Re:As a police officer (Score 1)

The first thing I learned when I started interacting with people after I became a police officer is that EVERYONE lies to the cops. If people told me the truth, I wouldn't have to use trickery and deceit. People lie for lots of reasons, but almost everyone does it. I learned really quickly not to trust anyone -- even victims are often filing false reports for personal gain.

"WHAT!?! IANAL, and I don't deal with the police on a regular basis, but I can't imagine that threatening a loved one and lying in the manner described above could be construed as anything but coersion. And you clearly are making an implied threat and promise in the above scenario - give up the name or the old man goes to the clink. Especially when there is no legal basis for taking the man to jail for not giving up his name. I'd hope a half-decent lawyer could get the case thrown out based on this kind of information gathering - but maybe I'm just ignorant."

Coercion for giving a name? You have a right against self-incrimination, which is why you are read your Miranda rights (to remain silent, etc) before questioning about crimes. Daughter has nothing to lose -- she is not going to incriminate herself in any way. NOR is she going to incriminate her father. A NAME IS NOT INCRIMINATING, according to any and every case law and every statute that I know of. I have never heard of charging someone with a crime because of their name. [Unless your name is Bill Gates, then maybe you should be! ;) ] They may have committed a crime, but the name is not the crime. Of course the daughter can choose not to say anything and call my bluff. Then dad goes free, without knowing who he is.

Also understand that this would not be my first choice, obviously. I'm not going straight to trying to trick the daughter. I was really just offering that as a last resort. I doubt that in this case that would have been necessary.

I consider this along the same lines as having two murder accomplices in seperate interrogations, and telling one that the other spilled the beans. Sure its a trick, but it works and they wouldn't talk otherwise. Obviously in that example the suspects would have been fully advised of their rights before questioning.

Having outstanding warrants is NOT testifying against yourself. Having a warrant means that you have been accused of a crime -- you then can choose not to testify -- and you have a right to confront your accussers and ask questions of them in court. Checking a name for warrants really in no way says anything about the person being checked - it is standard procedure that most officers just to make sure. Even if I don't think that the 65 year old grandma that I just pulled over is likely to have a warrant, I gotta check.

How would it look if grandma had an open warrant for terrorist activity and went on to bomb something. Then I'm REALLY in a jam for not having checked her and it makes it look like officers aren't doing their jobs.

I agree with you that you have rights and I respect them. If you or anyone else wants to make their contact with me last longer by clamming up and not saying ANYTHING, that's fine. I get paid either way, and I do the best job I can either way.

BTW, I'm loving this thread. You guys are great for asking questions and making reasonable statements and expressing in a reasonable way!