since cops are alowed to lie and they admit?

Question

to lying to people about having evidence against them.how can judges believe any thing they say .and no iv never been arrested i just want to know when a judge knows they have stoped lyin and are telling the truth

Answer 1

...The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Police can lie to you in order to extract a confession, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969). The only place an officer cannot lie is while testifying under oath in court, and criminal defense attorneys occasionally catch an officer lying, even on the witness stand. Police are only required to advise you of your Constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, if you are in custody and being interrogated about the offense for which you are being confined. This point is usually determined to be the point in which the suspect is placed under arrest, or the suspect would reasonably conclude that he or she is under arrest and not free to leave. Detectives are very good at creating the illusion that you are free to go, when actually, you are not. For example, the detective may tell you that you are free to go at any time, but that it would benefit you to provide your side of the story as the evidence does not look to be in your favor, therefore you can be pursuaded into continuing the interrogation.

During interrogations, police who use this tactic may lie about the facts of a case. For example, where you have an 18 year old male who has a 15 year old girlfriend, the officer will tell him that they have evidence that he raped her, when in fact, they do not. The 18 year old tells the officer that they had consensual sex and that there was no rape involved; now the officer has a confession as to Statutory Rape that came straight from the mouth of the suspect. In trying to exonerate himself from the charge of Rape, the 18 year old legally confessed to the lesser crime of Statutory Rape. In Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969), the officer was able to extract a confession from the criminal defendant by lying about the strength of the case. During interrogation, the officer lied to the criminal defendant and told him that his cousin, had confessed to the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, also implicating the criminal defendant in the crime. The criminal defendant then also confessed to the crime in reliance of the officer’s false statement. The Court determined that the criminal defendant’s confession was voluntary and the fact that he was given his Miranda rights prior to making the confession was relevant to a finding of waiver and voluntariness. Id.

Police officers are also allowed to fabricate evidence to support a deception. In re D.A.S., 391 A.2d 255, (D.C. App. 1978) the police pretended to compare the defendant’s fingerprints to a fingerprint on the victim’s checkbook and pronounced them a match when in truth, no fingerprints were recovered from the checkbook. The defendant confessed to the robbery and the Court held that the police deception did not by itself invalidate a voluntary confession. Id. at 258. Confessions are not invalid or inadmissible, even if they are obtained by deception or trickery, as long as the means employed are not calculated to produce an untrue statement. Only if the deception, combined with other factors, coerces the suspect or defendant to confess, will the court deem the confession inadmissible. Id., at 259.

In order to extract confessions, police may also attempt to persuade the suspect or defendant that her conduct was less blameworthy than anticipated. Deborah Young, Unnecessary Evil, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 425, 433 (1996). Police may lie about the victim to diminish the suspect’s fear of confessing. In People v. Jordan, 597 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), the police told the defendant that he may be able to save the victim if he told the police exactly what happened. The police falsely told the defendant that the victim had just received eighteen stitches for her knife wound and would soon be out of the hospital, when in actuality, the victim had died. The defendant confessed to stabbing the victim believing that he would be charged with assault and not murder. The court affirmed the murder conviction, holding that, "mere deception by the police is not alone sufficient to render a confession inadmissible unless accompanied by a promise or threat that could induce a false confession." Id. at 808.

In Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), federal agents used an informant as a secret conspirator to listen in on the criminal defendant’s conversations. He made incriminating statements to the informant, not knowing that the informant was secretly working with the federal agents. At the time the statement was made, the criminal defendant was out on bail and had already secured an attorney. The Court held that because the criminal defendant had secured an attorney and had already been indicted, federal agents could not attempt to elicit a confession without the presence of the criminal defendant’s retained counsel. Id., at 204.
The Court is reluctant to bar such police tactics and confessions because of the assumption that an innocent person of normal intelligence will not admit to a crime she did not commit. Patrick M. McMullen, Questioning the Questions: The Impermissibility of Police Deception in Interrogations of Juveniles, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 971, 974 (2005). However, the Court has recognized the inherently coercive nature of police interrogations, thereby mandating the police to provide Miranda warnings to suspects and defendants to lessen such coercion. The intimidation is even greater on juveniles. The power of police to deceive juvenile suspects during interrogations is significant since kids may be even more impressionable and confused. Juveniles are more likely than adults to defer to the wishes of adult authority figures and are more susceptible to suggestions of guilt. Id., at 975. Juveniles are more likely to believe things that adults, especially powerful authority figures, tell them. Many kids are taught to trust police officers and to have faith in them as enforcers of law. They are not raised to believe that officers will resort to deception in order to carry out the law. Id., at 997. Thus juveniles are easily pressured into admitting guilt or agreeing to false information. Unfortunately, the interrogation room is one of the few places where the Court has been unwilling to protect juveniles from their own bad or premature decisions. In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979) the Supreme Court decided that juvenile confessions were to be assessed under the totality of circumstances standard and thus age was only one of many factors that come into play when assessing the admissibility of juvenile confessions.

Police deception may be helpful in eliciting confessions from guilty suspects. However, such manipulation also extracts false confessions, especially from juveniles. Placing false hope in young suspects by promises of leniency and misrepresentation of evidence are effective in inducing such false confessions. Patrick M. McMullen, Questioning the Questions, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 971, 988 (2005). The vast majority of evidence that prosecutors obtain against defendants comes straight from their own mouths because of the Police interrogation methods discussed.

