Legally...Keep your mouth shut

[Peckerwood]

A Law Professor and a Policeman Tell You Why You Should Never Speak to a Policeman Without Your Lawyer Present.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/3821.cfm

Both of the videos are well spoken...and truthful.(total of 48 minutes)

Nikita may enjoy these viddies

:)

[Lava]

Very interesting. But i think the lawyer is a bit overboard, he tries to make the officer out to be someone who will convict you even if you just mess up one word, even if you are innocent. But i do agree, they could convict you on that, but if you have a solid alibi you are fine.

Very nice to know though...

[input]

Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you have a lawyer present with you during interrogation/questioning and the police were to question you without the lawyer, the case at hand would be dismissed. The police cannot use whatever information you have said to them when there is no lawyer present, thus dismissing the trial in court due to false police conduct. You could theoretically tell the "truth" to the police and practically deny saying anything in your statement to be true without a lawyer present. If there is no lawyer to represent you, a lawyer will be appointed to you to defend you.

[Owbist]

Very interesting article. Sure it was long but it was also informative. Thanks for posting.

[Canuck32]

The above post is incorrect. I will try and explain the law as simply as possible. Of course, these are not hard and fast rules, and there are exceptions.

First of all, nobody is ever to talk to the police. This includes people being investigated, accused persons, witnesses, etc.

The police have a duty to inform you of your right to counsel and your right to silence. If you don't have a lawyer, you have the right to free duty counsel legal advice (they are available by telephone 24/7). If they question you and you make a statement against your interest before being informed of these rights, a court may exclude these statements.

If you make a statement on your own, even before being informed of your rights, the statement may still be included. This is called an utterance.

The police have the right to question you and you have the right to refuse to answer. They can even be reasonably aggressive in their questioning. A lawyer cannot prevent this as doing so could actually be obstruction of justice. I need to check up on this point, but I'm pretty sure it is not a right to have a lawyer present during this questioning.

[Peckerwood]

Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you have a lawyer present with you during interrogation/questioning and the police were to question you without the lawyer, the case at hand would be dismissed. The police cannot use whatever information you have said to them when there is no lawyer present, thus dismissing the trial in court due to false police conduct. You could theoretically tell the "truth" to the police and practically deny saying anything in your statement to be true without a lawyer present. If there is no lawyer to represent you, a lawyer will be appointed to you to defend you.
They can ask you whatever they want...they can lie...there are no limits to their questions.

If you aren't under arrest then you do not have to be there. And even if you are under arrest you still do not have to say anything...however, if you do say anything they can record it and use it against you.

Not having a lawyer present does not make it inadmissible...a confession or admission of guilt is still admissible.

[Octavius]

Good vids...definitely a good watch.

[isom3tric]

That was a good watch, but does this apply to Canada too? lol (yeah I don't know anything about law)

[Octavius]

That was a good watch, but does this apply to Canada too? lol (yeah I don't know anything about law)

Although the "amendments" and the various sections of code that the prof had stated would obviously not apply here, we in Canada have much of the same legal principles that he discussed (right to remain silent for example) that they do in Virginia (or in most states).

Much of it applies here in Canada and I'd say that if you were stuck in a bind with the cops...I'd take the prof's advice.

The cops can't lie to you about what rights you have (they can't say you have no rights for example)...though they can lie to you about nearly everything else if they wanted to.

Keeping your mouth shut is excellent advice...it also gives your lawyer more paths to venture upon in terms of making a decent a defense for trial. If you admit that you did the act in question (and it's true), your lawyer can't very well make a case stating you didn't do it if you actually did.

[DeltasInTheSky]

There's this card that I've seen on this site before, you basically give it to a Cop and you legally have the right to basically do nothing (e.g not talk, not adhere to certain things).

[Lava]

There's this card that I've seen on this site before, you basically give it to a Cop and you legally have the right to basically do nothing (e.g not talk, not adhere to certain things).

You don't need a card, all you do is say i refuse to say anything until i speak to my lawyer.

[GoiNGPoSTaL]

Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you have a lawyer present with you during interrogation/questioning and the police were to question you without the lawyer, the case at hand would be dismissed. The police cannot use whatever information you have said to them when there is no lawyer present, thus dismissing the trial in court due to false police conduct. You could theoretically tell the "truth" to the police and practically deny saying anything in your statement to be true without a lawyer present. If there is no lawyer to represent you, a lawyer will be appointed to you to defend you.

They can question you without a lawyer until you ask for one or for one to be present (unless you waive that), plus evidence in Canada is never just thrown out, it can still be taken under consideration.

[CanadaBoy]

http://usera.imagecave.com/peckerwood/rights1.JPG

;)

[[buck]]

You don't need a card, all you do is say i refuse to say anything until i speak to my lawyer.
link (http://www.pivotlegal.org/pdfs/RightsCards.pdf)

I keep one of these in my wallet.

edit - BEATEN!! :twisted:

[Lava]

http://usera.imagecave.com/peckerwood/rights1.JPG

;)

Hmm, thats new to me, like a get out of jail free card...

But those aren't neccesary, just useful if you are too lazy to say "I'm not saying anything until i speak to my lawyer"

[Ebola]

As long as you have been read your rights and cautioned,( that means the oppurtunity to contact duty counsel as well) police can ask you all the questions they want.

You don't have to respond, but they dont have to sit there in silence just because you choose to.

And you are going to have to say something, because you'll have to acknowledge that you understand your rights, and whether or not you want to talk to duty counsel. But thats pretty obvious I think.

[CheapScotsman]

As long as you have been read your rights and cautioned,( that means the oppurtunity to contact duty counsel as well) police can ask you all the questions they want.

You don't have to respond, but they dont have to sit there in silence just because you choose to.

And you are going to have to say something, because you'll have to acknowledge that you understand your rights, and whether or not you want to talk to duty counsel. But thats pretty obvious I think.Why do you have to acknowledge that you understand your rights?

[Kasakato]

In Canada, do you have the right to have counsel present while being questioned? Is it an option; or is it simply not allowed?

[abu_sme]

God damn that is a fast talking lawyer.

[Nikita]

Thanks for the link Peckerwood, I haven't watched it yet (I will when I have an hour later today...lol) but I just do want to comment on a couple posts.

Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you have a lawyer present with you during interrogation/questioning and the police were to question you without the lawyer, the case at hand would be dismissed. The police cannot use whatever information you have said to them when there is no lawyer present, thus dismissing the trial in court due to false police conduct. You could theoretically tell the "truth" to the police and practically deny saying anything in your statement to be true without a lawyer present. If there is no lawyer to represent you, a lawyer will be appointed to you to defend you.

Input, you watch too much tv.

You don't have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning. You do have the right to call a lawyer before being questioned and all that lawyer can do for you and WILL do is tell you to make NO admissions, NO statements whatsoever (besides getting info from police as to charges, when you'll be in court, are they releasing you or holding you till court etc).

If you speak to police regardless of a lawyer telling you not to (it happens way more than you'd expect too), anything you say IS admissible in court as long as the statement was voluntary. Proving the statement was voluntary (and not given under duress, coercion or promises made by police etc) is not required unless the accused or counsel wish to have the statement excluded as not being voluntary, something they'd have to motion for pre-trial. Nowadays when almost all contact between police and accused are videotaped, it makes it a lot easier to determine whether or not the statements or admissions were made voluntarily or not.

If the statement was found to have been made involuntarily, no the case would not be dismissed, the statements would likely be determined inadmissible at trial, but there are other remedies if the exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

It is extremely rare for a lawyer to be 'appointed to you', you simply have the right to contact counsel and retain counsel and if you can't afford it have the right to duty counsel. I can't even think of a time when the court 'appointed' a lawyer in this country (although that doesn't mean it hasn't happened), primarily because there's no reason to, most people will on their own contact a lawyer or duty counsel. I can imagine scenarios when the court would choose to do so (for example, the guy on the bus, who's refusing to get a lawyer, at this point anyway, but that is extremely rare), but it just doesn't happen as a matter of course. And it would be the court appointing counsel if it came to that, not the police.

They can ask you whatever they want...they can lie...there are no limits to their questions.

If you aren't under arrest then you do not have to be there. And even if you are under arrest you still do not have to say anything...however, if you do say anything they can record it and use it against you.

Not having a lawyer present does not make it inadmissible...a confession or admission of guilt is still admissible.

Indeed, as long as the confession/admission/statement is made voluntarily.

They can question you without a lawyer until you ask for one or for one to be present (unless you waive that), plus evidence in Canada is never just thrown out, it can still be taken under consideration.

Never? Are you kidding me? Though the Charter contains other remedies for dealing with evidence obtained illegally, the favoured remedy in this country is indeed ruling the evidence inadmissible.

And yes, they can question you without a lawyer, in fact, they WILL question you without a lawyer present.

In Canada, do you have the right to have counsel present while being questioned? Is it an option; or is it simply not allowed?

No, you have no such right, which is why it's so important to take advantage of your right to speak to a lawyer before questioning begins....so counsel can tell you to stfu and say nothing.

I'll likely post back after I've watched the vid...thanks again for sharing Peckerwood.

[Peckerwood]

I actually remember a criminal defense lawyer once tell me..."It is the job of the Police and the Crown to prove that you are guilty; don't do their job for them"

;)

[hagbard]

Then there's always Chris Rock's advice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

[Arkaine]

Then there's always Chris Rock's advice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

hahaha that was good. I have never seen that before.

You are linking better videos now that you're moving to Windsor :lol:

[Odysseus_Maximus]

Cool very informative.

[king_george]

hahaha that was good. I have never seen that before.

You are linking better videos now that you're moving to Windsor :lol:
WHAT!!!

That's it, I'm moving to Labrador....:D

[Nikita]

WHAT!!!

That's it, I'm moving to Labrador....:D

Well, now I'm curious...where exactly is " NWO Headquarters"...lol?

[king_george]

Well, now I'm curious...where exactly is " NWO Headquarters"...lol?

Look out your front window...see any black vans around?

No? Good the plan is working...

[Takami]

All this stuff is only applicable if you are being considered as a suspect right? Say, if you witnessed a crime, you probably won't need a lawyer or remain silent when the police interviews you, no? Any thoughts here?

[Octavius]

All this stuff is only applicable if you are being considered as a suspect right? Say, if you witnessed a crime, you probably won't need a lawyer or remain silent when the police interviews you, no? Any thoughts here?

Did you even WATCH the video...the lawyer mentioned a few times that even witnesses could be putting themselves in jeopardy by talking to the police.

Frankly, eye witness testimony is the LEAST reliable evidence that the Crown (or defense for that matter) has to offer with their case. May as well just keep your mouth shut and refuse to discuss the matter with them.

[AudiDude]

All this stuff is only applicable if you are being considered as a suspect right? Say, if you witnessed a crime, you probably won't need a lawyer or remain silent when the police interviews you, no? Any thoughts here?

Yeah, watch the video. After watching the videos, I will not speak to you about any thoughts I may or may not have... >:(

[dairymandip]

yup seen it before great advice

[Ebola]

:-0

[CanadianMike]

I actually remember a criminal defense lawyer once tell me..."It is the job of the Police and the Crown to prove that you are guilty; don't do their job for them"

;)
some really solid advice.

you see scenarios like this on shows like COPS in the US, or to serve and protect up here. that is, situations where people would have been able to go on their way, but they get fast talked by the officer into admitting their guilt and all kinds of nonsense. the (very) odd time you see someone actually exercise their rights, they very often get off.

i remember one particular episode of one of those shows....and the cop was really trying to pressure a suspect into giving him information, and the guy stated something along the lines of "hey, you're the detective, you figure it out" :lol: the cop didnt seem amused, but the guy did avoid the trap of outright admitting guilt under the typically false notion that it will 'help you out'.

[iluvmikeharris]

All this stuff is only applicable if you are being considered as a suspect right? Say, if you witnessed a crime, you probably won't need a lawyer or remain silent when the police interviews you, no? Any thoughts here?

get imunity in writing before you say anything in this case

[Ebola]

Have to remember it's an American example and some things are different.

For example we dont have a "Miranda Warning" here. The "Charter rights and caution" are somewhat similar.

If arrested/detained you have to be told the reason(s) why. (ie.. i have reasonable grounds to suspect/believe blah blah blah)

You have to be informed that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel, and be given the oppurtunity to do so if you wish.

You have to be cautioned that you are not obliged to say anything, and that anything you say may be used as evidence.

And then, whether you contact counsel(duty counsel or your own) or not, the questioning will proceed, as you have no right to have counsel present for questioning.

[65505201]

Frankly, eye witness testimony is the LEAST reliable evidence that the Crown (or defense for that matter) has to offer with their case. May as well just keep your mouth shut and refuse to discuss the matter with them.

But you gotta love how eye witness testimony from someone with a badge is instant gold.

[Takami]

Did you even WATCH the video...the lawyer mentioned a few times that even witnesses could be putting themselves in jeopardy by talking to the police.

Frankly, eye witness testimony is the LEAST reliable evidence that the Crown (or defense for that matter) has to offer with their case. May as well just keep your mouth shut and refuse to discuss the matter with them.

Yes I did watch the video, and I think this is some very stupid advice to give to the general public, especially in cases where you are only a witness for a crime.

Imagine one of your loved ones got murdered and nobody who witnessed the crime came forward to talk to the police, or refused to talk when the police interviewed them.

It is almost common sense to not speak to anyone if you have dirt on you though, but as a witness?

But I am sure that if any crime is ever commit on you or your family, you would not mind if no eye witness will came forward to aid the police investigation, or testify in court.

[hagbard]

Yes I did watch the video, and I think this is some very stupid advice to give to the general public, especially in cases where you are only a witness for a crime.

Imagine one of your loved ones got murdered and nobody who witnessed the crime came forward to talk to the police, or refused to talk when the police interviewed them.

It is almost common sense to not speak to anyone if you have dirt on you though, but as a witness?

But I am sure that if any crime is ever commit on you or your family, you would not mind if no eye witness will came forward to aid the police investigation, or testify in court.

Go to the Crown and offer to speak to them, then as a witness in court. See a lawyer first. Bypass the police.

[hagbard]

Have to remember it's an American example and some things are different.

For example we dont have a "Miranda Warning" here. The "Charter rights and caution" are somewhat similar.

If arrested/detained you have to be told the reason(s) why. (ie.. i have reasonable grounds to suspect/believe blah blah blah)

You have to be informed that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel, and be given the oppurtunity to do so if you wish.

You have to be cautioned that you are not obliged to say anything, and that anything you say may be used as evidence.

And then, whether you contact counsel(duty counsel or your own) or not, the questioning will proceed, as you have no right to have counsel present for questioning.

But are you required to say anything?

[Kasakato]

But are you required to say anything?

+1, I was wondering about this as well. When to the police stop their questioning after you choose to stfu?

[Takami]

Go to the Crown and offer to speak to them, then as a witness in court. See a lawyer first. Bypass the police.

Fair enough.

But wouldn't the crown redirect you back to the police if no charges has yet been laid to any parties involved?

For example, if you saw someone ran a red light and t-boned another car on a remote street killing the other driver, you are the only witness; there is no traffic cam or any other witness who can prove what you saw. Shouldn't you just stay at the scene at the accident and tell the police what you saw? Because the videos tells you to stfu and not talk to the police about anything, which is really not what a good citizen (or anyone with a conscience) should do.

I am not a lawyer nor have studied this type of law in class, so I am not sure how things should work in these circumstances.

[Nikita]

But are you required to say anything?

No.

Fair enough.

But wouldn't the crown redirect you back to the police if no charges has yet been laid to any parties involved?

For example, if you saw someone ran a red light and t-boned another car on a remote street killing the other driver, you are the only witness; there is no traffic cam or any other witness who can prove what you saw. Shouldn't you just stay at the scene at the accident and tell the police what you saw? Because the videos tells you to stfu and not talk to the police about anything, which is really not what a good citizen (or anyone with a conscience) should do.

I am not a lawyer nor have studied this type of law in class, so I am not sure how things should work in these circumstances.

No, it's the other way around. The police give whatever evidence they have to the Crown to prosecute the case. So if you went to police (and I agree that you shouldn't, yes it's too bad, but the fact is, as stated in the video, the police will have no problem jamming you up if they feel so inclined) they will end up giving your statement to the Crown. If you go straight to the Crown, they have no reason to give your evidence to police...well unless you give them a reason, for example you make admissions that incriminate you in the case at hand or any other crime (but that rarely happens in all honesty).

As an accused you never have to speak, not even at your trial.

As a witness, you never have to speak to a cop but you may be subpeoned to testify at either a prelim or trial, but you have protections against anything you say that may incriminate you if it's given in evidence on the stand.

