Is it okay for the police, fbi or other agienceis to lie to US citizens during the course of an investigation,

Question

even if the investigation may be based on information obtained by an informant who has a personal vendetta agaainst the accussed or is attempting to snitch his way out of trouble? I am not asking for the legal ramifications just in your opinion on the issue.

Answer 1

No it's not OK, These people are as supposed to work FOR the public, If they haven't got any evidence, they shouldn't be trying to fabricate some.

It is no excuse that they believe a person is guilty, that is their opinion, and is often wrong.
The pressure to "solve" cases does not excuse corrupt policing.

Answer 2

Well, undercover work is a form of "lying" by the police. But it's allowed.

If the person is guilty and the informant also happens to have a personal grudge, I don't know if that would be relevant. A defense attorney would surely bring up the grudge, in an attempt to show doubt -- but if there's other evidence, it probably won't work.

Informants make deals with the prosecutor all the time -- at least on TV and in the movies. That's life.

.

Answer 3

What those Creationists do no longer understand, of direction, is they're shooting themselves interior the foot each time they attempt to rationalize their ideals, or attempt to discredit easily technology. They teach with their each be conscious that they are thoroughly unqualified to communicate the undertaking, as they have not have been given any theory what modern-day technology particularly claims. They "refute" meant scientific claims that don't exist... everywhere. they are announcing that modern-day technology professes some thing, and then they clarify why this is incorrect. What they do no longer seem to understand, while they are announcing those ignorant issues, is that the concepts they're attempting to refute are oftentimes a strategies nearer to their very own ideals, than modern-day scientific theory. (IE - Scientists have faith life only popped out of nowhere. yet while that turn into the case, this jar of peanut butter could have life in it, does no longer it?) this is excellent how efficient the cult of character could be. and that's all that those people have left to place self belief in. this is going to probable be humorous to look back on in a pair many years. yet precise now, this is a valid element to fret approximately. I only wish those loonies do no longer verify to start blowing up museums or some thing.

Answer 4

Unfortunately, yes. In most cases. That's why it's important never to talk to them without the advice and presence of a lawyer.

In a typical case, the police or prosecutor (etc.) will say that a co-accused has confessed and that holding out will result in a much longer sentence. When the accused confesses -- perhaps even when he was innocent, to avoid, say, a life sentence -- he may be unable to suppress the confession even though it was obtained by lies.

Answer 5

Yes they can and most informants do have a reason for giving the information. If the police had to wait for a person pure of heart and motive to come forth with useful information,.... well it most likely would be a long wait.

Answer 6

hillary thought so...look at the billy dale fiasco. the problem is where do you draw the line. entrapment laws in this country have been developed over the years for precisely that reason. i think there is no clear answer here and obviously the clintons know full well how to abuse it but whats the alternative?

Answer 7

Unfortunately yes.

Fortunately, here in Canada we are sane and our police are not allowed to do that.

Answer 8

Absolutely. Any means necessary to get to the truth.