
Be Careful when Speaking to Federal Agents - 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 - conover
http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html
======
Nate75Sanders
The most important paragraph if you're not interested in reading the whole
thing:

Is there an intelligent alternative to lying or telling the truth that we have
not yet examined? Yes. In our hypothetical interview, you can politely decline
to be interviewed by the FBI agent. Tell the agent that you have an attorney
and that "my attorney will be in contact with you." If the agent persists, say
that you will not discuss anything without first consulting counsel. Ask for
the agent's card, to give to your attorney. If you have not yet hired a
lawyer, tell the agent that "I want to consult a lawyer first" or that "an
attorney will be in touch with you." The absolutely essential thing to keep in
mind is to say nothing of substance about the matter under investigation. It
is preferable to do this by politely declining to be interviewed in the
absence of counsel. If the agent asks "why do you need an attorney?" or "what
do you have to hide?" do not take his bait and directly respond to such
questions. (Do not even say that you have nothing to hide.) Simply state that
you will not discuss the matter at all without first consulting counsel and
that counsel will be in touch with him. If the agent asks for a commitment
from you to speak with him after you have consulted or retained counsel, do
not oblige him. Just respond that you will consult with your attorney (or "an"
attorney) and that the attorney will be in touch. And by all means do not get
bullied or panicked into making up a phony reason for refusing to talk. You
are not obliged to explain your decision to anyone.

~~~
jpdoctor
But also note: Part of why Bernie Madoff lasted so long was that he arrived
for an SEC investigation without a lawyer. Everyone in the room thought he had
nothing to hide, so they didn't pursue him.

Whether we want to admit it or not: It's ingrained that you are inviting an
investigator to hassle you further by invoking a right to counsel. (For the
record: I think that sucks too.)

~~~
Anti-Ratfish
The Mandoff saga reflected more on investigators abilities than on Mandoff's
in my opinion. The SEC having botched 6 investigations of Mandoff so badly
that even Mandoff couldn't understand it.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/business/31sec.html?pagewa...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/business/31sec.html?pagewanted=all)

~~~
jpdoctor
> The Mandoff saga reflected more on investigators abilities than on Mandoff's
> in my opinion.

That is exactly the point. Nobody shows up with a lawyer because they want
transparency above and beyond the call of duty.

Investigators will take the need for a lawyer as having something to hide.
Arriving without a lawyer says the opposite.

But apparently several posters above don't believe so.

~~~
kelnos
I think regardless of what investigators think if you bring a lawyer, you have
a much better chance of avoiding incriminating yourself (even if you don't
believe you've done anything wrong!) if you bring one.

If you _have_ done something wrong (again, whether you know it or not), you'll
likely have a better outcome with a lawyer present from the start that
without.

But if you actually haven't done anything wrong, the lawyer can still help you
avoid accidentally telling a "lie" or getting yourself into a situation you
don't know how to handle. Even if the investigators believe you're hiding
something just because you lawyered up, if you genuinely did nothing wrong,
there's not much they can do... aside from making up evidence and framing you,
or believing unreliable witnesses telling lies about you... which could happen
in any case.

The bottom line (as stated in the article) is that you are _not_ qualified to
know whether or not you have or have not truly done anything illegal. A lawyer
will be much better able to help you make that determination and guide your
interaction with the authorities for your benefit.

------
noonespecial
Since you have nothing to hide, is it safe to talk? There can still be real
danger in speaking to a government agent in these circumstances. To begin
with, _you are not qualified to know whether you are innocent of wrongdoing
under federal criminal law_.

 _Critical system failure._ There should be red lights blinking and klaxons
wailing.

~~~
funkah
> Since you have nothing to hide, is it safe to talk?

Since you typically have nothing to gain by talking to law enforcement, why
would you? It's all downside.

~~~
tsotha
The problem is if _nobody_ talks to law enforcement, it's going to be very
difficult for society to function properly.

~~~
jxcole
Tell them: "If you really feel that way, you can always write your local
congressman to repeal 18 USC Section 1001. Until that law is removed, I really
do not have a choice."

------
hvs
This advice also applies to any situation involving law enforcement officers,
not just federal agents.

Remember, "Don't Talk to Cops": <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik>

~~~
tzs
So let's say a kid goes missing. The cops come around the area she was last
seen asking people if they saw her. They are trying to narrow down where and
when she disappeared.