All of that said, I have volunteered evidence directly following a murder I witnessed a couple years ago. So though I personally wouldn't advise voluntarily speaking to police, of course you have to do what seems right to you at the time. I knew under the circumstances I was in, I was in no danger of being charged with anything or jammed up in any way by police.

[dre145]

Yes I did watch the video, and I think this is some very stupid advice to give to the general public, especially in cases where you are only a witness for a crime.

Imagine one of your loved ones got murdered and nobody who witnessed the crime came forward to talk to the police, or refused to talk when the police interviewed them.

It is almost common sense to not speak to anyone if you have dirt on you though, but as a witness?

But I am sure that if any crime is ever commit on you or your family, you would not mind if no eye witness will came forward to aid the police investigation, or testify in court.

yup... then you go from being the only witness to the only suspect because the police are nice guys and what to give the family some closure. So you end up serving some time. At least you did the right thing.

[George W. Bush]

Wow - this poop only in applicable countries where politically correct mentality is the norm. Too bad!

In my country, no one is above the law - police and lawyers included. If you are a crook, did something, or whatever, you are friggin' goin' to pay for it and be held accountable.

A good beating is good, no matter who you are. People should kick police' butt if necessary, and vice versa. And in this country, please remember this true slogan: You are guilty until proven innocent.

Nikita, care to share with us what happened with that murder? How did you witness it? Just curious George.

[Shaner]

yup... then you go from being the only witness to the only suspect because the police are nice guys and what to give the family some closure. So you end up serving some time. At least you did the right thing.

Talk about fear mongering. If you did nothing wrong, you have no reason to fear talking to the police. If you're a suspect in a crime, there's probably a reason for that, and you'll be a suspect whether you talk to the police or not.

If you simply witnessed a crime or traffic accident, the police aren't going to try and get you to admit to some other crime, unless you come from a criminal background or are somehow involved with the suspects.

I don't commit crimes and I don't associate with those who do; therefore, I have absolutely no reason to fear talking to the police about anything, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so if I thought I could help them in solving a crime or at least coming up with a suspect.

[Nikita]

Wow - this poop only in applicable countries where politically correct mentality is the norm. Too bad!

In my country, no one is above the law - police and lawyers included. If you are a crook, did something, or whatever, you are friggin' goin' to pay for it and be held accountable.

A good beating is good, no matter who you are. People should kick police' butt if necessary, and vice versa. And in this country, please remember this true slogan: You are guilty until proven innocent.

Nikita, care to share with us what happened with that murder? How did you witness it? Just curious George.

It was at the Bluesfest, last night of the fest, last band of the night. I was standing about 50 feet from the stage and I saw this guy walk across me, just kind of cruising, didn't look like he was going anywhere in particular. Suddenly another guys took a few steps toward him and shoved him, their were about 3 shoves between them and then the guy who shoved first just clocked the other guy in the head. The guy went down hard and fast, dropped right at my feet (hard enough that I heard his head hit the pavement even above the music). Found out later that apparently the two had had words earlier in the night over sight lines...pretty damned insignificant thing considering the results.

Bottom line is the guy never regained consciousness, they tried to do surgery on him only to find out that his skull had shattered! He died during the attempted surgery.

After attempting to assist with CPR and so forth, and after a doctor, who just happened to be there, and a male nurse, appeared on the scene, I walked straight over to the first cop I saw and asked they wanted a statement. (As an aside, the cop did something extremely unethical in trying to get me to identify the aggressor, even though I had told him I couldn't ID him, it all happened in about 15 seconds and my attention went right to the guy on the ground. Not impressed.) I then was asked to go the the police HQ, a block away and across from where I live and give a more detailed statement. I didn't know at that point if the guy had lived or died. The next day a detective called me and asked if I would be willing to come in and give a video statement, which I did. It was then that I asked and was told he had died.

The accused was charged with either 2nd degree or manslaughter, I can't quite remember. He hasn't been tried yet, but I'm hearing through the grapevine that he's going to plead, that a plea agreement has already been made. There was no issue as to ID, there were about 10,000 people at the fest and a couple dozen of us close enough to witness the whole event, some of whom I'm sure were able to ID the guy (they already had someone cuffed by the time I gave the cop my statement). It was pretty clear to me that this guy never intended or planned to kill anyone that night. Too much booze (in fact the news reported the highest alcohol sales in the 10 years or so the bluesfest has been happening here), too much testosterone, too much I don't know what else, but one clock to the head and it was over. And it was awful!

