

[gogodawgs]

Why say anything? Trust me cops are not there to exonerate you in anyway.

You son'rt know that saying 'home alone' might give them suspicion for something, don't say anything.

I don't care about if they are supposed to be truthful in other areas they simply are not, ask for full declaration next time you are pulled over read how they lie about little things on reports......so even if you do get a good cop you wanna chance it? For your own protection you must act like every utterance they make is a lie or an effort to infringe upon your liberty.

or do this....

"Officer, I will speak with you if you have a signed letter of immunity, for everything I have ever done and every thing I will ever do." :banana::banana::banana:

 

[Motofixxer]

A Police Chief was quoted saying in a meeting, something like, I can't believe how many people consent to a search, they must think we're good people or something. It's easily applied to the topic at hand. But also gives insight to the mindset of LE.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

or do this....

"Officer, I will speak with you if you have a signed letter of immunity, for everything I have ever done and every thing I will ever do." :banana::banana::banana:

For some reason that reminds me of lethal weapon..."diplomatic immunity", "revoked"....

 

[Deanimator]

For your own protection you must act like every utterance they make is a lie or an effort to infringe upon your liberty.

I presume that EVERYTHING a cop tells me is or could be a lie. I treat them the way I would treat a door to door driveway or roofing contractor.

They are NOT my friends and I have no expectation at all that they have my best interests (or the law for that matter) at heart.

 

[Deanimator]

Why say anything? Trust me cops are not there to exonerate you in anyway.

Last year I was [falsely] identified as a witness to a physical altercation at work. The Cleveland Clinic Police contacted me for a statement regarding what I'd "seen" (nothing, contrary to the lies of one of the participants).

I ABSOLUTELY refused to talk to the cops without my attorney present. He contacted the detective who left the voicemail on my phone and told him that if they needed a statement, I would provide one through HIM, which he would forward upon his review. He then sat on the matter until the cops decided the complainant was a fruitloop and let the whole thing drop without charges against the other participant.

I have ZERO confidence in the veracity of the police and will NEVER talk to them when there's the SLIGHTEST possibility that I could be construed as a suspect in ANY way.

 

[jddssc121]

read RCW 9.41.270

don't forget to read 9.41.230 as well

 

[jddssc121]

rcw 9.41.270 3a covers anything you do while inide your house or business.
it is more of less our version of Castle Doctorine.

rcw 9.41.270 3c covers your defense against unlawfull force, against you or others, any other place you legally may be.
it is more of less our version of Stand Your Ground.

um no. no. no. Dear God, no.........

9.41.270 has NOTHING to do w/ USE of force. It only deals with possession/display of weapons. That's it. It is most certainly NOT a stand your ground law.

WA RCW does have various provisions that address use of force (see 9A.16.050, 9A.16.110, 9A.16.020). But 9.41.270 has zip zero do to with it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I presume that EVERYTHING a cop tells me is or could be a lie. I treat them the way I would treat a door to door driveway or roofing contractor.

They are NOT my friends and I have no expectation at all that they have my best interests (or the law for that matter) at heart.

Last year I was [falsely] identified as a witness to a physical altercation at work. The Cleveland Clinic Police contacted me for a statement regarding what I'd "seen" (nothing, contrary to the lies of one of the participants).

I ABSOLUTELY refused to talk to the cops without my attorney present. He contacted the detective who left the voicemail on my phone and told him that if they needed a statement, I would provide one through HIM, which he would forward upon his review. He then sat on the matter until the cops decided the complainant was a fruitloop and let the whole thing drop without charges against the other participant.

I have ZERO confidence in the veracity of the police and will NEVER talk to them when there's the SLIGHTEST possibility that I could be construed as a suspect in ANY way.

I agree with your assessment 100%, well except that contractors often have the interest of their clients on mind because that is the best thing for their business and to make more money. Cops have state and union protection they don't need to protect their rep.

 

[rapgood]

I presume that EVERYTHING a cop tells me is or could be a lie. I treat them the way I would treat a door to door driveway or roofing contractor.

They are NOT my friends and I have no expectation at all that they have my best interests (or the law for that matter) at heart.

Q: How can you tell a cop is lying?
A: He's breathing. (Thought I was gonna say, "His lips are moving." Huh? Nope. Moving his lips requires too much effort, and it's a lot more work than cutting-and-pasting his work of fiction that he refers to as his "report.")

So! Like I'm gonna tell a cop where I was last night.
What's next? My bank account number and mother's maiden name?

 

[Deanimator]

I agree with your assessment 100%, well except that contractors often have the interest of their clients on mind because that is the best thing for their business and to make more money. Cops have state and union protection they don't need to protect their rep.

I put cops in the same category as the door to door "contractors" who "blacktop" your driveway with used motor oil.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I put cops in the same category as the door to door "contractors" who "blacktop" your driveway with used motor oil.

Ah yes that is a way different type of beast than contractors who are solicited by the public or who work by word of mouth.


And pretty funny analogy.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Q: How can you tell a cop is lying?
A: He's breathing. (Thought I was gonna say, "His lips are moving." Huh? Nope. Moving his lips requires too much effort, and it's a lot more work than cutting-and-pasting his work of fiction that he refers to as his "report.")

So! Like I'm gonna tell a cop where I was last night.
What's next? My bank account number and mother's maiden name?

Yes they will want that next.

But hey what have you got to hide?......lol......I hate that silly argument.

 

[Gray Peterson]

We often forget the language the founders provided.

'unreasonable'

Would it be unreasonable to search the house if someone was screaming from inside the house for help?

The 4th amendment is a nice floor, but article 1 section 7 is stronger.

 

[LkWd_Don]

The 4th amendment is a nice floor, but article 1 section 7 is stronger.

I am not following, maybe you could explain please.

In what manner are you using the - Article 1 > Legislative process - Section 7 > Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec7
as a comparison to the Bll of Rights 4A > Peoples protections against Search and Seizure
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4

 

[Gray Peterson]

I am not following, maybe you could explain please.

In what manner are you using the - Article 1 > Legislative process - Section 7 > Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec7
as a comparison to the Bll of Rights 4A > Peoples protections against Search and Seizure
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4

State constitution, not federal.

 

[LkWd_Don]

State constitution, not federal.

Thank you!
I will agree, just like our equivalent to the US 2A (WA Const. Art1-Sec24) is also worded with stronger result.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx