Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The justice system is, of course, still in the business of catching and punishing murderers, thieves and such. But, with the decline in crime since the early '90s, this side of their activity is becoming increasingly supplemented by a different game altogether: enforcing a growing set of complex laws against practically everything [1]. There is a lot of prosecutorial discretion in choosing which of these laws to enforce and the degree to which to enforce them. With prosecutors often competing against each other in the number and severity of convictions secured, it's hardly surprising that they've arrived at the age-old algorithm used by street muggers: pick the most likely victim, and go all in. A guy like Aleynikov was thus ideally suited as a prosecution target: unlikely to excite much sympathy from a jury with his heavy accent and un-American looks; clueless about lawyers and confessions; cooperative enough to sign statements that were re-formulated by investigators to look bad in court; high-tech enough to mark novel and impressive prosecutorial checkboxes. They consequently made sure to squeeze him for all he had.

So, while I think the often repeated advice about never talking to the police sometimes goes too far (it's probably good to have a friendly relation with the neighborhood cop, and by all means please help in apprehending murderers and burglars if you safely can), it's pretty much dead-on as soon as you step into enforcement la-la land:

- Don't consent to any searches.

- Don't say anything without a lawyer.

- Put great effort into finding a competent lawyer.

- Don't say anything your lawyer hasn't approved.

Beyond refusing help to efforts to prosecute you, such steps will clearly mark you as a non-victim. (Same advice as applies when you have to pass through a mugging-prone area.) This will cause a lot less effort towards pushing through with your case. After all, there are other suckers born every minute.

[1] http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/19/were-all-felons-now



Once targeted by something like this, how does one go about finding a competent lawyer? How do I evaluate their competency?


look at their boy of work, their specialty, their work history, and then sit down and talk with them they should be able to quickly start asking questions about relevant specifics


Always ask for immunity or ask them repeatedly to rephrase their questions as a vehicle of supporting a useless conversation. Until they bring papers for you to sign immunity, tell them that you do not understand and tell them to explain it differenty because you do not understand.

You can be held for 24 hours than you have to be released. After you are released make sure to find strongly worded complaint that whoever you dealt with overstepped their boundaries. Scan then submit it. Put up a scan on your website and link all relevant resources that have been used to harass you and jail you for that period of time. Add diquis or some other commenting service and roll with it.


Most importantly, don't say anything that might incriminate you. Even if they have you on video doing it with hundreds of witnesses and DNA evidence.


That's the whole point of not talking unless a lawyer is present (and you give them a chance to vet your speech). You have very little chance of knowing what is incriminating, and this is by design.

Their job is to put away criminals. In the case where there is not really a crime, their training, which is meant to get confessions from actual criminals, ends up pulling seeming confessions to nonexistent crimes from innocent people. After that happens, you are screwed.


Even in cases of "actual" crime, the system is quite content to put away innocents.


Note that even denials, e.g., "I have no idea of what you're talking about", can result in charges, if they're provably false (e.g., there's a record you do know what they're talking about -- email, twitter, writings, conversations, etc.). These typically lead to various "obstruction" charges.

Simply refuse to comment.


Don't say anything. At all. Nothing you say will help your circumstances, but it can hurt you.


Actually, according to the supreme court, you have to verbally invoke your right to remain silent. If you dont, and they harass you for 16 hours and you say anything, its fair game. If you do, and they opt to keep harassing you, its not.


I know what you are getting at, but that recent SCOTUS decision didn't implicitly say that. However, it did make it clear that you can't talk with police (thus waiving your right), refuse to answer a question, and then answer other questions. In essence, it's not the police's job to figure out whether or not you're invoking your right.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: