Lying to LE

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ArtP

Member
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
790
Location
USA
I'm in CA. I'm curious about my rights if questioned by LE and if lying is a crime. I do know LE is not bound to be truthful with their subjects.

I don't plan to lie and I don't plan to have an encounter where I might consider lying, but a friend of mine was snared in a fish & game checkpoint and upon answering their questions he and his vehicle were forcibly searched without probable cause (as I see it), simply because he was deemed to be taking part in an activity (hunting). This search procedure was not unlike a DUI checkpoint. He was camping and legally armed, and because he was armed he was deemed to be hunting and required to submit to the search. I'm not sure of the nature of force or deception used to search.

Unfortunately I do not feel confident enough to look up the specific state and/or federal laws all by my lonesome. I have heard, but not from a source I trust, that lying to a federal officer is a crime, but state officials are not afforded the same protection (luxury) against being lied to.

Edit: I'd like to make it really clear that I understand the right to remain silent. If the thread is read through, questions & answers surface about silence and the consequences of remaining so. Ultimately, the question is about the legality of lying to law enforcement, whether that is wise or not, or consequences suffered by personally offending the questioning officer with a lie isn't up for discussion here.
 
Last edited:
Odds are if you lie to an LEO you'll get nailed with SOMETHING.

A quick google search turned this up: 148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

ETA: http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/penalco/penco148.htm

Best advice to be tends to be don't lie to an officer, ever, it really can't end well. You don't have to talk to them either really, but you shouldn't lie to them.
 
That begs the question, when forced to stop at a checkpoint, if you can invoke your right to silence? Of course that's going to lead to being isolated for further questioning, then what? A stand off?

Here I am isolated at your checkpoint but I refuse to answer any questions.

I do understand that cooperation in these matters goes a long way to be allowed to move on. But I'm not sure I'd like to give up my rights in the name of ease for those involved. I'd like to be the judge of that and decide for my own self.
 
without probable cause
Click to expand...
Don't need PC to search a vehicle. PC has a very specific definition under the law. All that is needed is Reasonable Suspicion. Vastly different standards.
deemed to be hunting and required to submit to the search.
Click to expand...
DOW laws are fairly broad when it comes to searches during hunting season. Or at least they can be.
but state officials are not afforded the same powers.
Click to expand...
Guess again, many states have a providing or giving false information statutes.

You don't have to talk to them either really, but you shouldn't lie to them.
Click to expand...
This. If they ask to search you have the right to say know. 90% of the time you will be on your way. If they really have something they can impound the vehicle until such time as a search warrant can be approved. But they are only going to do that if they have a really good reason. Also, if something is in plain view then they can search based on that.
 
Gus McCrae said:
Don't need PC to search a vehicle. PC has a very specific definition under the law. All that is needed is Reasonable Suspicion. Vastly different standards.
Click to expand...

From what I understand regarding this, the immediate area the driver has access to can be searched, but containers, trunks, pickup beds and areas inaccessible require probably cause or a warrant.
 
From what I understand regarding this, the immediate area the driver has access to can be searched, but containers, trunks, pickup beds and areas inaccessible require probably cause or a warrant.
Click to expand...
Not sure about CA as I only worked in CO but for the most part that is correct. Anything that is locked needs permission or a warrant. And again if it was done in the woods during hunting season the DOW may have more latitude as far as what they can search and what they need in order to execute a search.
 
Gus McCrae said:
DOW laws are fairly broad when it comes to searches during hunting season. Or at least they can be.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting DFG, DOW or DNR have broader powers than afforded ordinary LE? If so, please explain.

I would think ordinary LE would use every power available up to the limits of the BOR.
 
Are you suggesting DFG, DOW or DNR have broader powers than afforded ordinary LE? If so, please explain.
Click to expand...
Much of it has to do with "Hunting Season". If you are carrying a firearm you can be stopped and asked to present your tag. If you do not have one you are in serious trouble. If you are carrying but not hunting you can still be stopped and searched simply because it is "Hunting Season". Any other time of the year it would not matter.

Lying to LE.
Click to expand...
Bad idea. Giving false information will get you at the very least a ticket and depending on what you lie about you could very easily end up in jail.
 
Gus, if we can go back to my original question, it had to do with checkpoints and no firearm in view to an officer walking up to the vehicle. I do get, that once a tool used to hunt in a hunting area is discovered or seen, then the officer can search for poaching.

To summarize my question:

I understand LE will find lying as a reason to bust out the ticket book or cuffs if an officer can find a reason beyond lying. But is it a crime in itself? If you don't know the answer, just say so.

Example: you have an otherwise legal firearm in your vehicle, but you lie about it when asked about its possession. Is lying about a legal possession a punishable offense by itself when no other offenses are observed? I get that officers can get creative, let's leave that out of the discussion.
 