Everyone else is cooperative, but I'm not.

I've now drawn attention to myself and am probably going to be in for a lot of
scrutiny, and at some risk for getting into trouble even if I had nothing to
do with the girl's disappearance.

~~~
VladRussian
>if I had nothing to do with the girl's disappearance.

care to elaborate how your talking would help then?

~~~
tzs
Telling them something like "Yes, I saw the girl ride by on her bike this
morning while I was getting the mail--I don't know the exact time but I
usually go get the mail around 10ish", or "Sorry, Officer, but I was indoors
most of the day and don't recall seeing anyone go by" or similar things helps
me because it makes me fit into the herd (the rest of the neighborhood).

Being the only person who won't make such a simple statement is practically
shouting out "INVESTIGATE ME! I SHOULD BE A MAIN SUSPECT!". At the very least
that will lead to considerable hassle and expense.

~~~
droithomme
Again, with this scenario you don't realize they have a security video of her
a mile away at 10ish. You actually saw a different girl, but since you
testified you saw her at 10 at a certain location and they have proof she
wasn't there, that proves you are lying and have something to hide. Clearly
you are the killer who has inserted himself into the investigation with the
goal of misleading them.

~~~
ellyagg
What do you mean "again"? That's _your_ scenario and it and even its
variations are rare. In the likely scenario, you stand out like a sore thumb
every single time.

Whenever this comes up on HN, I find the pattern of comments to be a little
baffling, in that very few people want to acknowledge that there are
significant downsides to this.

One that isn't mentioned is that, frankly, I don't trust cops nearly as much
as you'all seem to. I've been in dodgy situations with cops. I've been pulled
over by cops on a dark, out of the way road, and it made me nervous. There is
zero chance I'm not cooperating with him as much as I can under those
circumstances.

~~~
terinjokes
I believe that would be a good case for driving the normal speed until you get
to a well lit area. If you want, get out your phone and inform the police of
your intent.

I would never pull over on a "dark, out of the way road".

~~~
Anechoic
That could get you arrested:
<http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyId=371>

~~~
terinjokes
Might be why I've heard the advice of informing 911 of the situation. They
would tell the police officer, and everything would probably be ok.

> Mary Ann Viverette, the President of the International Association of Cheifs
> of Police [...] but she also thinks Karen was smart to follow her instincts
> in that situation.

------
praptak
The most rational strategy for a US citizen is to treat an officer like the
worst enemy, a sleazebag who will go out of their way to fuck said citizen
over? There is something deeply wrong with this country.

~~~
burgerbrain
What reason is there to assume any differently?

For that matter, what advantage is there for _you_ to assume any differently?
(tip: there is none.)

~~~
jackpirate
That's his point. In a well run society, this would not be the case.

~~~
burgerbrain
It doesn't matter how fucked up or well run the society is. So long as the
justice system is implemented anything like it currently is this will be the
case.

~~~
seanalltogether
Oddly enough I was thinking about this very thing today. IN a society, laws
are established to invoke precision, but people tend to operate on
generalities. For example, speed limits on roads have to be a precise number
so that there is an established standard, and in general a cop won't pull you
over for doing 37 mph in a 35 zone. However they technically can throw the
book at you if they want due to the precision of the law.

I don't know how this can be fixed though. At the moment we have to rely on
judges to save us from the precision of the law, and we all know that judges
can be just as corrupt/resentful/bored/petty as the rest of us.

~~~
jackpirate
I think that is not true in general. Consider, for example, the charge of
reckless driving.

I think (although have no data) that there are probably more laws requiring
human judgment than are based on strictly numerical criteria. Off the top of
my head, the various degrees of murder, perjury, hate crimes, divorce
settlements, and probate court. These all may have very specific criteria to
meet them, but there is no way an algorithm could determine innocence or
guilt.

The only numerical laws I can think of are speed limits and the lines between
grand theft / theft.

------
itsadok
what bothers me the most about these kind of articles is the underlying
assumption that I can find a good criminal lawyer when the need arises.

I'm having enough trouble finding good engineers, and that is something that I
am qualified to do, as well as able to spend several months on, under very
little pressure.

