Meeting with detectice tomorrow about a break in???

[xplorer7234]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Virginia


I got a call today from a detective, that was wanting to meet with me about a break in and he couldn't go into further details other than that. I agreed to meet him tomorrow. I don't know of any break in recently that would cause this, the only thing that has me worried is my mothers house was broken into around November last year, and my mother and I have a very rocky relationship and her husband have a history of trying to screw me over in way or the other. Does this make since to get a call about a break in 7+ months ago? I plan on gauging how it goes when I get there, if it becomes questions that involve me having any kind of activity with that break in, I'll tell the officer I don't wish to continue this and leave. Any advice on how I should go about this. I had no involvement with it at all, and I'm pretty sure I was out fishing the day it happened, just not 100% being that it was 7+ months ago.

Thank you for any advice.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I think you are foolish to have agreed to go. I suggest you call, leave a message and cancel. Watch the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

 

[FlyingRon]

Yes, call them back and tell them you can't speak with them without your lawyer being present. Then go get one.

 

[xplorer7234]

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not in any possession to afford a lawyer and I don't believe the state has to provide a lawyer unless I'm under arrest, which I'm not.

 

[CdwJava]

On the other hand, it could be a break-in involving a friend, neighbor or family member where he might be a witness. It'd be a shame if someone got away with something because he was paranoid.

HE knows if he was involved in a crime or not. If he was, he should definitely cancel and speak with an attorney. If not, perhaps he should call back and ask what the matter involves or attend the meeting and the minute it gets into any sort of accusatory grounds, back off.

The police DO interview witnesses, or people who are potential alibi witnesses. Suspects are a small percentage of those the police interview.

 

[xplorer7234]

On the other hand, it could be a break-in involving a friend, neighbor or family member where he might be a witness. It'd be a shame if someone got away with something because he was paranoid.

HE knows if he was involved in a crime or not. If he was, he should definitely cancel and speak with an attorney. If not, perhaps he should call back and ask what the matter involves or attend the meeting and the minute it gets into any sort of accusatory grounds, back off.

The police DO interview witnesses, or people who are potential alibi witnesses. Suspects are a small percentage of those the police interview.

I do have a Landscape Business, which lead me to my first though of there being a break in around the same time I was at a yard. But all my clients know me by a nickname, the Detective referred to me by my legal name. Which lead me to the break in at my mothers. I have a good relationship with the rest of my family and friends that I see. He called around 330pm and I actually offered to meet with him right then but he claimed he got off at 4pm and he would rather tomorrow. He even offered to meet either at his office, my residence, or somewhere public (i.e. Starbucks)

 

[CdwJava]

I do have a Landscape Business, which lead me to my first though of there being a break in around the same time I was at a yard. But all my clients know me by a nickname, the Detective referred to me by my legal name. Which lead me to the break in at my mothers. I have a good relationship with the rest of my family and friends that I see. He called around 330pm and I actually offered to meet with him right then but he claimed he got off at 4pm and he would rather tomorrow. He even offered to meet either at his office, my residence, or somewhere public (i.e. Starbucks)

If you have a landscaping business, you have a name, a business, an address, a phone number, and/or a business license that can all lead them to you. If you are an all cash business, pay no taxes, and have no permits, insurance, or whatever else might be needed, then you may want to avoid the interview for that reason!

If he intends to meet with you at the place of your choosing, then it sounds as if it is low key. yeah, it might involve a client. But, it might be as simple as to complete the report. Often times we have to speak with any and all possible victims and suspects before we can clear a case. It might be to put you at ease and also to render Miranda entirely unnecessary, but it might just be that he wants to get it done and over with. And he needs to meet in person because he doesn't know your voice over the phone, so he needs to meet face to face.

Your call on this one.

 

[TigerD]

There is absolutely no benefit in speaking with the police.

Just say no thanks.

DC

 

[tranquility]

On the other hand, it could be a break-in involving a friend, neighbor or family member where he might be a witness. It'd be a shame if someone got away with something because he was paranoid.

HE knows if he was involved in a crime or not. If he was, he should definitely cancel and speak with an attorney. If not, perhaps he should call back and ask what the matter involves or attend the meeting and the minute it gets into any sort of accusatory grounds, back off.

The police DO interview witnesses, or people who are potential alibi witnesses. Suspects are a small percentage of those the police interview.

The police can do an "interview" of a witness on the phone. Clearly, the OP is going to be interviewed as a suspect. There is no need to see a person face to face up front on a break in witness. The detective could have qualified the knowledge with a couple of quick questions giving the OP a clue about what is going on to see if there was a need to meet and get more detail. The fact he didn't want to go into further details shows that he is going to question the OP, not interview. (Knowing the use of the words in denotation is the same while in connotation...)

The OP should advise the detective that he will be unable to attend.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not in any possession to afford a lawyer and I don't believe the state has to provide a lawyer unless I'm under arrest, which I'm not.

That is correct. The state does not have to provide a lawyer. Another true statement is that you do not have to talk to the police.

I know a woman who has been sitting in jail for over a year because the police claim she changed her story, and in doing so, interfered with a police investigation. She felt she was clarifying the previous statement, not contradicting it.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Said officer should be willing to spill the beans regarding the topic of the conversation beforehand. As he has not, I stand by my assertion. If he were to volunteer it was something as CdwJava suggested, I would consider it to be my civic duty to take time to discuss the matter.

