Homicide, Murder, Manslaughter Does a suspect have to answer the question: What did you do last night ?

[Law Learner]

Jurisdiction

Florida

Last night, the local bank was robbed. The police couldn't get the robbery. Surveillance camera footage didn't help and the police didn't find other evidences. They could only guess the robber was someone who was familiar with the bank's operations based on what happened.

The police had several suspects including Mr. Frog (say he was an ex-employee of the bank and he is having financial issues). So they approached him and asked about his whereabouts last night. Mr. Frog was not the robber, but he was doing something illegal with some of his buddies the night before.

Mr. Frog thought that the police would not know about those buddies and would not get to them on the robbery incident. Answering the police's question truthfully would be problematic for Mr. Frog. But lying about it would have risks as well (e.g. what if the other illegal activity was later found out). So Mr. Frog thought it would be best for him to refuse to answer the police's questions.

Questions:

1) Can the police arrest him at his house for not answering their questions ?

2) If the police want him to come to the police station for an "interview", can Mr. Frog be arrested if he refuses to come ?

3) If Mr. Frog asks to speak to a lawyer first (which wouldn't happen at the same time of the police's visit, can the police refuse it and arrest him ? And if after talking to the lawyer, he still remains silent (following the lawyer's advice - hypothesis), can the police arrest him ?

4) If the police arrest him, Mr. Frog would be protected by the fifth amendment. In this case, what can the police do next if they cannot find other evidences/testimonies against Mr. Frog, and by law, they cannot use the fact that he did not answer questions against him.

Thanks for your clarification. As you can guess, this is just a fictitious story for the sake of understanding "The right to remain silent".

 

[adjusterjack]

Nothing Mr Frog says or doesn't say will prevent an arrest if an arrest is in his future. The only thing he should say is "I want an attorney." Nothing else. Speculation on anything else is futile.

Watch this video and you'll understand.

DON'T TALK TO POLICE - Professor James Duane - YouTube

 

[Zigner]

In addition to the excellent advice given by @adjusterjack above, I would suggest that you do your own homework on this matter.

 

[Law Learner]

Nothing Mr Frog says or doesn't say will prevent an arrest if an arrest is in his future. The only thing he should say is "I want an attorney." Nothing else. Speculation on anything else is futile.

Watch this video and you'll understand.

DON'T TALK TO POLICE - Professor James Duane - YouTube

I did watch that video yesterday, but at the same time, please also take a look at Fifth Amendment. where it says:

However, courts have since then slightly narrowed the Miranda rights, holding that police interrogation or questioning that occurs prior to taking the suspect into custody does not fall within the Miranda requirements, and the police are not required to give Miranda warnings to the suspects prior to taking them into custody, and their silence in some instances can be deemed to be implicit admission of guilt.

I am not sure about your advice. In the above case, I don't think Mr. Frog would be arrested if he said that he was sleeping in his home because the police has no proof. Because he has answered to the police's question, they cannot assume the "implicit admission of guilt"

 

[Law Learner]

In addition to the excellent advice given by @adjusterjack above, I would suggest that you do your own homework on this matter.

I did plenty of research on this topic. Maybe lawyers have different materials to look into for better information but on Google, I saw many answers stating "Don't talk to the police". However, either the circumstances are not the same (i.e. the police asks someone for information, not asking a suspect) or I feel that they did not clearly state the consequence of not answering questions in the "suspect" case. This is not the same as what stated in Fifth Amendment. where it says that you can be assumed "guilty" (and thus arrested) for refusing to answer police's questions (see the quotes that I left on my answer to adjusterjack).

Again, I don't know much about laws hence posting the basic questions. I'd appreciate better clarifications for my questions.

 

[Zigner]

I did watch that video yesterday, but at the same time, please also take a look at Fifth Amendment. where it says:

However, courts have since then slightly narrowed the Miranda rights, holding that police interrogation or questioning that occurs prior to taking the suspect into custody does not fall within the Miranda requirements, and the police are not required to give Miranda warnings to the suspects prior to taking them into custody, and their silence in some instances can be deemed to be implicit admission of guilt.

