How to go about pressing 5th Amendment violation?

[davew128]

For every rule, there are exceptions. In this case (which I'm not convinced is real), the OP would likely be on the street no longer a suspect far sooner than it would take a lawyer to get there. There are cases where quite literally, the truth shall set you free. This is one.

Except the OP was arrested on suspicion of an armed robbery, murder, and attempted murder. EVEN IF you knew you had nothing to do with any of it, you don't know what the police have been told or believe, and you would be a fool to not speak with an attorney BEFORE answering any questions. This isn't a case of "you did punch out Joe Blow at the bar 3 hours ago?"

 

[Zigner]

Except the OP was arrested on suspicion of an armed robbery, murder, and attempted murder. EVEN IF you knew you had nothing to do with any of it, you don't know what the police have been told or believe, and you would be a fool to not speak with an attorney BEFORE answering any questions. This isn't a case of "you did punch out Joe Blow at the bar 3 hours ago?"

Cops: You have been arrested on suspicion of armed robbery, murder, and attempted murder. Where were you last night?
Suspect: I was in Vegas and have hundreds of people who can verify that.
Cops: We don't believe you.
Suspect: Then I'd like to speak to an attorney.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Except the OP was arrested on suspicion of an armed robbery, murder, and attempted murder.

Actually, his story has more holes than Gary Busey's brain and is clearly trolling.

That said, there is no downside to informing the cops that you were not around when the crime occurs.

None.

 

[commentator]

I suspect the OP is trying to claim that because the cops came to his place of employment and made no secret of the fact that they were arresting him and what for,(the "perp walk') that he possibly could get some damages for losing his job. Not so. This is a case where he will likely be eligible to draw unemployment insurance as long as he's out and actively seeking another job, because whether or not he is guilty of the crimes he was arrested for or not, this was not a job related misconduct termination. Therefore, unemployment insurance is a possibility.

But it was not an unlawful firing. The employers may have seen an opportunity to get rid of someone they just wanted to get rid of, and used this incident as an excuse. No damages to be collected from the police, no way to sue the employer and collect anything except unemployment.

 

[Zigner]

Actually, his story has more holes than Gary Busey's brain and is clearly trolling.

That said, there is no downside to informing the cops that you were not around when the crime occurs.

None.

To expand the scenario and have some fun with "what-if" (since we're all beating different ends of the same horse

What if the OP were on probation for fraud relating to a gambling business (with associated prohibitions from being around any gambling)? Would his statement then be a wise thing? Of course, nothing like that has been introduced in this thread, but I *DO* understand where people come from when they say to never talk to police. I don't agree with it, but I see their angle.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

To expand the scenario and have some fun with "what-if" (since we're all beating different ends of the same horse

What if the OP were on probation for fraud relating to a gambling business (with associated prohibitions from being around any gambling)? Would his statement then be a wise thing? Of course, nothing like that has been introduced in this thread, but I *DO* understand where people come from when they say to never talk to police. I don't agree with it, but I see their angle.

I would say that if the alibi was what was going to get him out of this, the "where" is going to come out at some point. Might a lawyer be able to reduce any damage this would cause? Perhaps, perhaps not.

 

[davew128]

That said, there is no downside to informing the cops that you were not around when the crime occurs.

None.

Again, you don't know the cops have been told or believe. What if you truly are innocent and knew nothing about what happened but happened to be in the general vicinity of the crime and someone mistakenly or deliberately puts you at the scene? Telling them where you were isn't going to exonerate you, and the police could be lying to you about where the crime occurred ANYWAY. Yes in THIS instance the OP claims he wasn't even in the same state. In general, I still believe in maintaining silence.

 

[TigerD]

That said, there is no downside to informing the cops that you were not around when the crime occurs.

None.

I disagree. Here is a video that might explain it a bit better for you.

http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

TD

 

[Thatsnotfunny]

Actually, his story has more holes than Gary Busey's brain and is clearly trolling.

That said, there is no downside to informing the cops that you were not around when the crime occurs.

None.

And if I put in enough details to not have any "holes," I would be lambasted as a "retard," or some other epithet, for revealing so much detail. Behold online culture.

On another note, I had the benefit of living around the corner from a county DA when I was still living at home. We would talk law and he gave me legal research tips. Man, he had some major f'ed up stories on how the criminal courts roll. The civil courts may be a separate branch of government, but the criminal courts are most definitely a part of the executive.

He saw prosecutors withholding Brady material all the time, preventing defendants from mounting valid defenses.

In one case a cop was unable to articulate facts at a prelim to show he had reasonable suspicion to do a Terry stop. The stop lead to an arrest for possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. The judge then questions the cop like "There were reported break-ins in that area, right?" "Uh, yeah." "And the accused partially matched the description witnesses reported, right?" "Oh, yeah." "Well, I'm satisfied there is probable cause to hold the accused over for trial." The appellate court saw this and went "Meh. Harmless error." Eight years later it was found the arresting officer planted evidence on the accused. The cops hid the dash cam tape showing it (Brady material).

Another time a noob prosecutor failed to have a single witness identify the accused, an essential element of any crime. At the close of the defense case, counsel moved for dismissal because the People failed to identify the accused, thus failing to meet their burden as a matter of law. The judge denied the motion, allowed the People to re-open their case-in-chief, bring the witnesses back in, and identify the accused. Guilty. Again, on appeal the court went "Meh. Harmless error."

I still love cops. I respect them for dealing with the worst of society on a daily basis. I was never in trouble with the law before this. I do full three second stops at stop signs. I don't exceed the speed limit. I salute the flag, eat my vegetables, say my prayers, and will continue to do so. But, I'm not willing to risk life imprisonment, or being on death row until I die of old age, for anything.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

I disagree. Here is a video that might explain it a bit better for you.

http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

TD

If you condescendingly want to post a video, you may want it to be of someone with more experience in the field.

 

[TigerD]

If you condescendingly want to post a video, you may want it to be of someone with more experience in the field.

Buddy, if you want more experience than an experienced criminal-defense-attorney-turned-law-professor and police detective with 28 years of experience, you are never going to be happy.

As for condescendingly - that wasn't. This is.

TD

 

[Heir7]

I know. This scares me, too. And I feel the same way about cops. I was once accused of something by a neighbor, and when the police showed up at my door and wanted inside to search my house, I demanded to see a search warrant before I would unlock the security screen door. They said they didin't have one, and then started asking me questions, and I said "I take the Fifth. And I have been recording all of this with a video camera." Suddenly the cop lost interest in the matter but said he would be back.

I immediately wrote a letter to the local precinct and told them I wanted to file a complaint against that cop. I had seen his name and badge number. Nothing more came from it, but it let them know I didn't like how I had been treated. I also followed up with letters to the Mayor and to my local city council member, complaining about how I was treated by that cop and how the local precinct refused to do anything about it. If everyone complained to their local officials about how the cops treat them, maybe something would be done about it.

Maybe it is why there are so many protests and marches in the streets about how the cops are treating us?

 

[You Are Guilty]

You filed a complaint for a police officer doing his job properly, then wonder why "nothing was done" in response to your complaint? What were you expecting to happen?

 

[CdwJava]

I'm curious how asking to search your house for someone or something - and then NOT doing so when you denied to give your consent - was, in any way, inappropriate?

Remember, the police can ask most anything. It's what they do when they are denied that is the legal issue.

 

[Mt_Vernon]

It might be fun for the OP to tell the cops that he was home alone at the time of the crime. If the cops think he has no alibi, they may try to frame the OP for the crime (for example, with a witness who lies and says he saw the OP committing the crime).

Then, in court, the OP can surprise the police and prosecutors with video evidence of the OP's trip to Las Vegas. The police and the prosecutors will be discredited.