Sex Crimes, Sex Offenders Threatened with Arrest for asking for Attorney before Questioning

[Nite_riderusa]

Jurisdiction

Washington

I had a Deputy come to my house and ask me if I knew why he was there. I had no clue. He said I had a woman say I had forced her to touch my penis (it didn't happen). He said he had a few questions for me and I replied, "I do not talk to police officers without an Attorney present". He said if I did not talk to him and answer questions right now, he would arrest me. He told me his story and I said I don't want to be arrested so I'll tell you that it never happened. I again said I wanted an Attorney. He continued to question me but I would not answer, so he arrested me. He did have his body camera on so his threats are on camera. After he arrested me and put me in handcuffs, he then read me the Miranda warning. I did not talk to him after the arrest. It is a he-said, she-said case with absolutely no evidence. Did this Cop violate my 5th Amendment rights by threatening arrest if I did not talk to him, and then arrested me after I asked for an attorney?

 

[adjusterjack]

Did this Cop violate my 5th Amendment rights by threatening arrest if I did not talk to him, and then arrested me after I asked for an attorney?

No, not a bit.

The arrest was inevitable no matter what the cop said.

Rather than me going into detail, watch this video and you'll learn why.

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

You were wise not to continue talking. But not so wise as to state that it didn't happen. You'll see why in the video.

 

[zddoodah]

Did this Cop violate my 5th Amendment rights by threatening arrest if I did not talk to him, and then arrested me after I asked for an attorney?

Let's review what the 5th Amendment (to the United States Constitution) says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The first part (regarding indictment by grand jury) is applicable only to federal crimes, which I assume this wasn't. However, even if it was, you may still be indicted, and the cop's actions have no relevance.

There's obviously no double jeopardy issue here. Nor have you been compelled to be a witness against yourself.

Last, there's no due process issue here.

As for Miranda, so-called Miranda rights, are violated when a suspect is subjected to interrogation while in custody without having been read the warnings. According to you, the interrogation that occurred prior to the warnings being read occurred at a time you were not yet in custody. And, even if you had been subjected to custodial interrogation, the only remedy is the exclusion from evidence of anything you say. This is the only thing you've told us you said: "I don't want to be arrested so I'll tell you that it never happened. I again said I wanted an Attorney." That being the case, any Miranda violation is inconsequential.

Now...stop speaking/posting publicly about your criminal issue and speak only with your lawyer.

 

[adjusterjack]

Did this Cop violate my 5th Amendment rights by threatening arrest if I did not talk to him, and then arrested me after I asked for an attorney?

And by the way, it's the 6th Amendment that guarantees you the right to an attorney.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.