What Happens If You Choose Not to Report a Crime to the Police

[HardTime]

My question involves police conduct in the State of: Nevada

So I have been watching lots of youtube videos on so called lawyers who say that you should never talk to the police, and that the best thing you can do is to always stay silent until charged, and then ask for a lawyer.

But what happens when you need to call the police to report say, "Someone you stabbed with a knife who broke into your home and tried to hurt you"? Is it legal to not call the police? Would you be more likely to be called if the perpetrator claimed he was a friend and you attacked him and you never called the police? I imagine that you have to say something, but what something is that? How much do you disclose before you stay silent? This is a general question and should not be thought of with completely within the example I gave.


Note: If I posted in the wrong thread, sorry.

[cdwjava]

My question involves police conduct in the State of: Nevada

So I have been watching lots of youtube videos on so called lawyers who say that you should never talk to the police, and that the best thing you can do is to always stay silent until charged, and then ask for a lawyer.

If you are a suspect of a crime, that may well be the best advice you can be given.

But what happens when you need to call the police to report say, "Someone you stabbed with a knife who broke into your home and tried to hurt you"? Is it legal to not call the police?

If you do NOT call the police, and he shows up in an E.R. saying that you stabbed him, you may well lose the initiative in a self defense claim and suddenly be considered an attacker. But, you are probably not legally required to call the police in that situation.

Would you be more likely to be called if the perpetrator claimed he was a friend and you attacked him and you never called the police?

Probably.

I imagine that you have to say something, but what something is that? How much do you disclose before you stay silent? This is a general question and should not be thought of with completely within the example I gave.

That depends entirely on the situation.

Many issues can be resolved at the scene when people speak up. If only one person talks, then the police may be left with only one course of action. Let's say the guy breaks in and you stab him. Let's say he goes away and calls the cops from the hospital and says that you stabbed him for no good reason (or, he comes up with a reason). Now, the cops come to your place and you "lawyer up." Now, the cops have a guy with stab wounds, they have a guy saying YOU stabbed him, and they have no other statement or evidence to indicate otherwise ... guess what? You're probably gonna be wearing silver bracelets. Now, if you at least provided a minimal statement indicating that you were minding your own business, this guy forced open the front door and you picked up the steak knife next to your dinner plate and stabbed him as he rushed you, the situation changes and the odds of your going to jail are diminished. Some might say you might still go to jail, and that might be correct. But, if you said nothing in the scenario as I laid out your chances of being booked for a violent felony are high ... less so in the latter. Plus, you set up that self defense argument for later without seeming like it was concocted a couple of months later after talking to an attorney. AND, it gives the police the opportunity to inspect the crime scene for evidence consistent with your account of the story! If you clammed up, they may believe the crime scene was in the front yard and might never look for the forced door or the blood in the living room where the stabbing actually took place, because they may not KNOW that. And if you told them later, this evidence becomes potentially less credible.

There are a number of schools of thought on the issue. From my perspective as the investigating officer, I want to know what happened. If I do not know, I may have to act on a limited set of information and that can (and occasionally, DOES) result in the wrong person being arrested or charged.

Call the ambulance. If you don't want to press charges you don't have to & then no need to talk to the police.

When the victim goes to the hospital the doctors WILL call the police. Unless the guy who has been stabbed clams up, the police will be investigating ... heck, even if he doesn't clam up, the cops will go to where the ambulance got him, interview anyone who heard him speak about what happened, and they will look into it anyway.

[cdwjava]

Yup. That's why unless the OP wants to press charges he should keep his mouth shut. Initiative of saying its self defense? This defense does not exist until plead in court really so there is no need to tell the cops it was self defense. Cops come over and want to talk to you? Tell them no thanks and close the door. If they have enough evidence to arrest you THEY WILL regardless of what you tell them. And if they don't, your yapping away is not going to improve their not having enough evidence will it?

And if they are there for a felony ADW, and they have only one statement, they will make the arrest.

