hindering investigation, remaining silent

What is the name of your state? Arizona

Is refusing to answer an officers questions and to choose to
remain silent, would this be considered hindering an investigation?
Only after refusing to answer questions my friend was placed under
arrest for hindering an investigation. My friend requested several
times to be read his Miranda rights after been arrest. The officers
refused. After about 30 minutes he was released from custody outside
the jail, and he was never booked or anything. My friend is waiting to talk to a lawyer, but the person
answering phones told him it's not a crime to refuse to answer questions.

13-2510. Hindering prosecution; definition

For purposes of sections 13-2511 and 13-2512 a person renders assistance to another person by knowingly:

1. Harboring or concealing the other person; or

2. Warning the other person of impending discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction. This does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with the law; or

3. Providing the other person with money, transportation, a weapon, a disguise or other similar means of avoiding discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction; or

4. Preventing or obstructing by means of force, deception or intimidation anyone from performing an act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of the other person; or

5. Suppressing by an act of concealment, alteration or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of the other person; or

6. Concealing the identity of the other person.

Q: Is refusing to answer an officers questions and to choose to remain silent, would this be considered hindering an investigation?

A: Yes. For reasons, see the statute below:

13-2510. Hindering prosecution; definition

For purposes of sections 13-2511 and 13-2512 a person renders assistance to another person by knowingly:

1. Harboring or concealing the other person; or

2. Warning the other person of impending discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction. This does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with the law; or

3. Providing the other person with money, transportation, a weapon, a disguise or other similar means of avoiding discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction; or

4. Preventing or obstructing by means of force, deception or intimidation anyone from performing an act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of the other person; or

5. Suppressing by an act of concealment, alteration or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of the other person; or

6. Concealing the identity of the other person.


I bolded the parts I thought you violated (according to your facts you put in your post).

From what I was told, my friend didn't violate any of the items listed below. Also, if he was guilty of hindering an investigation I'm still wondering why he was not booked much less given any form of citation. Plus, refusing to remain silent is not listed under hindering an investigation.

Warning the other person of impending discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction. This does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with the law; or

3. Providing the other person with money, transportation, a weapon, a disguise or other similar means of avoiding discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction; or

4. Preventing or obstructing by means of force, deception or intimidation anyone from performing an act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of the other person; or

5. Suppressing by an act of concealment, alteration or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of the other person; or

6. Concealing the identity of the other person.

Questions

seniorjudge said:

4. Preventing or obstructing by means of force, deception or intimidation anyone from performing an act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of the other person; or

Click to expand...

What 'force' 'deception' or 'intimidation' was employed and upon whom was it employed? I suppose that willpower in keeping ones mouth closed is type of force... but generally speaking employing any of those upon the police results in very serious charges in themselves.

5. Suppressing by an act of concealment, alteration or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of the other person; or

Click to expand...

I'm a materialist, so the brain is physical, but I doubt that is what the law intends. Is it.

6. Concealing the identity of the other person.

Click to expand...

Ding. Sounds right... but my question would be "Is naming your accomplice a form of self incrimination?"

xylene said:

What 'force' 'deception' or 'intimidation' was employed and upon whom was it employed? I suppose that willpower in keeping ones mouth closed is type of force... but generally speaking employing any of those upon the police results in very serious charges in themselves.



I'm a materialist, so the brain is physical, but I doubt that is what the law intends. Is it.



Ding. Sounds right... but my question would be "Is naming your accomplice a form of self incrimination?"

Click to expand...

Mike didn't say he was an accomplice; he said he was threatened with arrest for not talking to the cops.

seniorjudge said:

Mike didn't say he was an accomplice; he said he was threatened with arrest for not talking to the cops.

Click to expand...

True, mike wrote a confusing semi-3rd person 'my friend' story.

seniorjudge said:

Mike didn't say he was an accomplice; he said he was threatened with arrest for not talking to the cops.

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah...I meant to say my friend.

Sorry.

Sorry SJ freedom of speech has been held to include freedom *not* to speak. Except under certain circumstances, not applicable here (booking, identification if reasonable suspicion where there is a statute requiring it) a person does not have to answer an officer's questions even if the person is not implicated or protected by the fifth amendment. Testifying in court is different as the crime is contempt of court by violating the subpoena or order of the judge.