I am not sure about your advice. In the above case, I don't think Mr. Frog would be arrested if he said that he was sleeping in his home because the police has no proof. Because he has answered to the police's question, they cannot assume the "implicit admission of guilt"

There is no way any of us could begin to guess of Mr. Frog would be arrested, either in the real world or in your made-up world. For all we know, Mr. Frog has a warrant out of Tulsa for which he'll be arrested and then die after being shanked in jail while awaiting extradition, thus causing this entire thread to be moot.

 

[Law Learner]

There is no way any of us could begin to guess of Mr. Frog would be arrested

The question is not if "Mr. Frog would be arrested". The question is: "Can he be arrested", i.e. can the police arrest him based on the fact that he refuses to answer their questions in this situation (i.e. him being a suspect of the bank robbery case, but there are no warrants yet)

 

[doucar]

The question is not if "Mr. Frog would be arrested". The question is: "Can he be arrested", i.e. can the police arrest him based on the fact that he refuses to answer their questions in this situation (i.e. him being a suspect of the bank robbery case, but there are no warrants yet)

Absent any incriminating evidence, he cannot be arrested for just refusing to answer questions.

 

[adjusterjack]

"Can he be arrested",

The word "can" denotes the ability to do something, not whether it's done rightly or wrongly. If the police arrest Mr Frog wrongly, then the issue will be addressed by the courts.

You're postulated two scenarios:

he refuses to answer their questions

he said that he was sleeping in his home

You're missing the whole point of the video. The operative words are "don't talk."

Mr Frog doesn't say "I refuse to answer." Mr Frog doesn't say "I was home in bed."

The ONLY thing Mr Frog says is "I want to talk to an attorney." Full stop. That ends the conversation. The police can infer anything they want by that invocation and their inference will be meaningless.

Yes, he could be arrested at that point, or at any point, for any number of reasons. The attorney gets to decide what to tell the police. Or not.

He shouldn't have to be Mirandized to know he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned. One would have to be living under a rock not to have heard of it.

I feel that they did not clearly state the consequence of not answering questions in the "suspect" case. This is not the same as what stated in Fifth Amendment. where it says that you can be assumed "guilty" (and thus arrested) for refusing to answer police's questions

That's right.

But immediately invoking the right to an attorney is not the same as refusing to answer questions.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[Tax Counsel]

Nothing Mr Frog says or doesn't say will prevent an arrest if an arrest is in his future. The only thing he should say is "I want an attorney." Nothing else. Speculation on anything else is futile.

If you are detained/arrested there is one question that you must answer in some states: providing your name and/or proof of identity. The answer of who you are is not itself-incriminating. Before being arrested/detained, you don't even have to do that, though that might lead to you being detained and having to answer the question and draw out your encounter with the cops.

Mr Frog doesn't say "I refuse to answer."

Mr. Frog would be well advised to specifically invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court has held that silence alone may not be enough to invoke the protection of the 5th Amendment. And if detained/arrested, the arrestee should, as you noted, invoke his/her right to counsel.

 

[zddoodah]

In the future, if you want to ask hypothetical question, please clearly identify them as such at the start of your post. Don't waste people's time.

Can the police arrest him at his house for not answering their questions ?

They can. However, arresting a person in his home generally requires a warrant. Do the hypothetical police have a hypothetical warrant? If so, then a judge or magistrate must have made a determination that probably cause existed, and that finding would have to be based on something other than Frog's refusal to answer questions.

If the police want him to come to the police station for an "interview", can Mr. Frog be arrested if he refuses to come ?

Can he be arrested? Yes. Would it be legal? No, if the sole ground for arrest is the refusal to come in for an interview.

If Mr. Frog asks to speak to a lawyer first (which wouldn't happen at the same time of the police's visit, can the police refuse it and arrest him ?

Him asking for a lawyer and the police making an arrest have nothing to do with each other. Criminal suspects often ask for lawyers at the time they are arrested. Before they are arrested, they rarely make such a request. Why? Because no one has any obligation to provide a lawyer for a suspect who hasn't been arrested.

In this case, what can the police do next if they cannot find other evidences/testimonies against Mr. Frog, and by law, they cannot use the fact that he did not answer questions against him.

They can do dozens, if not hundreds, of things.