Mum is the word. Don't give them any ammunition, one way or the other. You cannot be convicted of a crime only because you are silent.


Note that I said convicted, not charged. They can throw whatever they want at you, it's up to the prosecutor to make it stick in court. DWI/DUI racket is much like this. Limit 0.08, and you blow 0.04? Book 'em, Danno!
 
ArtP said:
I'm curious about my rights if questioned by LE and if lying is a crime.
Click to expand...
I'm sure this is something that varies state to state. The best answer is probably something along the lines of, "it depends."

In AZ, for example, I know that lying to an LEO about carrying a deadly weapon (if he asks whether you are or not) is a crime - Misconduct Involving Weapons. MIW has a multiple levels of severity, depending in which way it is committed - and its a pretty lengthy code. However, committing MIW by lying to an officer about carrying a weapon is a class 1 misdemeanor.

Personally, I wouldn't bank on being legally allowed to lie to an LEO simply based on his level of jurisdiction (Fed, vs CHP, vs sheriff, vs city cop). Your best bet is to either be honest, or say nothing unless you have an attorney present (though this isn't always an option, nor is it always a right). You need to know what your rights are - that's your responsibility.
 
I'm not banking on anything. It's why I asked the question. (no sarcasm, really)

I can just see rolling up to a checkpoint and the polite officer asking his rehearsed questions to be met with my blank stare and then me further refusing questions. It's a recipe for disaster, but so is giving up my rights. Are we all to give up our rights in favor of being "normal" and nice?

I wouldn't think one would be protected by a state right, more like a federal right, which is why I asked in a national forum.

To scrutinize AZ law; is possession of a firearm in a locked container considered a deadly weapon? Of course it can be, but in a locked state, it's only a box.
 
BikerRN said:
Why lie and make trouble for yourself?

Use the rights afforded you under the BOR and remain silent. More folks talk themselves in to incarceration than any other way.

BikerRN
Click to expand...

Did you read the thread?
 
ArtP said:
I can just see rolling up to a checkpoint and the polite officer asking his rehearsed questions to be met with my blank stare and then me further refusing questions. It's a recipe for disaster, but so is giving up my rights. Are we all to give up our rights in favor of being "normal" and nice?
Click to expand...
What rights would you be giving up by answering questions an LEO might ask you?

ArtP said:
To scrutinize AZ law; is possession of a firearm in a locked container considered a deadly weapon? Of course it can be, but in a locked state, it's only a box.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, to be totally honest. I would think it's still considered a weapon, but I could be wrong. Based on the logic here (and I'm not trying to be a jerk), one could rationalize that a sheathed knife is nothing more than a piece of leather; or a holstered handgun is just a piece of Kydex.
 
Your first question: the same rights anyone gives up by answering questions at any time. I don't hear many people advocating talking to the cops. There might be a time and place, but it's usually a bad idea. Little to gain and everything to lose.

Second: sheathed or holstered is a threat, locked up is not. I know you weren't saying anything about this but your guess, so let's leave it alone.

Back to your first question (and see my PM). Generally speaking, cops ask people to talk when they want a confession. Sometimes they want to clear a SUSPECT, but more times than not, they're after confession. In the case of the checkpoint, my answers are a legal reason to be be set aside and have my entire vehicle and person searched and it's not because they want to remind me what I forgot to bring on my trip, now is it? - they're looking to nail me. It's why I asked if one could lie. I don't want to get searched for them to find that I have a seven inch fillet knife in my camping gear and it's illegal, or not. I don't want to find out.

I don't want to offer a reason to be bullied, I don't want a reason to find my innocence broke the law and I don't want trouble.

Perhaps the most important is, I don't want to be subject for no cause other than my presence. I don't deserve it and neither does anyone else.

If we're to start -- carte blanc -- submitting to unquestioned authority then we may as well revert to the authority of previous kings. If we're to remain subject to democracy as we define it, then we ought to learn how it works for our own benefit.
 
Last edited:
ArtP said:
[By answering questions, one gives up] ...The same rights anyone gives up by answering questions at any time. I don't hear many people advocating talking to the cops.
Click to expand...
It was a rhetorical question. You aren't necessarily giving up any right by simply answering questions. You may give up a right, if you're actually placed under arrest and Mirandized, but void your right to silence. You may also give up your right to self-incrimination. The problem is, an officer is only legally required to read a person his rights if the person is either under arrest, or being questioned as a suspect for a crime. Other than in those two situations, you don't necessarily have the right to remain silent, and you don't necessarily have the right to have an attorney present while you're being questioned. Now, if you still insist on not answering questions, you may be placed under arrest, and then you'll gain both of the rights you wanted in the first place.

