Should the police be allowed to lie?

[theprestige]

Obviously there is nuance. I think we can all agree that perjury and falsification of official documents are both unacceptable, as are things like lying to get a judge to sign a search warrant.

But what about other kinds of dishonesty and misrepresentation?

Undercover work. Should police be allowed to misrepresent themselves as members of a criminal subculture, in order to obtain evidence and effect arrests? I think they should. Obviously there probably need to be some ethical guard rails, though.

Fake attractions. There's a famous story of the US Marshals mailing some kind of sweepstakes award thing to a long list of wanted individuals, and then arresting everyone who showed up to collect. Should that kind of dishonesty be permitted to law enforcement? I think so.

Lying during interrogation. Should the the police be allowed to encourage a confession, by telling the suspect that they already know the truth, or that their accomplice has already confessed, or things like that, even when they aren't true? I think they should.

False promises to obtain cooperation. Should police be allowed to reassure suspects that they aren't in trouble, or that they aren't about to be arrested, if it will encourage the suspect to remain calm and cooperative long enough to arrest them with a minimum of fuss? I'm not sure about this one.

Drug-sniffing dogs. To me, this seems like the biggest scam. We've known forever that a trained animal will take cues from its handler's body language, and generate false positives pretty much on demand. Every time I see a traffic stop where they bring out a K9 to sniff for drugs so they can justify searching the vehicle? All I can think is, "it's a scam!" Drugs or no drugs, the cop can probably get their dog to "alert" whenever and wherever they want, just by shifting their feet. That said, at least sometimes they do need to find contraband more or less where the dog "alerted". So I dunno. Say you're a cop, you know the driver of the car almost certainly has felony amount of meth somewhere near the driver's seat. So you bring in the K9 unit, have them alert anywhere on the front left quarter of the car, and now you have probable cause to search for the drugs you already knew (but couldn't prove!) were there. So I guess maybe the proof is in the pudding?

---

This thread is intended for policy discussion, not examples of bad behavior. We already have threads for that stuff, so if you must drag your hobby horse into this one, please have the courtesy to get it over with fast, and actually engage with the policy discussion in good faith at some point. Thanks in advance!

 

[Thermal]

Broadly, a cop should be able to lie when working undercover. I mean, it's the whole point. As long as it doesn't swing to entrapment, which shouldn't be legal anywhere, ever. You shouldn't ethically be allowed to coax or persuade a possibly impressionable or otherwise submissive person into committing a crime, them prosecute them for it.

In matters of formal procedure (questioning, promises of leniency, "you're not in trouble", etc) absolutely not. No one would ever trust police again, and for good reason.

Dogs- they can, possibly without the handlers knowledge, give false positives. So you can't blame the cop for that. But you can question whether that cop had sufficient probable cause to detain a driver for any kind of dog sniffing, and if sufficient cause is not shown (beyond a hunch or "I didn't like his look"), then the cop is hit hard with financial penalties. Lengthy suspension without pay, or direct restitution to the person he wrongfully detained and harassed.

Eta: forgot Fake Attractions. I consider that the diciest one. It's right in the sweet spot between "We are apprehending a legit bad guy, not our fault that he's not sharp enough to not get caught", and not being able to trust police again. If they can do this kind of stuff, you can't trust them on any interaction, because they might be setting you up and were just stupid and got the wrong guy (I have personal experience on that end).

 

[theprestige]

In matters of formal procedure (questioning, promises of leniency, "you're not in trouble", etc) absolutely not. No one would ever trust police again, and for good reason.

Fair enough. What about insincere cooperation-encouraging platitudes? A lot of police interrogations seem to involve some go-to catchphrases that might work on the less savvy suspects. Things like:

• "I can tell you're a good person, and this was just some kind of horrible mistake; if you tell me what happened, I can help you get through this."
• "This is your chance to get your story out, in your own words."
• "I'm just trying to understand what happened."

Etc.

Dogs- they can, possibly without the handlers knowledge, give false positives. So you can't blame the cop for that. But you can question whether that cop had sufficient probable cause to detain a driver for any kind of dog sniffing, and if sufficient cause is not shown (beyond a hunch or "I didn't like his look"), then the cop is hit hard with financial penalties. Lengthy suspension without pay, or direct restitution to the person he wrongfully detained and harassed.

I think these days most cops are well-schooled in the practice of reciting "articulatable suspicion" boilerplate. As long as you can hook in some plausible narrative from a list of "known good" excuses, you can search to your heart's content. Plus, in these days of body cams and dash cams, where there's anywhere from two to seventeen camera angles, it's a lot harder to just make up excuses. You either have to perform a "by the book" show for the cameras, or you have to turn the cameras off, or you have to have your department lose the footage before discovery.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

no nuance.
Either people believe the police is working for them (as they are being paid by the taxpayer and should have a duty to protect (which they have not int he US),
OR the people should assume that the cops are a gang out to enrich themselves and protect the rich and powerful.