I have very little experience with lawyers, but at least for corporate
lawyers, my impression is that the average lawyer doesn't know everything
about their field, just like the average programmer doesn't know everything
about _their_ field. I wonder how many of these pitfalls are something that an
average lawyer wouldn't know to avoid.

~~~
droithomme
Here's the solution. You need at least one good lawyer in your life that you
trust. You must have an attorney that has set up your investments, your
estate, perhaps a family attorney that helped your parents. A competent,
honest attorney. These are hard to find so like with a good car mechanic when
you find one you hold on to them and treat them well.

Now when you need a specialty attorney at short notice because you've been
arrested for murder or are being sued for patent infringement you ask your
trusted attorney for a recommendation. The recommendation will go to a good
attorney and not the fly by night shyster that advertises at 2AM on the local
TV station. This attorney may be extremely expensive of course, but this is
how I have found specialty lawyers at short notice. It is critical you have a
trusted attorney that you have a relationship with though, otherwise you risk
ending up flipping through the phone book at the jail some day.

~~~
techsupporter
How would I find such a lawyer? So far, the closest I've ever come to needing
or wanting an attorney is when I bought my house. At this moment, the only
outstanding legal issue I can think of is that I need a will drawn up. Is that
sufficient for approaching a lawyer and "seeing how it goes?"

~~~
droithomme
Yes, that's a good start, if in most US states you'll want a living trust set
up in addition to a will which avoids the legal costs of probate court for
your heirs. Last time I changed towns I went through three lawyers to talk
about setting up a living trust in the new state. The first three had serious
issues. The fourth didn't and is now my basic attorney. I think batting 0.25
isn't bad all things considered, it really is like looking for a good
contractor or mechanic, most of whom are either not competent or are
dishonest. But there are always competent honest people out there if you can
find them. Competent, honest and cheap you can't get. You'll have to pick 2.
Once you have a professional you know you can trust, stick with them.

It's not possible to just pick a good one randomly the first time yourself
except when you are lucky. However, it's not any more difficult than getting a
good mechanic, which is why I keep using that analogy.

I should mention that when in a new town do not trust recommendations made by
others who are not professionals who work in the system as peers. Others will
recommend their friends or relatives, or someone that helped someone they know
in a bind once. This is very different from the high respect of an honorable
peer, which is why you want a good attorney to be recommending the specialty
lawyer and not your coworker, pastor, or waitress.

Consider the $800-$1500 you'll spend on a routine living trust a down payment
on a good lawyer.

------
dfranke
_For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records
and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other
employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you
could be criminally liable._

Is there anything in the law that makes the "pursuant to some regulatory duty"
relevant here? For example, if you wrote something on Wikipedia that you knew
was inaccurate, and years later a federal official read it and found it
somehow relevant to his job, would you theoretically be breaking this law?

~~~
droithomme
IANALOAJ, but yes, technically that would be a crime in those circumstances.
It seems unlikely you'd be prosecuted of course but who can say?

------
brianstorms
When members of congress lie when speaking to other members of congress, why
aren't they held to this law?

~~~
ctdonath
The government, and its agents, are exempt from most laws.

~~~
ims
How so? I can't think of where that would hold true, aside from certain
liability issues and other circumstances where it would be impractical or
contrary to the public interest.

~~~
rdtsc
Because the government is sovereign entity and can only be sued if it allowed
itself to be sued. In fact it is exactly the opposite, the government allows
itself to be sued in some tort cases (the liability you mention), in some
cases involving IP, and even there you don't get a trial by jury -- a federal
judge will decide if the federal govt. is guilty or not (yeah I know...).

~~~
ims
Right but we're not talking about lawsuits. We're talking about criminal law
and government agents being bound by laws.

