

How I almost got a Criminal Record - sathyabhat
http://blog.superuser.com/2011/06/17/how-i-almost-got-a-criminal-record/

======
mirkules
My very first thought was do NOT go to the police station without a lawyer.
Nothing good can come out of talking to the police (or anyone else) without
legal counsel when you are the accused.

This video lecture by officer George Bruch really opened my eyes:

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912#>

~~~
ars
Wrong, as this very article proves.

That advice is only good if you are _actually_ guilty (or if you get
arrested).

By going to the police and cooperating, they ended up his side, and worked to
figure out who the real person was.

If he has gone all lawyered up and refused to talk to them he would have
essentially confirmed everything that they assumed they already knew. They
would have arrested him, and only by the actual trial would the truth come
out.

But that would not change the past, and he would have still spent time in
jail.

If you are innocent cooperate as much as you possibly can - up until you are
arrested. Once you are arrested, then, and only then, is it time to get a
lawyer. Because if you are arrested then they think you are guilty and
cooperating is not going to change their mind.

~~~
mirkules
This article didn't prove anything. The author got lucky that he ran into a
legal department that found their own error.

"If he has gone all lawyered up and refused to talk to them he would have
essentially confirmed everything that they assumed they already knew. They
would have arrested him, and only by the actual trial would the truth come
out."

Obtaining a lawyer does not in any way imply guilt - you are exercising your
right to an attorney and proper process of law. Watch the video.

"If you are innocent cooperate as much as you possibly can - up until you are
arrested. Once you are arrested, then, and only then, is it time to get a
lawyer. Because if you are arrested then they think you are guilty and
cooperating is not going to change their mind."

No. If you are _accused_ you should get a lawyer. A seemingly innocent
statement can be completely taken out of context, again watch the video. Also,
you are being foolish if you think you can change an officer's mind about
arresting you by talking to him. I'll say it again, whether you are guilty or
not, the only words out of your mouth when you are accused of a crime should
be "I'd like to speak with a lawyer"

~~~
ars
Like the poster above you, you are confusing the court and the cops.

> Obtaining a lawyer does not in any way imply guilt

To the court. But to the cops it most definitely does imply guilt. After
arrest it's worth it - they already think you are guilty. But before arrest
it's not.

> whether you are guilty or not, the only words out of your mouth when you are
> accused of a crime should be "I'd like to speak with a lawyer"

That will help you in court, but doing that guarantees arrest. You may be
released later, but I'd prefer to avoid the arrest in the first place.

~~~
matwood
_To the court. But to the cops it most definitely does imply guilt._

Wow, horrible advice. Getting a lawyer tells the cops that you're not an idiot
and they better do things correctly. Remember the whole reason the police are
talking to you is to gather evidence. And who cares what the police think
about a lawyer. No arrest warrant has been granted because someone got a
lawyer.

 _After arrest it's worth it - they already think you are guilty. But before
arrest it's not._

After an arrest while not too late, is much later than you should have gotten
a lawyer. Getting a lawyer right away would likely have prevented any arrest
unless there is actual real evidence against you. Skipping the lawyer means
the police (profesional interrogators) get to talk to you for hours looking
for anything incriminating. Not a good idea, since even an innocent person
will have inconsistencies in any story told over and over and doubly so with
someone trying to 'catch' them.

So please stop giving this horrible advice about not getting a lawyer.
Remember, anytime the police are speaking to you they are gathering evidence
and view you as a criminal. NEVER speak to the police without a lawyer.

~~~
powertower
I was watching "First 48 Hours" (show following real detectives) and when a
suspect came in with a lawyer one time, the cops said on camera that this is a
huge red flag for them. I'm assuming a red flag would mean they now think
you're good for the crime and they should start connecting the dots right to
you.

~~~
matwood
Of course the cops on a TV show are going to say that. They know that many
cases hinge on what a defendant says to them prior to getting a lawyer, and
often that the defendant is his/her own worst witness. If no one spoke to the
police without a lawyer present it makes the cops job much harder (as it
should be) and prevents them from tricking people into self incrimination
and/or flat out lying.

Consider this. Many police interviews are still not video taped. If you and a
cop have a discussion by yourselves and what was said comes into question who
will the prosecutor, judge and jury believe? That reason alone means you
always want a 3rd party present.

If you are innocent and don't speak to he police without a lawyer then fine,
let them try to connect the dots.

------
dermatthias
Same thing happend to a german professor in 2008, where they also accidentialy
swapped IP numbers. The accusation was child pornography, the news got hold of
it and, of course, his reputation was deeply damaged.

Original german article: [http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Unschuldig-unter-
Verdacht-291...](http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Unschuldig-unter-
Verdacht-291506.html)

and translation:
[http://translate.google.de/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl...](http://translate.google.de/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fct%2Fartikel%2FUnschuldig-
unter-Verdacht-291506.html)

------
ars
Anyone else impressed that the police are actually taking this kind of thing
seriously? How many stories do you read about "xx got laptop stolen and police
won't do anything" - here it's hacking, and police got involved.

~~~
CWIZO
Here in Slovenia they tend to investigate cases like this. I'm usually on the
"give us the IP of this user" side of things (we run a social network page),
so I usually don't know how things get resolved (and how long it takes if they
do).

------
wladimir
Ouch. That'd be a very Kafkaesque situation to be in. You know you didn't do
anything, but they claim to have your IP in the offending logs. Luckily, it
sorted itself out.

This is really scary. With the little the police knows about IT, there's no
way you could prove yourself innocent... even in the case of an accident like
this.

I don't even want to think about cases where hackers would plant an IP address
in the logs on purpose to get someone into jail.

------
younata
There are places where it's a criminal offense to go deface some person's
facebook?

First reaction: AWESOME. I won't see any spam about that in the feed (which I
rarely view anyway).

Second thought: This cannot end well. It's so easy to spoof stuff that a lot
of innocent people will have to deal with similar situations before the law
gets repealed (if it gets repealed, most likely it'd just stop being
enforced).

Unfortunately, most people would never think about how bad it could end, just
about how people won't be annoying them on facebook.

~~~
pmjordan
_There are places where it's a criminal offense to go deface some person's
facebook?_

I think you'll find that to be the case anywhere that has laws about "computer
crimes" - the laws are usually phrased as gaining access to or manipulating
systems or data for which you have no authorisation.

------
harshpotatoes
When I began reading the story, I was worried it would be about a NAT problem
(since it involved his phone).

While I'm glad this guy got his situation cleared so easily, I wonder how you
would defend yourself in this situation. Police ask telecom, "who has this
address?" Telecom says: "this person has that address" (while failing to
mention who else has that address). How would you refute such charges, since
it would be true that you did have that ip address in this hypothetical
situation?

------
Shenglong
How did they get the police to actually act over a facebook account hack?
Someone deleted a good 30,000 entries on my mySQL DB - I'd like to press
charges for that.

------
pavel_lishin
> So, should you ever get into a situation where you are wrongfully suspected,
> make sure to let people know that there is a possibility of an error, even
> if they tell you otherwise.

Isn't this sort of obvious? If I'm charged with a crime I know I didn't
commit, of course I'm going to tell them there's been a mistake.

~~~
dagw
Then again if I'm charged with a crime I know I did commit, I'd probably also
tell them that there's been a mistake.