If a cop has to lie as part of his assignment, a Judge, not the cop, needs to clear that in advance. It is not be up to the law enforcement to decide what is or isn't legal.

Cops can decided if they want to be see as helpers or enemies.

US cops have long decided that they are an occupying force keeping the insurgents in check.

 

[theprestige]

no nuance.
Either people believe the police is working for them (as they are being paid by the taxpayer and should have a duty to protect (which they have not int he US),
OR the people should assume that the cops are a gang out to enrich themselves and protect the rich and powerful.

If a cop has to lie as part of his assignment, a Judge, not the cop, needs to clear that in advance. It is not be up to the law enforcement to decide what is or isn't legal.

Cops can decided if they want to be see as helpers or enemies.

US cops have long decided that they are an occupying force keeping the insurgents in check.

You didn't read past the first line of the post, did you?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I have.

The basic question is: can I trust the Police?
Can I trust the agency put in place to protect me, a person abiding by the law to my abilities, from others and themselves?

Fact is that every LAWYER, the people tasked with knowing most about the law and its application, tells you to NEVER TRUST THE POLICE!
Too many cops have lied under oath or fabricated evidence, too many innocent people have sent years or decades in jail.

That is a failure of public trust that necessarily make policing adversarial to society as a matter of fact.
If cops can't get rid of their bad apples themselves , the assumption has to be that the entire barrel is rotten.

TP, do you talk to the police without a lawyer?

 

[Thermal]

Fair enough. What about insincere cooperation-encouraging platitudes? A lot of police interrogations seem to involve some go-to catchphrases that might work on the less savvy suspects. Things like:

• "I can tell you're a good person, and this was just some kind of horrible mistake; if you tell me what happened, I can help you get through this."
• "This is your chance to get your story out, in your own words."
• "I'm just trying to understand what happened."

Etc.

Agreed, that's extremely ambiguous territory. Where is the line between acting like the good cop to set up an admission of guilt, and really being a nice cop who is trying to resolve a problem? You cant really draw a clear line.

My gut feel with police is to not trust them. They want a bad guy to nab, which is noble enough, but my experience is that they are not overly concerned with it being the right bad guy. Any warm (or rapidly cooling) body will do. They are kind of always fishing- if this isn't the bad guy they wanted, he is going to be the bad guy they got.

I think these days most cops are well-schooled in the practice of reciting "articulatable suspicion" boilerplate. As long as you can hook in some plausible narrative from a list of "known good" excuses, you can search to your heart's content.

And that's a problem in its own right. The boilerplate justifications largely shouldn't be accepted as probable cause. Again, I've been on the receiving end of trusting police, and finding out they were just ass holes who wanted a bust for whatever could be conjured up, even retroactively.

Plus, in these days of body cams and dash cams, where there's anywhere from two to seventeen camera angles, it's a lot harder to just make up excuses. You either have to perform a "by the book" show for the cameras, or you have to turn the cameras off, or you have to have your department lose the footage before discovery.

Slightly to the side of your OP, but cameras off/ 'video lost' should be a punishable offense against the police, equivalent to evidence tampering. They need to take that as seriously as where their guns are, which they have little problem keeping track of.

 

[Myriad]

I think cops should be allowed to lie in wait for an expected (e.g. tipped-off) crime to occur. They should not be allowed to lay in wait because that's grammatically incorrect.

 

[lobosrul5]

Fair enough. What about insincere cooperation-encouraging platitudes? A lot of police interrogations seem to involve some go-to catchphrases that might work on the less savvy suspects. Things like:

• "I can tell you're a good person, and this was just some kind of horrible mistake; if you tell me what happened, I can help you get through this."
• "This is your chance to get your story out, in your own words."
• "I'm just trying to understand what happened."

Etc.

If the suspect wasn't "Mirandized" then any incriminating statements they made could be held inadmissible in court. Of course the suspect would need to know that, and hire a lawyer, rather than taking a plea. No I don't think thats OK. If they have literally been told what they say can be incriminating and THEN the cop plays "good cop"... I suppose thats OK.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

is it the job of the cops to get an admission of guilt?
isn't that for a Court to decide?
This antiquated Sherlock Holmes ◊◊◊◊ is not what modern policing should be about. Cops using tricks and lies and always coercion to get a confession is actually a confession that they are extremely bad at their actual job, getting evidence.

 

[Joe Random]

Personally I think there are varying degrees of nuance to the others, but "Lying during interrogation" is an absolute 'no way, no how, period end' for me and always has been. Especially when it comes to outright lying to suspect A about what evidence the police already have against him, or what his partner suspect B has already told them.

 

[Thermal]

If the suspect wasn't "Mirandized" then any incriminating statements they made could be held inadmissible in court. Of course the suspect would need to know that, and hire a lawyer, rather than taking a plea. No I don't think thats OK. If they have literally been told what they say can be incriminating and THEN the cop plays "good cop"... I suppose thats OK.

