Because laws have been passed that make it illegal for a suspect to lie but no laws have been passed that make it illegal for police to lie (UNLESS THEY ARE TESTIFYING UNDER OATH). There isn't a great deal to motivate a legislature to pass a law restricting police to the truth yet there is sufficient motivation to keep criminals from lying to police.
If you become a suspect you should keep your mouth shut and consult an attorney. If the attorney happens to lie on your behalf you are indemnified. Even though you can act as your own attorney in court, you cannot lie to police and then claim you were acting as your own attorney when you did it. It's still you that did the lying.
You question implies that the police may suspect you are covering up something. While they cannot force to to "prove" you were not abducted (it may not be possible for you to do so) they will investigate the situation and work to gather related evidence.
No. Sometimes the police do this, but only when the suspect is being combative, trying to escape or is otherwise uncooperative. If the suspect is compliant, there is no reason for what is otherwise considered police brutality or use of strong-arm methods.Added: It is standard police practice to handcuff a resisting subjects hands BEHIND them. This means that they will probably be in face down position on the ground. When in such an position - and struggling to resist - it is sometimes unavoidable that their nose (the most prominent and protuberant feature on their face) may come in contact with the ground.The whole process is entirely a self-correcting process on the part of the subject -- just cease struggling and lie quietly while the handcuffs are being applied. Simple!
The suspect is responsible. The cops are not responsible, nor should they ever be. If the suspect is convicted, the landlord may be able to get victim’s compensation.
The person who has been paralyzed may wish that the individual, who caused the damage, be arrested or liable. The victim could call the police, and have the police arrest the suspect, the victim could file a tort and sue the suspect, or potentially both. The suspect could be charged with anything from criminal negligence to aggravated battery, and may owe the victim for medical bills and lost wages.
When the police have arrested someone and intent to question him about the crime, they must read the suspect his Miranda rights. The police are exempt from the Miranda warnings when a public safety issue is present. The suspect may wave his rights out of just his free will if he wishes.
The term "suspect" is still used when there is some evidence the person was involved. The term "person of interest" is used when authorities want to interview someone that could be a potential suspect, a witness, or who may have some information pertaining to the crime.
doctor lawyer actor police officer
As with most police-related questions, it depends on the circumstances. Specific law also varies from state to state. It is not always a crime to lie to the police. If you are providing a sworn written statement and you lie, it is a crime. If you are intentionally providing false information intended to mislead a law enforcement officer in the course of his/her duties, it is a crime. If you falsely report an incident or a crime, that is a crime. If you are stopped for speeding, and the police officer asks if you know how fast you were going, and you lie when you answer, that is not a crime. As a general rule, if the police officer is investigating something and you intentionally lie in order to protect yourself or someone else, or in order to intentionally mislead the officer, you may be guilty of a crime.
Ideally, a policeman should be a model of honesty and trustworthiness. This would mean that lying should not even occur to him. We do not live in an ideal world and police can and often will lie to further their investigation.
Yes they do. Mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the shoes and socks of a suspect will be taken off when a police officer is conducting a body search to make sure nothing is secreted in them. Secondly, when a suspect is in custody an officer may choose to remove their shoes and socks for safety reasons i.e. to prevent the suspect using them to hurt themselves or someone else.
The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which protects U.S. citizens against self-incrimination, is the basis for our Miranda Rights. However, in order for Miranda to apply, two elements must be present: 1. the suspect is in police custody, AND 2. the suspect is being asked questions by police that are likely to invoke incriminating statements. Both CUSTODY and INTERROGATION must be present before Miranda applies. A police officer does not have to advise a suspect of their Miranda rights when either of these elements are absent.
A person of interest is not yet a suspect but the police has interest in talking to them for various reasons, i.e. they knew the victim, they were at a specific place, etc... when a crime occurs, the police wants to gather as much information about it as they can and being a person of interest doesn't necessarily mean that the police is suspicious of them. Not yet anyway. Now, if a person is arrested, it means that the police may have found something about them that could link them to a crime. They are no longer a person of interest but become a suspect.