For these reasons, it is best to obtain the services of a skilled criminal defense attorney before an opportunity for questioning arises, or any charges are filed. After discussing with the client what is known about the scope of the investigation, the attorney should start by advising the detective that the defendant is represented by counsel, and not to talk to his client without that counsel present. If you have no inkling that you might be investigated or charged with a crime prior to being contacted by law enforcement, it is very important that you consult an attorney before speaking to authorities. While an officer may imply that failure to speak immediately will result in arrest, a person cannot be arrested for exercising the right to remain silent. Police can only arrest a person if probable cause exists, and the choice to remain silent cannot be part of that analysis. If the officers already have probable cause, they would not need to question you. If they do not, the statement you make could well supply it.

Answer 2

cops are not perfect, they will make mistakes, they are human. But an officer will fess up to that mistake. Cops are in an occupation where their honestly, truth, and integrity are the basis for their employment and credibility. The instant an officer lies, he will be gone, because you're right his testimony will no longer be valid in court. He lied once, what's to say he doesn't lie again. Officers know this though and therefore don't lie. They will sooner take on disciplinary action for a mistake they made, than lie about it. Because of this fact that the rare officers that do lie are no longer cops, is how judges can trust the others who are still members of law enforcement. They took an oath and live by that oath, which includes always telling the truth.

Also criminals will always try to lie to police. Cops will never lie, but they may not tell the criminals everything they know. They sometimes need the criminal to be caught in the act or caught in a lie. By not telling the criminal everything they need to know, they will more than likely make a mistake.

Bottom line is your perception is a little skewed. Cops don't lie.

Answer 3

A "regular" person always believes the cops are infallible, until someone in their family gets screwed over. Cops are people, too. They are not perfect, they have a lousy job, they have personal problems that influence how they treat people, and if they make a mistake that could cost them their career or reputation, they are going to cover it up.

In Jacksonville FL, two cops strangled, shot and killed a business owner who had asked for their escort to deposit $50,000. in the bank. Once caught, they were falling over themselves trying to plea bargain, and snitch out the others. In Tallahassee this summer, a cop killed an FBI agent who was going to arrest him for extorting sex for favors from female prisoners. Our own Florida Dept of Corrections top guy, appointed by Gov. Bush himself, was recently busted for bringing hookers into the prison, steroid abuse, and embezzling funds.

Cops are people, too, and can be just as rotten as anyone else.

As for the judges, a judge has no way to know when a cop is lying, and some don't care. They are on the same side, and a judge will go with a cop every time.

I have a friend, a 40 year old housewife with no record, who got in an altercation with a convicted child molester. The molester wept to the cop about being a church deacon. The stupid cop didn't bother to run a check on the guy, let him walk and arrested my friend instead. Based on the cop's dramatic report, the judge set my friend's bail at $25,000.00. and talked to her like a dog in court. The irony? She's a cop's daughter. She believed in the system. She believed in innocent until proven guilty. Not anymore.

I have seen this over and over, and finally have come to the conclusion that lawyers are indeed a necessary evil in today's society. Without them, any one of us is five minutes away from going to prison for life.

Answer 4

The judge understands what techniques the detectives use in interrogating a suspect.

If the suspect is stupid enough to allow themselves to be questioned without an attorney, the detectives are going to phrase a question so that the suspect will answer it. And to tell the suspect that they have evidence is called a "fishing expedition."

If you didn't do anything, just stick to your guns, and don't say a word after you say "I don't want to talk without an attorney present."

Answer 5

I will almost always side with the cops on issues but I have to say you have a very valid point.

I just think if a police officer resorts to such trickery than it is just going to pollute the line of questions. How do you get the truth with lies?

I think it should be a law that all questioning must be done with cameras. We are seeing a lot of cases where people are admitting to things they did not do just to stop the questioning.

I love cops. They are great people but I don't agree with them 100 percent of the time.

Answer 6

they don't know. the whole system is corupt. the best thing you can do is neve mess w/the police, because even if you are innocent, the cops don't care, and are trying to give you a ticket or throw you in jail. i use to think cops cared for the people, and wanted to help us, but that's far from the truth! also, haven't you seen that camera phone video on youtube w/a cop punching this guy in the face that was already in handcuffs and lying on the ground? happens all the time, but when they ask the cops if it's true, they just say that they had a reason, and that's the end of that! the whole system is crooked, and we need a revolution!

Answer 7

law enforcement officers are actually not allowed to misinform the 'public'. they're allowed to misinform suspects in the direction of an learn or interrogation. As for trusting a liar, please attempt to cajole us which you have on no account, ever lied. Ever. And we will permit you be attentive to which you're mendacity now. So i assume the popular public can on no account have faith you. somebody reported that law enforcement officers lie for all time and wonders how every physique at an ordeal can stay independent approximately it. it is precisely with the aid of fact law enforcement officers are human beings and could lie, that jurors are independent. If law enforcement officers on no account lied, there'd be no choose for trials in view that their testimony could be absolute. So, in view that there ARE independent jurors, it is in the law enforcement officers' pastime to not lie at trial extremely than screw up their case.

Answer 8

Where did you get the idea that cops are allowed to lie about having evidence and which police officers have admitted to such a thing? The police are not permitted to claim they have evidence when they do not and would, at the least, be put on suspension without pay for doing so. At most, they would be suspended with intent to dismiss, lose their pension, and be tried for perjury. I doubt that many officers would risk all that by saying they had evidence when they did not.

Answer 9

Cops aren't Christ. They aren't perfect and they can send you or a friend to hell in a heartbeat and still eat a donut with their buddies. I am friends with a lot of old cops, and they all say the young ones think their badge makes them six feet tall and bulletproof. None of them want their own kids to become cops. What does that tell you?

Answer 10

The police can only lie to the suspect during questioning,

Under oath and in thier reports they tell the truth.

Plus in court the evidence would have to be presented, fingerprints, DNA and the such.

Answer 11

Any police officer caught lying about evidence on the stand could lose his/her job. They would also lose all credibility with the judge and probably wouldn't be able to continue doing the job anyway.