ArtP said:
In the case of the checkpoint, my answers are a legal reason to be be set aside and have my entire vehicle and person searched and it's not because they want to remind me what I forgot to bring on my trip, now is it? - they're looking to nail me.
Click to expand...
They may be looking to nail you, but checkpoint stops don't give an officer the legal right to search you or your vehicle. Any knowledge or probable cause gained during the checkpoint stop may be enough for him to obtain a search warrant, and he may choose to arrest you, but he can't legally search either your person or your vehicle without having your express permission, or a search warrant. He could pull you over, and you could be sitting there smoking a joint or chugging a beer and he still couldn't legally search your vehicle. And remember that being placed under arrest isn't a cut-and-dry way for an LEO to "punish" a civilian who isn't doing what that LEO wants. Without a legitimate reason to make the arrest, an LEO opens himself and his department up for a lawsuit - one you're very likely to win.

ArtP said:
It's why I asked if one could lie. I don't want to get searched for them to find that I have a seven inch fillet knife in my camping gear and it's illegal, or not. I don't want to find out.
Click to expand...
See my previous response. He needs either your permission, or a search warrant before searching you or your vehicle. Without probable cause of you having committed a crime, an officer can't even get that warrant. And you certainly aren't required to give him permission to search. I wouldn't. Even if you do, you're going to be standing there watching during the whole thing, and you have the legal right to stop that search at any time.

ArtP said:
If we're to remain subject to democracy as we define it, then we ought to learn how it works for our own benefit.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree. It's to each man's benefit to learn the laws of his state. IMO, when dealing with LEOs, civilians have enough rights that lying need not be part of the game plan. It's just a matter of knowing what your rights are, and being confident enough that you aren't intimidated or otherwise swayed out of using those rights.
 
Last edited:
Hello, Art. I live next door in Nevada, so I can only answer for our laws. I can't answer for California law, but I'll offer our perspective on the chance that it may help illuminate your querry. I hope it helps.


NRS 197 says you cannot obstruct a public officer. Obstruct has three definitions, one of which is: "2. willfully making an untrue, misleading or exaggerated statement to a public officer". So lying is against the law, but this applies only when you are REQUIRED BY LAW to give an answer to a question. Unless, of course, you volunteer information. Then you better not lie.

Meanwhile, NRS 171 says, "Any person detained [by a police officer] shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer."

So lying is an offense under Nevada law. But you can identify yourself and then play dumb on everything else, with the support of state law. How do you play dumb? I don't know, but if you open your mouth you take the risk.

General advice is to answer questions truthfully, but clearly advise the public officer that you do NOT give permission to search. That narrows his/her actions significantly.


I have no idea how California works, but when you examine its laws in the minutiae you may find similar provisions.
 
Bobson,

I was never asking about, nor talking about, when a person is read or can invoke his rights. Neither was I asking about when a suspect legally needs to be read "Miranda".

"They may be looking to nail you, but checkpoint stops don't give an officer the legal right to search you or your vehicle. Any knowledge or probable cause gained during the checkpoint stop may be enough for him to obtain a search warrant, and he may choose to arrest you, but he can't legally search either your person or your vehicle without having your express permission, or a search warrant. He could pull you over, and you could be sitting there smoking a joint or chugging a beer and he still couldn't legally search your vehicle."

Welp, not according to what I have been told and what others have said earlier in this thread.

This hasn't been answered and I hope it will tomorrow. But, when game is considered, if I understand previous posts -- and I could be wrong -- somehow game wardens are allowed to ignore probable cause and start pulling people over and searching beyond what ordinary cops do.

This is news to me and confusing to me. I asked why all LE wouldn't excersize their legal right to go as far as they can, and why game wardens seem to be able to go further. However, that question has not been answered.
 
I'm not an expert on game wardens and won't pretend to be. I do know they're sworn peace officers, and are therefore required to obey the same rules and regulations regarding searches as other LEOs.

Whether they actually do is another question entirely. It may be as simple as people not realizing that game wardens are required to abide by the same rules, and some wardens exploiting that. The only exception as I understand it, is that a warden can request to see the day's catch (if regarding fishing), or the harvested game in a hunting situation; and the fisher/hunter is required to display it. Aside from that, the warden doesn't have the right to perform a search of the fisherman/hunter's vehicle, boat, or ATV to search for anything else... without a warrant or permission, of course.
 
why would you give up your constitutional rights for the perceived rights of a law officer? rights is rights. you want to screw with my rights, do it right.:evil:
 
Ants, you indeed have illuminate the question. I thank you for reading and responding. As of now, your answer makes the most sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Answering LE's 'questions' at a traffic stop
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
127
Views
19K
Art Eatman
A
D
  • Locked
No guns and the police
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Thernlund
T
R
  • Locked
Lie detectors may be next step in airline security
2
Replies
33
Views
844
ZenMasterJG
Z
A
  • Locked
"You match the description of two burglers..." As reason to request a consent search.
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
Deavis
D
D
  • Locked
Why does it matter whether or not the gubmint lies?
Replies
4
Views
395
BHPshooter
B
Back
Top