------
maxxxxx
It saddens me that the best advice for so many situations is "Get a lawyer".
Besides the fact that they are expensive I find it frustrating that society
has become that adversarial.

~~~
dotBen
No, it's not society that has become adversarial, it is the vague and far-
reaching laws.

------
js2
Tangentially related -
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?pag...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?pagewanted=all)

 _In March 2009, still unsatisfied, Mr. Nordlander persuaded his superiors to
send an attractive female undercover agent, Ellen Burrows, to meet Mr. Engle
and see if she could get him to say something incriminating. In the course of
several flirtatious encounters, she asked him about his investments.

After acknowledging that he had been speculating in real estate during the
bubble to help support his running, he said, according to Mr. Nordlander’s
grand jury testimony, “I had a couple of good liar loans out there, you know,
which my mortgage broker didn’t mind writing down, you know, that I was making
four hundred thousand grand a year when he knew I wasn’t.”

Mr. Engle added, “Everybody was doing it because it was simply the way it was
done. That doesn’t make me proud of the fact that I am at least a small part
of the problem.”

Unbeknownst to Mr. Engle, Ms. Burrows was wearing a wire._

------
arturadib
Reminds me of the awesome lecture "Don't talk to the police" by Prof. James
Duane (J.D., Harvard Law):

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865>

------
scotto
I am so glad this article is out and I read it. It may be extreme but as
someone who has witnesses this type of thing go down, I live with the
knowledge that we are all one false accusation away from complete ruin.
EVERYTHING can be made to look malicious and calculated, and we should all, in
this context, live in fear of the government. Stay out of their crosshairs and
keep your attorney phone number close by.

------
ellyagg
This is an interesting and useful perspective, and it's not the first time
it's come up on HN, but it's unfortunate that it doesn't draw any thoughtful
criticism.

This advice is best when one is implicated or thinks there's any chance they'd
be implicated...but then anyone with the slightest awareness of the legal
system learns about this at a pretty young age. This particular advice gets
its sensationalism and counterintuitiveness by claiming that it's a universal
rule. As a universal rule, it has its downsides.

One downside is that, if everyone does this, we make it far harder for law
enforcement to do worthwhile investigations. Programmers hate when roadblocks
prevent us from iterating quickly during development. Understand, other
occupations also suffer from the same crunch on their time that we do and, as
a community that's all in this together, we benefit from their work.

Another downside is promoting an adversarial role between law enforcement and
its citizenry. This is an intangible, but I think its costs are real.

Also, you'd better be very confident that the cop(s) will simply respect your
rights under the law. I know of situations where that has not been the case.
I've seen videos where it wasn't the case. We've all read stories where it
wasn't the case.

It's easy to fantasize stories about you being wrongfully singled out or,
heaven forbid, convicted. We've also all read stories about that. Just like
everything in life, then, it's a cost/benefits analysis. But don't pretend
that one choice is all benefits and no costs.

I think the speed of modern news dissemination is warping our risk assessment
software. Things that you'd only hear of rarely are reported several times a
day now, because there's 6 billion people having bad things happen to them,
the news only cares about those bad things, and our attention for those bad
things is the same size as ever. The bad things per attention minute is rising
all the time. Partly because of this, and partly because we are the way we
are, there's a penchant by some in my geeky, libertarian community to withdraw
as citizens, and overestimate downside risk. Yes, you expose yourself to risk
by rescuing that drowning man; yes, you expose yourself to risk by finding
that lost girl's mom; yes, you expose yourself to risk by cooperating with
authorities. And, you know what, I think it should be worth it to you.

As a side note, attorneys are very familiar with the system and feel confident
about fighting it head on, and many attorneys are willing to lead a high
stress, confrontational life style. One should bear that in mind when taking
advice about how to lead one's life.

~~~
jbri
> _Another downside is promoting an adversarial role between law enforcement
> and its citizenry. This is an intangible, but I think its costs are real._

This is caused by law enforcement/state prosecutors taking an adversarial role
against citizens, not citizens responding in kind.

It's like the classical prisoner's dilemma. Yes, it would be better for all
involved if everyone chose to co-operate. But when one side persistently takes
the adversarial approach, it would be stupid for the other side not to do the
same.

> _As a side note, attorneys are very familiar with the system and feel
> confident about fighting it head on, and many attorneys are willing to lead
> a high stress, confrontational life style._

This is, in fact, why you should always talk to an attorney when it comes to
dealing with law enforcement.

------
giardini
There's a new book out about the complexity of American law. It's titled
"Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" by Harvey Silverglate

[http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp/1594035229)

------
baddox
This is an unjust law, period.

~~~
robertpateii
This law is broader than I'd prefer but I don't see how it's clearly unjust.
Do you feel the same way about perjury? If not, what's the dividing line
between the two?