On the other hand, it could be a break-in involving a friend, neighbor or family member where he might be a witness. It'd be a shame if someone got away with something because he was paranoid.

HE knows if he was involved in a crime or not. If he was, he should definitely cancel and speak with an attorney. If not, perhaps he should call back and ask what the matter involves or attend the meeting and the minute it gets into any sort of accusatory grounds, back off.

The police DO interview witnesses, or people who are potential alibi witnesses. Suspects are a small percentage of those the police interview.

 

[CdwJava]

The police can do an "interview" of a witness on the phone.

That is rarely a good idea unless the investigator KNOWS the witness. I won't unless there is no other option. I have no idea who I am talking with on the phone unless I have spoken with them before.

Clearly, the OP is going to be interviewed as a suspect.

It's possible, maybe even probable, but by no means a guarantee. If the offense being investigated were a minor offense, sure. If a felony, or, if the detective wanted to gauge reaction and truthfulness. Perhaps the OP is being given up as an alibi witness. Or, perhaps he is believed to be a friend or relative of the suspect. I&I training teaches you to gauge physical reactions along with the voice, not solely phone voice inflections. If the investigator is serious about the interview and the offense is not trivial, and he is competent, he will seek a face to face even with a witness.

There is no need to see a person face to face up front on a break in witness.

Yes, there are reasons why a face to face is encouraged and, for many agencies, required unless the witness is completely unavailable (such as out of state).

 

[tranquility]

That is rarely a good idea unless the investigator KNOWS the witness. I won't unless there is no other option. I have no idea who I am talking with on the phone unless I have spoken with them before.


It's possible, maybe even probable, but by no means a guarantee. If the offense being investigated were a minor offense, sure. If a felony, or, if the detective wanted to gauge reaction and truthfulness. Perhaps the OP is being given up as an alibi witness. Or, perhaps he is believed to be a friend or relative of the suspect. I&I training teaches you to gauge physical reactions along with the voice, not solely phone voice inflections. If the investigator is serious about the interview and the offense is not trivial, and he is competent, he will seek a face to face even with a witness.


Yes, there are reasons why a face to face is encouraged and, for many agencies, required unless the witness is completely unavailable (such as out of state).

Who cares if the detective knows the witness? The cop called and asked for xplorer7234 and some guy (we don't know who) said "speaking".

Cop asks "Did you see any farkeling on Saturday?"

xplorer7234 (allegedly), "no".

"OK, thanks for your time."

Now, if the cop had evidence or other witness testimony xplorer7234 did see farkeling he might now bring that up and see if they could get together and clarify the issue. Only if he's just calling every landscaper who works in town in the hope he might find one who, because he works outside, might have happened to see some farkeling, then he might want to see the guy and ask for ID to make sure he actually eliminated a person as a potential witness and not just talked to 'ol Joking Tony. As well, if the person on the line said he saw something, then the officer may want to know who he is talking to as the testimony might guide the investigation. Even if they had a suspect and they didn't want to give the OP more information in case he might tip the suspect off, there really is no difference between the phone and/or in person in the time after the "interview" the OP could warn.

The only real reason(s) why the cop would need to "know" the witness at this time is because they want to use his words against him or against someone else. If against him, he shouldn't talk to the police. If against someone else, there is no need to be so secretive up front. Sure, they don't want to guide the witness. But, they are going to have to frame things so the witness knows what information might be useful. If the purported witness is supposed to know everything about the crime that is one thing, if some bit that might be helpful, that is something else. If the former, the OP sure is not copping to that here and could only be twisted if the cop gets a statement about knowing nothing. (See Stevef's post.) If to be an alibi, if the criminal has not already contacted the OP to set the story straight, it is going to happen before any meeting with the detective. It would be rare that giving the fact the OP is someone's alibi is not going to really harsh the interview. If the police need to see a person to gauge if he is lying or not, they are not just looking for an upright citizen to provide a lead.

 

[CdwJava]

Who cares if the detective knows the witness?

Yes, it can and has been an issue. In a recent case this very issue of identification was an issue because the witness (an alibi witness) denied speaking to any officer and the officer was unable to identify the witness only that they spoke to a person who claimed he was a person with a particular name at the other end of a cell phone line. The alibi witness denied to the officer that they saw the defendant on a particular day and then at trial they stated they did see them ... the officer's inability to identify the witness had a potentially detrimental effect on the case.

There are a number of reasons why investigators prefer to speak with witnesses face to face, identification is but one reason, attempting to evaluate the truthfulness of their statements is another. Even witnesses might have a motivation to lie or try and stretch the truth, or leave things out, or be evasive ... there's any number of possibilities.

Face to face interviews are one of the basic facets of interview and interrogation techniques and the processes used in investigations.

As I said, it is possible, maybe even likely that the OP might be a possible suspect. But, it is by no means the guarantee that you seem to think it is. The OP is in the best position to know if he might be a suspect in something and can evaluate the situation accordingly.

 

[dave33]

There is absolutely no benefit in speaking with the police.

Just say no thanks.

DC

That is all that needs to be said.