The next day the police put out a call for witness and from what I was told, a number of other people came forward then.

As I said above, in those circumstances, I had no fear of repercussions to me from cops or anyone else, and in fact those issues never even entered my mind at the time, it just seemed like what I had to do at the time. And of course my training makes it easier for me than it might for others to assess any such risk, as well as not falling into any trap by words that might jam me up.

So, as I said, though I don't generally recommend simply going to police without speaking with a lawyer first, sometimes you just have to do what feels like the right thing in your heart.

[Ebola]

But are you required to say anything?

Absolutely not.

As I said before, the right to silence is definetly yours. As also mentioned, the police can and will question you without a lawyer present, even if you do exercise your right to silence and say nothing at all.


In my opinion this is just paranoid extreme libertarianism, whose only aim to help people who are guilty. Ie For Defence Lawyers.

Like Nikita's case, she did nothing wrong, had no problem talking to the police.

[SLOGAN]

Stay out of trouble and you won't need to remember any of this hubub.

[Peckerwood]

Stay out of trouble and you won't need to remember any of this hubub.
Yeah right...cause all cops are flawless angelic representatives of government will.

:rolleyes:

None of your actions prior to any activity could ever stay the course of any officer. They are going to do what ever they are going to do regardless of your prior motivations...hence simply remain quiet and allow the process to take it's course.

A cop's job is simply to gather evidence for trial. They don't care what you define as "trouble"...they are following someone else's definition

[CanadianMike]

Stay out of trouble and you won't need to remember any of this hubub.
thats the stereotypical line pitched by the police service. its that kind of attitude that leads to people incriminating themselves.

[Shaner]

thats the stereotypical line pitched by the police service. its that kind of attitude that leads to people incriminating themselves.

If you've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to incriminate yourself about.

Sure, everyone has probably stolen something at some point in their life, but cops aren't going to investigate a 5 year old theft of a pack of gum from a Macs store.

I stand by what I said, if you aren't a criminal and don't associate with known criminals, you have nothing to worry about. Sure, there is the odd Steven Truscott, but you're more likely to be hit by lightning and win the lottery on the same day then be wrongfully convicted.

[Nikita]

If you've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to incriminate yourself about.
Sure, everyone has probably stolen something at some point in their life, but cops aren't going to investigate a 5 year old theft of a pack of gum from a Macs store.

I stand by what I said, if you aren't a criminal and don't associate with known criminals, you have nothing to worry about. Sure, there is the odd Steven Truscott, but you're more likely to be hit by lightning and win the lottery on the same day then be wrongfully convicted.

As a witness there is a lesser chance, but as an accused...nu uh...I just don't have that kind of faith in police and a whole lot of faith in the system, past police invovlemnt.

[CanadianMike]

If you've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to incriminate yourself about.

Sure, everyone has probably stolen something at some point in their life, but cops aren't going to investigate a 5 year old theft of a pack of gum from a Macs store.

I stand by what I said, if you aren't a criminal and don't associate with known criminals, you have nothing to worry about. Sure, there is the odd Steven Truscott, but you're more likely to be hit by lightning and win the lottery on the same day then be wrongfully convicted.
you always seem to have far too much faith in the system, then again many of your responses on here tend to be very 'cop like'.

i would agree that some people take it to conspiracy theory levels, and are ridiculously paranoid, but it isnt completely unfounded. to assume the police/justice system dont make mistakes is silly, and it can take too long to sort it out.

it can just bring unneeded trouble onto yourself, plenty of times the police manipulate people into thinking its a good idea to talk with logic very much like you are posting. i mean, obviously its the fault of those individuals for not understanding that they were admitting their own guilt. but the whole "if you've done nothing wrong then you shouldnt have anything to hide" notion is little more than a police fallacy always being spread around.

[Canuck2fan]

As a witness there is a lesser chance, but as an accused...nu uh...I just don't have that kind of faith in police and a whole lot of faith in the system, past police invovlemnt.

I have to agree with having little faith in the police. How can you have faith in someone who is ALLOWED even ENCOURAGED to lie to a suspect to a get confession? That is sometihng I never quite understood as being just.