~~~
fr0sty
Perjury requires you to be giving testimony under oath. This law covers any
and all conversations however casual.

Furthermore perjury requires the act to be willful and the item under question
to be of material importance to an investigation. This law requires only that
the statement be known by the speaker to be incorrect and however trivial.

------
raldi
Wait, so let's say I'm at the post office buying stamps, and I hand the
cashier a $20, and she says, "Don't you have anything smaller?" and I say no,
even though I do, because I want the change.

Could I be convicted under this law?

~~~
ww520
If the cashier is a federal agent.

~~~
raldi
I'm pretty sure all USPS employees are.

~~~
ww520
I thought USPS is a "private" company, just heavily regulated.

Edit: Never mind. It has a complicate ownership, as a US government-owned
corporation. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service>

------
Loic
The terrible point in the complete article is that basically, you need first
to assume that the authorities will screw you and not help you.

For me, the "todos in this case" are just a cure for a dead man, because if
you cannot trust the authorities anymore the basic assumptions of a working
judiciary system are broken.

------
jxcole
Related: overcriminalization. Looks like this story relates to the same
statute:

<http://www.economist.com/node/16636027>

------
lucraft
What's the situation in the UK on this whole Dont Talk to Cops thing? Does
anyone know of any equivalent legal advice?

------
buff-a
Does this apply to Congresspersons?

~~~
jxcole
Does this apply to federal agents? In other words, if an officer says
something false in a statement that is later read by another officer can they
be charged?

------
lambada
Does anyone know of a similar quality article for dealing with UK law
enforcement?

------
silverbax88
Just _reading_ this makes me nervous.

------
ShawnJG
I assume that most people who post here are smarter than the average citizen
or at least more informed. The real "spaghetti code" problem here is that this
obscure statute can easily be violated in advance of being told your rights.
And you only get ready your rights a.k.a. mirandized when you're bordering on
already in trouble with the law. Coupled with the fact that this is a federal
statute it only applies to federal agents not city or state. And since you can
lie to city or state officials up until you are under oath (which most people
know) you might be inclined to believe he can do it to federal agent until
it's too late. Which means their first encounter with a federal agent will be
a crash course in the finer points of the law. One which they will unlikely be
able to walk away from. I believe the spirit of v. Miranda is being violated
the statute, I believe the beginning of any contacts with the law enforcement
official should begin with the reading of your rights which should now include
information on statute 18 sec 1001.

------
jsdalton
As interesting as this article may be, it does not belong on HN.

~~~
marshray
People I know who have run internet startups have had contact with federal
agents on various occasions.

EDIT. This response is getting so many upvotes I'm going to clarify it a bit,
particularly for people who may be reading this from other countries:

Yes, you can start and run a business in America without ever having direct
interaction with the US Federal Government, other than mailing off your taxes.
It's not like every business one day gets a visit from the KGB and they tell
you to do things a certain way (or else).

Nevertheless, if you are for example an ISP or provide messaging, as you grow
big enough it's probably a matter of time before you'll end up getting a
subscriber who's being investigated. You may have a former employee that goes
on to apply for some sort of special security clearance and they follow up on
his background (or you go out of your way to hire a talented hacker with a
mysterious background). You may simply meet such agents due to ordinary shared
interests, like say at a trade show or a conference. Of course, you could also
meet them when they are also actually investigating something with the aim of
prosecuting people.

I don't know which of these situations fall under the law described in the
article, possibly all of them do.

~~~
BrandonM
_> if you are for example an ISP or provide messaging, as you grow big enough
it's probably a matter of time before you'll end up getting a subscriber who's
being investigated_

That is not what Hacker News is for. If your company is that big, you should
have counsel on retainer, and they should be advising you of the proper
behavior in the face of potential federal investigation. Moreover, it's our
job as American citizens to be aware of our legal exposure and to know the
proper way to proceed. It's a shame that this is not taught in our high school
Government courses.

It is not the role of Hacker News to educate us on these issues. There are
other sites for that. You can tell by the quality of the comment thread that
it's not something that appeals to "our inner hacker." An article is not HN
material simply by appealing to some (or even a majority) of the members here;
it must satisfy other criteria, and this one does not.

