Obviously, that’s the extreme point in a spectrum, towards the other end of which is sitting at a police station being interrogated by a police officer as a suspect for a crime. Somewhere along that line are several states, including { uninvolved, witness, suspect, “guilty” }.

The problem I see is that the boundaries are fuzzy, and while the police know where those boundaries are, they don’t have to tell you. Furthermore, the police are the ones who define the boundaries, and which state you’re in. If they decide you’re a suspect, you are by definition a suspect. If they decide you’re the most likely suspect, they can comb through all information they have to look for anything which can be parsed either as a lie or as a suggestion of non-innocence. It doesn’t even have to be guilt – just a removal of indications that you weren’t involved.

I will admit that I have, in the past, approached police officers and volunteered as a witness (traffic accident – I was not involved). It “felt” like the right thing to do, and I have to admit that I would do it again. (Looking back, I think I avoided answering, by learned reflex, the question of “how fast were you going”. It was material to the accident investigation, but it might have incriminated me in an uninvolved crime.)

Perhaps if we adopt a posture of rational skepticism – similar to treating every day as though your employer has commissioned a pen test – that attitude might work. Of course, it would also make your interactions with everyone around you less pleasant.

A risk assessment degrades into Pascal’s wager – cost of failure is too high. However, as social animals, the cost of avoiding failure (by trusting no one) is also high, just as some see the cost of Pascal’s wager as foregoing all pleasure.

In short, I think we need to be aware that police actively practice Social Engineering, and remember that their acting in the public interest does not mean they are acting in your interest. Requesting a lawyer will not necessarily make things harder on you – the whole point of the video is that NOT having a lawyer has a MUCH higher risk –
but it will make things harder on the police.

The hardest part about not talking to cops is that it’s a pretty natural instinct to think that shutting up somehow implies guilt (and plenty of policemen will try to use this natural inclination to convince you to talk). I think this professor’s points that a) talking will *never* help you and b) there is a much greater chance of talking harming you in court are really eye-opening and useful bits of advice.

It’s not implied, it’s stated more than once that almost anything you say to the police, even in the most innocent of situations, does have the potential to hurt you. The speaker states this explicitly more than once and says that the best you can hope for in most situations is to not accidentally say the wrong thing and cast suspicion upon yourself where none is deserved.

I agree that saying “I want to talk to my lawyer” in every situation is not going to be the appropriate response, but if there’s an investigation and you’re involved in any way, I’d say it’s a valid position to take. Professor Yaha points out two very specific instances where innocent men were sentenced to over a decade of jail time each because they spoke to the police without the benefit of legal council. That’s not a chance I’m willing to take; I’m willing to live with the police being annoyed because I asked to speak to a lawyer before making any statements. I might be willing to talk freely as the witness to a traffic accident, but for anything more serious, I’m going to wait until I have a lawyer present.

Martin

I realize they’re talking about American law, I think they even say that a lot, but not all, pertains pretty well to Canadian law as well. I was almost certain that there is not “Miranda rights” in Canada.

Being asked to come down to the station for questioning about a serious crime your brother who owes you a lot of money was involved in, is quite different from being questioned on the street by a police officer about a car accident you happened to witness, just by virtue of standing there.

Police officers are just trying to do their job, and demanding to have your lawyer present in ALL situations is just going to make them make things harder on you. Since, as you say, they can lie during questioning, giving the impression you have something to hide is going to make them want to work harder to try to find it.

Not every police interaction has to be made to be confrontational. Sometimes the police do have it out for you and you are a suspect, but many times you aren’t. These videos seem to be more targeted to people who are part of a specific investigation. If the police came to your door and asked if you had seen anything related to a rash of neighborhood break-ins, are you really going to say “I want to speak to my lawyer first” when if you haven’t seen anything you could just as easily say “No, I haven’t seen anything” and be done with it. Now, if you knew who was doing it because you were letting the thief know when your neighbors left for the day so they wouldn’t get caught, then yes, you probably should keep your mouth shut.

IANAL, but I believe your Miranda rights only come into effect if you are arrested or taken into custody. If the police are only questioning you without detaining you and you answer of your own free will, those rights are not applicable.