How absolute is the advice, &#39;never talk to the police&#39;? [EDIT: Please assume U.S. jurisdiction, since that's what relevant to me.] I was recently reminded of this interesting talk, 'Don't Talk To The Police' by Regent Law Professor James Duane. Therein, he says (at 0:20) that he will "never talk to any police officer under any circumstances," and the bulk of his half of the video is him explaining why we should all resolve to do the same. His 8 reasons are very compelling, but I can't seem to get over the utter absoluteness of the "never ... under any circumstances" bit. What about these manufactured examples: Suppose I come to discover physical evidence that an adult has been sexting a minor. In such a case I believe the law compels me to report my discovery to law enforcement. Not only must I talk to them to convey the problem, but I'm certain they will have followup questions for me. Suppose my epileptic spouse has a seizure in our residence directly behind a locked bathroom door that swings inward-- hinges are on on her side-- and I call 911 after I tear out the door to aid her. A police officer shows up along with EMS, sees the broken door &amp; blood from a chewed up tongue and gets suspicious. Let's say my spouse is still unconscious &amp; can't corroborate. I'd need to communicate with EMS about my wife's condition &amp; what happened, but the officer is standing right there listening. If I take the 5th, not only might my wife's medical care be impacted, but I will likely be arrested by default on suspicion of battery. (As defaults go, this would actually be prudent on the officer's part, but would completely suck for me.) Suppose a police officer shows up at my house to investigate a burglary a few houses down the street, and is just knocking on doors asking neighbors if they saw or heard anything. In which of those circumstances should I say "sorry officer, I'm not going to speak with you," and at what point?
The basic reason to avoid speaking to police is the concern that something that you say will provide the police with a basis for arresting you or someone you care about, or charging you or someone you care about with a crime. Often, the reason that the police are talking with someone is specifically for the purpose of developing probable cause or a case to convict someone of a crime, when without your information they wouldn't have that information. Statements far short of a confession to committing a crime can be critical lynch pins in establishing a case against you. For example, a statement that confirms that you were in a particular place at a particular time could link you to a crime that happened at or near that location at that time, when otherwise the police might have no idea where you were at that time and might never link you to the crime. Also, it isn't uncommon for a request for police assistance to end badly, with the police assistance being deployed against you, or the means used by the police to resolve a situation having a deadly or undesired outcome. On the other hand, often you will need to communicate with police. You may need to report a crime for insurance purposes. You may need help when you or someone around you is currently being victimized by someone committing a crime. Cooperating with police to provide information may help to remove someone who is a potential threat to you or someone you care about from the streets. A better rule than "never talk to the police" is really more along the lines of "think twice before talking to the police". You should thoughtfully evaluate if what you hope to gain from doing so is greater than the risk that a case against you as a suspect could be established and is also greater than the risk that if the police do respond when you communicate with them that the situation could end badly. As you do this, try to see yourself from a police officer's perspective. How will you look? Also, are you capable of saying what needs to be said and then stopping, rather than blabbering on out of nervousness. A related notion is that you should be much more wary about talking to the police when the police initiate the conversation than you are when you are the one initiating the conversation. This is because ulterior motives on the part of police that could harm you or people you care about are much more likely when the police initiate the conversation than when you do. Yet another consideration is how much you understand about the situation you are in, how sophisticated you are in dealing with the police, and how glib you are compared to the average person. For example, there are people who a guilty of a crime and are in a situation that they understand well where they are at high risk of being implicated in a crime, where smooth talking can deflect police attention away from you and onto another person or a non-existent suspect. But, not many people are smooth enough and understand their circumstances well enough to pull that off. In general, the more that you fit "the profile" of someone the police are likely to suspect of a crime (e.g. if you are a young adult African American man in a "high crime neighborhood"), the more you should assume that responding to a police inquiry directed to you is a bad idea.
Miranda rights do not attach until the suspect is subject to custodial interrogation. "Custody" means that the suspect reasonably believes that he is not free to leave the conversation. "Interrogation" means that the officer is engaging in direct questioning or other conduct that would reasonably be expected to elicit a response. A suspect is free to waive his Miranda rights and begin speaking without a lawyer, but a waiver must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary. "Voluntary" means that the waiver is obtained without coercion (torture, threats or promises) by the government. None of the five scenarios indicate that Clyde ever believes he is in custody, so he has no Miranda rights in any of them, making his confession admissible in all of them. But to play it out further, let's assume that Officer Olivia arrives and immediately slaps handcuffs on Clyde: No interrogation, no Miranda rights. The confession is admissible. No interrogation, no Miranda rights. The confession is admissible. Miranda rights attached at the beginning of questioning. Clyde waived by confessing. Reading the Miranda rights established that the waiver was knowing. We don't have any facts suggesting the waiver was not intelligent. The waiver was not obtained by government coercion, so it was voluntary. The waiver was effective, so the confession is admissible. Same as 3. No interrogation, no Miranda rights. The confession is admissible. The key thing to keep in mind here is that the purpose of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was to avoid misconduct by the government, and it has generally been implemented only to that end. The key case here is Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986), which involved a guy who approached a police officer and asked to talk about a murder he had committed. The officer Mirandized him, and he told them all about the murder and where he buried the body. It turned out that he was a chronic schizophrenic and was going through a psychotic break at the time of the confession, which he had only offered because "God's voice" told him to. As with your truth serum scenario, the question became whether the Miranda waiver satisfied the voluntariness requirement. The Colorado Supreme Court held that "capacity for rational judgment and free choice may be overborne as much by certain forms of severe mental illness as by external pressure." But the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither the defendant's due-process rights nor his right against self-incrimination are offended by non-governmental influences, even when they undercut the defendant's free will. Since then, other courts have relied on Connelly to hold that voluntariness was not defeated by: a suspect's flu, hangover, hunger, or exhaustion, U.S. v. Elwood, 51 F.3d 283 (9th Cir. 1995); a suspect's heroin use, Elliott v. Williams, 248 F.3d 1205, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001); a suspect's heroin withdrawal, U.S. v. Kelley, 953 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir. 1992); a suspect's orders from his father, N. Mariana Islands v. Doe, 844 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1988); or a suspect's unusual susceptibility to suggestion or intimidation, U.S. v. Guerro, 983 F.2d 1001, 1004 (10th Cir. 1993). tl;dr: Because the truth serum was not administered by the government, the confession is admissible in all five scenarios.
First of all, Mr X's refusal is in no way the end of the interaction, nor of your charges. If your report of Mr X's actions gives the police probable cause, they can arrest Mr X, even if he refuses to identify, and even if they do not know his name. The only difference is that if they do not know his name, they cannot use his record, if any, in deciding whether to arrest him. If they do arrest him, they can and usually will search him. If he carries ID, they will then know his name. Even if he doesn't, he can be lawfully required to provide his legal name once he has been arrested. So End of it. End of my charges. is not at all correct. Now let us look at the actual NH laws involved. Wikipedia links to two provisions: Section 644:6 and Section 594:2. What do they actually say? Section 644:6 provides that: 644:6 Loitering or Prowling. – I. A person commits a violation if he knowingly appears at a place, or at a time, under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. Circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm is warranted include, but are not limited to, when the actor: (a) Takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement official or upon questioning by such an official. (b) Manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. (c) Has in his possession tools or other property which would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime was about to be perpetrated. (d) Examines entrances to a structure which the actor has no authority or legitimate purpose to enter. II. Prior to any arrest under this section, unless flight or other circumstances make it impossible, a law enforcement official shall afford the actor the opportunity to dispel any alarm which would otherwise be warranted, by requesting him to identify himself and give an account for his presence and conduct. Failure to identify or account for oneself, absent other circumstances, however, shall not be grounds for arrest. III. No person shall be convicted under this section if the law enforcement official did not comply with paragraph II or if it appears at trial that the explanation he gave of his conduct and purposes was true and, if believed by the law enforcement official at the time, would have dispelled the alarm. In such cases, any record of the arrest made under authority of paragraph I shall be expunged. IV. In this section, &quot;entrances&quot; means any part of a structure through which entry or egress could be made. Note first of all that Section 644:6 only applies when the person accused has appeared &quot;under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property&quot; more or less when the person has given a reasonable impression that s/he might be going to break in or commit some similar crime. &quot;Loitering with intent&quot; it is called in some jurisdictions. In those circumstances, a LEO must offer the accused a chance to explain his or her purpose to help dispel suspicion. That would include giving his or her name. The accused is under no obligation to give a name, or show ID. The only penalty for not doing so is that suspicion will not be dispelled, and if the officer thinks fit, the accused may be arrested. This section might well apply to the scenario in the question. Section 594:2 provides that: 594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person whom the officer has reason to suspect is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. An officer may request the person's name and address, but the officer shall not arrest the person based solely on the person's refusal to provide such information. This also applies only when an officer has &quot;reason to suspect&quot; the accused. The section permits the officer tho &quot;request&quot; (which the officer could probably do even if this section had not been passed). But it does not impose any duty on the accused to respond, nor impose any penalty for not responding. Again the only penalty is the failure to dispel any suspicion in the officer's mind. The officer may in any case act on any reasonable suspicion or probable cause that may appear. This section might also apply to the situation in the question. Neither section really gives an officer any power or authority the officer would not otherwise have. Both authorize the officer to request name and other identifying information. Neither makes it an offense to refuse to provide such information. Neither section describes what the officer may do as a &quot;DEMAND&quot;. Whether either actually constitutes a &quot;stop and identify&quot; statue might be debated, but the statute itself is what matters, not the label attached to it. In the situation described inn the question, an officer might well request Mr X to identify himself, and explain what he is doing and why. The officer can take Mr X's response, if any, into account in deciding whether to detain Mr X for investigation, arrest him, warn him, or take other action, or take none. That is true whatever response Mr X may make, or if he ignores any request. So these sections will not greatly change what might happen, one way or another, in such a situation.
My impression, and the plausible explanation in the absence of the actual facts, is that this was something that the attorney agreed to, in order to allow a skittish client to reveal information pursuant to a favorable plea agreement. The police probably insisted that the client be handcuffed to someone while doing this to prevent the client from fleeing. The attorney probably offered to do the job instead of a police officer, to be able to provide advice to his client and keep his client calm enough to do it, which might not have happened (sacrificing the favorable plea deal that the attorney negotiated) if someone else were in that role.
Basically, it is up to the court. The relevant law is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). You don't give much in the way of specifics, but it sounds like you confessed something to the police at the side of the road immediately after the accident, and now wish to dispute that confession. If you are taken to court and the police want to introduce your confession as evidence then you (through your lawyer) can ask the court to rule it out. You may be able to do so on a number of grounds. Was the confession properly recorded at the time? Were you treated in an oppressive manner, such that you felt you had to say what the police wanted to hear. Did you think you might get more favourable treatment if you said what the police wanted? For instance, did you think you might be allowed to go home once they were satisfied? Were you given a proper rest, or were you in a mental state that might cause you to say things without understanding the consequences (it sounds like this would be your main argument, but consider the others too). [Edit] If you needed medical treatment that would also be relevant. Were you properly cautioned (that speech beginning "You do not have to say anything...") before the police asked you questions. If you think you may be facing criminal charges then you should get yourself a lawyer sooner rather than later. A lawyer will know all about this and be able to navigate the relevant legal processes on your behalf. A bit of background: back in the 1970s the police frequently attributed incriminating statements to suspects when arrested, such as "Its a fair cop, guv", or "Who ratted on us?". The rules in PACE were made to stop such "verballing".
The legal hook is reported to be §129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which authorizes use of force to disperse an illegal assembly, which this sort of is. No statute that I can find states that police can smack lawbreakers who are forced to disperse, but as is common in common law countries, the laws of India are not fully explicit on that which is allowed or forbidden for police to do. As this article indicates, systematic limits on police use of force remain to be developed.
The general rule is that force may be legally used in defense of self. I will draw on RCW 9A.16.020, other jurisdictions say essentially the same thing. The relevant parts are: (3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary Curated internet videos don't tell the whole story, but for the sake of argument I will assume that Mr X chucked a bottle at Tyson, and Tyson proceeded to punish him with his fists. Both parties thus committed a crime. The new report indicates that there will be no prosecutions &quot;based on 'the circumstances surrounding the confrontation'&quot;, which I take to include all of the available evidence. Prosecution for a crime is discretionary. There is no requirement at a prosecutor file charges in every instance where (in the prosecutor's professional opinion) a conviction can be secured. The abstract law is clear: both parties committed a crime. The abstract law is also clear that a prosecutor has discretion to decide whether to prosecute.
The first thing it depends on is where you live. The US has no law requiring niceness, but perhaps niceness-enforcement exists somewhere in the world. The second thing it depends on is exactly what he does, where and how. If he comes into people's houses uninvited and starts harassing them, that is generally a crime. If he makes nasty remarks to people walking down the street, you can't even sue him. If the person commits in a crime, you can report him anonymously. However, for there to be any prosecution, someone will have to testify in court: anonymous criminal testimony is inadmissible in the US. If there is no crime, just a potential civil action, the part would hire an attorney to file a complaint, etc. and that party would be named (not anonymous), would have to testify, and would also have to have been harmed. The police will not get involved in a civil dispute. Based just on what you have said here, your attorney would very likely say that there is no case to be pursued, and your only solution is to ignore him.