This is quite clear and, absent additional facts, there seems to have been a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 without a good defense of qualified immunity as the law should be understood by a reasonable officer. For a description of the active (and not passive silence) nature of the offense, see: State v. Wilson, 730 P.2d 836, 152 Ariz. 127 (Ariz. 12/31/1986)

mike309d said:

After about 30 minutes he was released from custody outside
the jail, and he was never booked or anything.

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like he was detained for questioning, refused to answer, and was released.

As far as I know, that would be legal... Anyone else?

Sounds to me like he was detained for questioning, refused to answer, and was released.

Click to expand...

I believe that if a person was transported to the jail or held for 30 minutes without consent (We don't have the facts if handcuffed or whatnot.) that would constitute an arrest. However, say the facts would indicate it was merely a detention. This would require a reasonable suspicion against the person and there would be a limitation to do a reasonable investigation. If questioning is the only investigation to be done and the person declines to talk, what is left? Any detention beyond that point is unreasonable and wouldn't change anything.

mike309d said:

Is refusing to answer an officers questions and to choose to
remain silent, would this be considered hindering an investigation?

Click to expand...

Depends on what the questions are and what circumstances they are asked in.

My friend requested several
times to be read his Miranda rights after been arrest. The officers
refused.

Click to expand...

Miranda warnings are only needed to be given when questioning someone in custody. They probably figured since your buddy wasn't talking they weren't going to further attempt to interrogate him.

Flying Ron wrote:

Originally Posted by mike309d
Is refusing to answer an officers questions and to choose to
remain silent, would this be considered hindering an investigation?

Depends on what the questions are and what circumstances they are asked in.

Click to expand...

Besides the ones mentioned by me previously,

booking, identification if reasonable suspicion where there is a statute requiring it

Click to expand...

What questions could a police officer ask that must be answered or risk criminal sanction? What circumstances?

My friend talked to a lawyer finally. My friend told the lawyer everything
regarding this situation. The lawyer told my friend it's not against the
law to refuse to answer questions to a police. The lawyer also told
my friend once your in handcuffs and are placed in a police car you are
under arrest, and lets also include driven to the jail. The lawyer also
stated this a civil suit matter. My friend will be contacted by lawyers
regarding civil suit. I will keep you guys informed. Thank you

seniorjudge said:

Q: Is refusing to answer an officers questions and to choose to remain silent, would this be considered hindering an investigation?

A: Yes. For reasons, see the statute below:

Click to expand...

I'm sorry--I actually have to disagree with you for once, senior. Choosing to remain silent and refusing to answer questions is absolutely, positively not "hindering an investigation" or "obstructing legal process" or any other crime. (Caveat: recent caselaw holds that you can be compelled to provide your ID to an officer if asked; refusal to produce identification can be a crime.)

I am not aware of a single case, anywhere in any jurisdiction, that holds that a person must make the affirmative action of answering a police officer's questions, or be guilty of a crime. I challenge everyone to show me otherwise.

Tranquility: the only question a police officer can ask that must be "answered" or risk sanction is "Can I see your ID", and then you don't have to answer verbally; you only must produce it, or if it's not on you, you must give identifying info. If you're not driving, you don't need to carry your ID.

I've had clients (3, in seperate incidents) who refused to answer questions and were told "you're either a witness or a suspect, and if you don't talk you're going to jail for the weekend". They went to jail for the weekend. But then two were never charged with crimes, and the one who was charged later had the case dismissed for lack of probable cause. Always, always, always better to remain silent.

Bretagne wrote:

Tranquility: the only question a police officer can ask that must be "answered" or risk sanction is "Can I see your ID", and then you don't have to answer verbally; you only must produce it, or if it's not on you, you must give identifying info. If you're not driving, you don't need to carry your ID.

Click to expand...

I stand by my answer:

booking, identification if reasonable suspicion where there is a statute requiring it

Click to expand...

as in my state (CA) failure to respond to booking questions once at the jail has been held to be obstruction. (Actually CPC 148(a)(1) which is more inclusive of what we usually consider obstruction.)