What we need to add to the Miranda reading is "you hear this mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊ reading these rights? He wants your ass in a cage and will say anything to accomplish that. You have been warned"

 

[lobosrul5]

Personally I think there are varying degrees of nuance to the others, but "Lying during interrogation" is an absolute 'no way, no how, period end' for me and always has been. Especially when it comes to outright lying to suspect A about what evidence the police already have against him, or what his partner suspect B has already told them.

Yeah, it usually comes with a carrot dangled of confess now and you'll get leniency. Its not too hard to see how that incentivizes someone to make a false confession under duress.

 

[lobosrul5]

What we need to add to the Miranda reading is "you hear this mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊ reading these rights? He wants your ass in a cage and will say anything to accomplish that. You have been warned"

Maybe so. Of course the whole purpose of reading Miranda rights is NOT to protect the person being interrogated. Its to make sure what he confessed to can be used in court. Its almost comically misunderstood by the pulblic.

 

[Joe Random]

Yeah, it usually comes with a carrot dangled of confess now and you'll get leniency. Its not too hard to see how that incentivizes someone to make a false confession under duress.

The part about saying 'confess now and you'll get leniency' is one of those nuanced areas for me. It's my (thankfully outsider's) understanding that in general saying "I did it" up front before trial can usually result in a lighter punishment so in some cases I can see that statement alone by police as being maybe usually acceptable (since it's often true). But outright lying about actual evidence or previously-given testimony crosses a hard line for me.

 

[lobosrul5]

Fake attractions. There's a famous story of the US Marshals mailing some kind of sweepstakes award thing to a long list of wanted individuals, and then arresting everyone who showed up to collect. Should that kind of dishonesty be permitted to law enforcement? I think so.

Yeah that ones OK I think. First off, the Marshals are only called in for escaped prisoners, or someone who breaks bail terms (I think). Secondly, they obviously have an address for the suspect. That method seems safer all around than knocking down the door for sure.

 

[Thermal]

Maybe so. Of course the whole purpose of reading Miranda rights is NOT to protect the person being interrogated. Its to make sure what he confessed to can be used in court. Its almost comically misunderstood by the pulblic.

Right. As a side note, I really, really hate it that police cannot be trusted, and they have done so much to warrant that mistrust. There are absolutely good cops out there, in the majority I would hope. But there are indisputably enough bad ones around to warrant defensiveness around them, instead of assuming we are on the same team.

 

[lobosrul5]

The part about saying 'confess now and you'll get leniency' is one of those nuanced areas for me. It's my (thankfully outsider's) understanding that in general saying "I did it" up front before trial can usually result in a lighter punishment so in some cases I can see that statement alone by police as being maybe usually acceptable (since it's often true). But outright lying about actual evidence or previously-given testimony crosses a hard line for me.

Yeah, its the combo of the two things that make it bad IMO. The suspect has incentive to confess, AND the confession was given due to fraudulent claims of evidence. I could absolutely see an innocent person confessing because of it.

 

[theprestige]

I have.

The basic question is: can I trust the Police?
Can I trust the agency put in place to protect me, a person abiding by the law to my abilities, from others and themselves?

Fact is that every LAWYER, the people tasked with knowing most about the law and its application, tells you to NEVER TRUST THE POLICE!
Too many cops have lied under oath or fabricated evidence, too many innocent people have sent years or decades in jail.

That is a failure of public trust that necessarily make policing adversarial to society as a matter of fact.
If cops can't get rid of their bad apples themselves , the assumption has to be that the entire barrel is rotten.

TP, do you talk to the police without a lawyer?

You say you read the OP, but you've ignored pretty much every scenario and context it discusses.

 

[theprestige]

is it the job of the cops to get an admission of guilt?

If they can, yes. Testimony from the perpetrator is powerful evidence, especially if it's a confession. The job of the cops in this context is to gather as much evidence as they can, to support the prosecutor's case.

isn't that for a Court to decide?

It's for the Court to decide whether the presented evidence - including any freely-made confessions - meet the standard of evidence necessary to render a guilty verdict.

That's how it is in the US system, anyway. The US system is "adversarial". The prosecution and the defense each argue for their own narrative and against the other party's narrative. The police investigate the allegations on behalf of the prosecutor (and the state, and the people). The judge acts as an impartial arbiter in matters of law and procedure, and as the "master of ceremonies" guiding the process. The jury (or judge, in some cases) acts as an impartial arbiter on the question of guilt itself.

I understand that some European systems are "inquisitorial", where the court takes a more direct and partial role in investigating the case itself. So maybe in that context, where the court is acting as investigator, it would be the job of the court to seek an admission of guilt from the accused.

This antiquated Sherlock Holmes ◊◊◊◊ is not what modern policing should be about. Cops using tricks and lies and always coercion to get a confession is actually a confession that they are extremely bad at their actual job, getting evidence.

lol ok.