This is not the same as what stated in Fifth Amendment. where it says that you can be assumed "guilty" (and thus arrested) for refusing to answer police's questions

The Fifth Amendment says no such thing. What you probably meant to say was that, in a criminal prosecution (and in no other context), a judge or jury (and no one else) may not hold the defendant's refusal to answer questions against him.

 

[army judge]

The question is: "Can he be arrested", i.e. can the police arrest him based on the fact that he refuses to answer their questions in this situation (i.e. him being a suspect of the bank robbery case, but there are no warrants yet)

The police can act hastily and arrest the amphibian, Mr. Frog, however these days most police agencies are very cautious in their many endeavors.

Law enforcement agencies are aware of having time on their side.

As you now have phrased the question, using "can the police arrest the amphibian", UNEQUIVOCALLY the amphibian CAN be arrested. The word CAN indicates that someone has the ABILITY to do a thing. However, based upon your IFFY revelations hereinabove, no human being is capable of predicting what another human CAN do.

That said, are you the "amphibian" in this little saga, or is this a current homework assignment?

Bon chance...

PS: I've represented hundreds, perhaps thousands of criminal defendants over my many decades of practicing law. I always instruct my clients to ONLY speak about their case with me, their attorney of record. I admonish them about admitting guilt to me, and further advise them that although I am devout, lifelong religious practitioner, I am not a religious officiant, as in minister, pastor, priest, reverend, etc... Subsequently don't confess to me, merely relate the facts and circumstances I always question them about.

 

[Law Learner]

That said, are you the "amphibian" in this little saga, or is this a current homework assignment?

First of all, I appreciate all the answers and let me clarify that this is the hypothetical situation as I put at the end of my posting. I am not Mr. Frog and I didn't know any friends who robbed any banks or did anything illegal last weekend

The question "Can the police arrest Mr. Frog for ... " should be taken as "Can the police legally arrest Mr. Frog for ...". Imagine your son asks you a question: "I see a new electric bike on the on the neighbor's yard. Can I steal it and sell it ?". I'd assume you (as a regular person, not a criminal) would take that question as whether he could legally take and sell it, and would tell him that's it's not OK. Or am I wrong in this case ?

I thought that's pretty clear, but apologize if that's not obvious to you.

The Fifth Amendment says no such thing.

What I quoted earlier is a link (even though the link title says "Fifth Amendment") from the Cornell law school, which I assume to have some reputation. Accordingly, the police can assume that a suspect is guilty for not answering their questions when he is not yet detained (Please note that I have made it clear that the police is asking a suspect in the context of an investigation - not asking for someone walking on the street as all those Google replies). And the part that's not clear to me is that: If they can legally assume that you are guilty, can they legally arrest you on the spot ?

Yes, he could be arrested at that point, or at any point, for any number of reasons. The attorney gets to decide what to tell the police. Or not.

Please keep the answer to the point: There are no other reasons as I said. The police has no absolute evidence about Mr. Frog committing the crime. The only point here is Mr. Frog being the suspect is not willing to answer them. So can they assume that it's an implicit admission of guilt (as per the link from Cornel law school that I posted) and legally arrest him or not.

The point about getting a lawyer as you mentioned - while being possibly true - is irrelevant to my questions. Being arrested can lead to future consequences (e.g. the arrest records are public so it may affect Mr. Frog's future) so Mr. Frog would like to avoid it completely. Now, if legally he is not required to answer and the police cannot legally arrest him then why would he even need a lawyer ?

Thanks again, and let me also clarify that I am just a regular person. I am not a law student, and my understanding about law is minimal. So apologies if I miss something that sounds "obvious" to you.

 

[army judge]

. I am not Mr. Frog and I didn't know any friends who robbed any banks or did anything illegal last weekend

Hmm, that's a carefully worded EQUIVOCAL answer, isn't it?

 

[adjusterjack]

Thanks again, and let me also clarify that I am just a regular person. I am not a law student, and my understanding about law is minimal. So apologies if I miss something that sounds "obvious" to you.

You're asking the same question over and over after it's been answered as well as possible given the limited information in your hypothetical scenario.

This may be blunt but you're getting into troll territory and wasting our time. If you want further discussion on the subject, I suggest you got to City-Data or Reddit where hundreds of people would just love to get involved in the discussion.

Thread locked.