WootBot


quality posts: 14 Private Messages WootBot

Staff

Unless you’ve dedicated a lot of time to breaking the law, most of what you know about the cops comes from movies and TV, and those may or may not be just the facts, ma’am. All month, Ken Jennings will be exploring the “thin blue line” between police fact and police fiction. If you actually thought this stuff was true—well, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the comments section.

Police Myth #3: When You’re Arrested, You Get One Phone Call.

Police arrests in movies and TV shows are always followed by a phone call—for dramatic purposes, I assume. We need to see the ne’er-do-well tearily confessing his downfall to a parent or spouse or co-conspirator. (Or lawyer, I guess, but that seems to happen less often in the movies than it does in real life.) This cliché has become so deeply engrained in the popular imagination that arrestees—in movies and in real life as well—now know to ask for “my phone call,” as if they are entitled to exactly one.

In fact, that’s not really true. There’s no constitutional guarantee to a call, and phoning isn’t mentioned in the Miranda rights at all. Arrestees have the right to an attorney, sure, but the matter of where and when and how they get to contact one is left to individual jurisdictions. No court has ever found a “one phone call at booking” rule in the penumbra of the Constitution.

That said, in the years since the Miranda v. Arizona ruling in 1966, many state legislatures have codified arrest procedures for law enforcement officers. In California, for example, an arrested person gets “three (3) completed telephone calls” no later than three hours after arrest, except when physically impossible. And you’re guaranteed two more if you have child care issues. So much for “one phone call”—in California, you can go through half your speed-dial list!

In Texas, it’s two completed calls after booking (but no less than four hours after arrest). In Tennessee you get one completed call before booking. Some states may still have no such code, however (I can’t find any guidelines for Kansas, for example, and I read an account from a police officer there who tells suspects that they have no right to a call at all—that a written notification is legally sufficient for their right to contact an attorney.) Of course, in most cases, officers will be reasonable about accommodating requests to use the phone. But, depending on your state, that may be a courtesy and not a legal obligation. It’s certainly not your right as a citizen.

Quick Quiz: What lab assistant received the very first phone call ever, from Alexander Graham Bell on March 10, 1876?

Ken Jennings is the author of Because I Said So!, Brainiac, Ken Jennings's Trivia Almanac, and Maphead. He's also the proud owner of an underwhelming Bag o' Crap. Follow him at ken-jennings.com or on Twitter as @KenJennings.

cfalgas


quality posts: 4 Private Messages cfalgas

Elementary, Mr. Jennings. It was Thomas Watson.

lboban


quality posts: 12 Private Messages lboban

This is very interesting. And a little disturbing.

0x776F6F7421


quality posts: 4 Private Messages 0x776F6F7421
cfalgas wrote:Elementary, Mr. Jennings. It was Thomas Watson.



Upon seeing the miraculous invention on Bell's workbench, Watson commented, "Nice gadget there, Alex. I expect the total market for such a thing will be maybe five."

hoshman


quality posts: 0 Private Messages hoshman

Given that you have right to legal counsel, you aren't left without anyone to contact. How you contact your lawyer isn't really relevant, just more convenient by phone.

nunnron


quality posts: 0 Private Messages nunnron

I never have figured out the whole "anything you say can and will be used against you" thing. I understand how anything that I say can be used against me, such as, "Yeah, I killed the guy." But what if I say, "I've always preferred strawberries over blueberries." Sure, maybe they *can* use it against me, but will they? They say they will. Aren't they *guaranteeing* that they will use anything I say against me? If not, then why not just leave it at "can", or "can and may", not "can and will".

wollern


quality posts: 6 Private Messages wollern

Come quick Watson I need your help.

spacemart


quality posts: 15 Private Messages spacemart
nunnron wrote:I never have figured out the whole "anything you say can and will be used against you" thing. I understand how anything that I say can be used against me, such as, "Yeah, I killed the guy." But what if I say, "I've always preferred strawberries over blueberries." Sure, maybe they *can* use it against me, but will they? They say they will. Aren't they *guaranteeing* that they will use anything I say against me? If not, then why not just leave it at "can", or "can and may", not "can and will".



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&list=WLFDF786231F5E3A1A

ewaldjw


quality posts: 4 Private Messages ewaldjw

I knew the answer to the pop quiz not because I'm a history buff but because I watch Dr. Who. +1

13 - Woots
1 - Accessories.woot
1 - Tech.woot
2 - Home.woots
3 - Sport.woots
26 - Shirt.woots
3 - Sellout.woots

marsilies


quality posts: 0 Private Messages marsilies
nunnron wrote:I never have figured out the whole "anything you say can and will be used against you" thing. I understand how anything that I say can be used against me, such as, "Yeah, I killed the guy." But what if I say, "I've always preferred strawberries over blueberries." Sure, maybe they *can* use it against me, but will they? They say they will. Aren't they *guaranteeing* that they will use anything I say against me? If not, then why not just leave it at "can", or "can and may", not "can and will".


One way to look at it is that "will be used against you" means "will be recorded and submitted as evidence for the prosecution."

However, while the original court case states a in the guidelines for the warning that "anything he says will be used against him", the actual examples given of Miranda rights in Wikipedia use the word "may" instead of "will".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

Plus, you never know when fruit preferences could come back to haunt you. Maybe during the investigation you state your alibi was that you were eating alone at a restaurant, and provide a receipt as evidence. But wait, the receipt shows an order for blueberry pie, when the restaurant is famous for their strawberry cheesecake. Suddenly that alibi doesn't seem as solid.

Moueska


quality posts: 54 Private Messages Moueska
wollern wrote:Come quick Watson I need your help.



KenJen - is this a myth? I've been meaning to ask, but hadn't had the right moment.

ckeilah


quality posts: 149 Private Messages ckeilah
nunnron wrote:I never have figured out the whole "anything you say can and will be used against you" thing. I understand how anything that I say can be used against me, such as, "Yeah, I killed the guy." But what if I say, "I've always preferred strawberries over blueberries." Sure, maybe they *can* use it against me, but will they? They say they will. Aren't they *guaranteeing* that they will use anything I say against me? If not, then why not just leave it at "can", or "can and may", not "can and will".




Never talk to police beyond pleasantries, but probably not even that.

Please do not increment my Quality Posts count. 69 is a good place to be. ;-)
MOD: We had to...we just HAD TO...