I have investigated multitudes of cases where a statement by the involved parties led to no charges or to the discovery of exculpatory evidence. Saying, "No thanks," and TRYING to shut the door ain't gonna avail much except an arrest. And if all they have is a stabbing "victim" claim he was brutally attacked, the odds are high the homeowner will be going to jail that night. And, without some statement there will be no discovery of the crime scene that could verify the later claim of self defense, the allegation may very well fall on deaf ears to a jury (if it can be raised at all).

It is not a foregone conclusion that telling the truth is going to end up with you getting arrested or charged with a crime. NOT talking when you have the opportunity to provide exculpatory information or evidence that will be lost if you shut up can be far more damaging.

We don't get paid by the arrest. We get paid to gather facts. And even in the field, self defense can result in no arrest. Been there, done that. One that comes to mind is a resident who shot an intruder carrying a knife coming through his window. Had he not told us what happened, and had we not been able to corroborate his account by the blood splatter and the broken window frame at the scene, he likely would have gone to jail for ADW or attempted murder. But, because he admitted what happened, the other guy went to jail ... by way of the CCU at the hospital.

Depending on the facts, it might be wise to shut up. But, if it is as clear as the OP's scenario seems to be, then it's probably best to speak up. Shutting up would only work if the guy in the hospital clams up and says nothing, the neighbors saw nothing, and there is nothing anywhere to suggest where anything happened or who was involved. yes, that happens ... but it's usually not going to break that way.

I fell on my steak knife, 18 times...man am I clumsy or what?

And, because that would be patently false, they won't buy it and they will look into it anyway. Why? because there may be a body somewhere ... perhaps the guy in the hospital was the winner of the fight and he managed to kill someone else. The cops ARE going to try and find out where the stabbing happened and what transpired.

[cdwjava]

You get paid to gather facts to SUPPORT A CONVICTION not to clear people of crimes.

Not true at all. I get paid to gather facts. In fact, if I intentionally exclude exculpatory evidence, statements, etc., I can lose my job and even be prosecuted.

My job is NOT to get convictions.

See? The blood splatter was there regardless of if he talked or not. The homeowner does not have to assist the police in their investigation -- they are investigating HIM (and maybe others) for an arrest.

There could have been an alternative explanation ... like, he was fleeing. Or, something else. The point being that in this and many other instances people did NOT go too jail and did NOT get charged when their stories were sufficiently truthful so as to allow us to exercise discretion and not hook them up.

It is a very frustrating thing indeed to have to arrest someone that you believe is not guilty of a crime because they shut up. When you have only one account to go by, you are often left with few alternatives.

Always best, 100% of time, never talk to the police.

I disagree. NOT 100% of the time. Perhaps most the time, but not ALL the time. Certainly, if you are guilty you want to shut up ... and often if the facts are gray. But, if they are clear then talking can save you a ride to jail and may even save you thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and the embarrassment of a criminal charge.

Heck JW, you may have figured it out w/o the homeowner telling you anything

Who's JW?

Yeah, maybe ... but it all depends on the circumstances. And even if we had found the scene (which we probably would have) his statement helped establish the facts and permitted him to walk. Had he clammed up, he WOULD have gone to jail because all we would have had was a guy with a gunshot claiming he was shot for no reason at a friend's apartment. And had the shooter NOT talked, we almost certainly would NOT have located the knife.

[cdwjava]

I recently had a cop come to my door asking ? about a crime that ocurred nearby (spray painted garage) ... I refused to answer any questions and he accused me ... I just told him "think what you want" & then closed the door on him. He rang and rang that bell -- and then left. Its unfortunate but the law does not reward people who talk to cops...never.

And, similarly, never ever ever let a cop into your home for ANY reason.

What a great neighbor you are. Believe what you will, but most people are a little better than that. Thank goodness.

I only hope that your neighbors are better than you are if you or yours are victims of a crime one day. There is nothing more frustrating to a victim than to have people who know something shut up for some petty reason of their own.

[HardTime]

I disagree. NOT 100% of the time. Perhaps most the time, but not ALL the time. Certainly, if you are guilty you want to shut up ... and often if the facts are gray. But, if they are clear then talking can save you a ride to jail and may even save you thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and the embarrassment of a criminal charge.

Thank you for answering my other question about the legality of having to call the police in the first place.

The next part of the argument is somewhat grey, but I'll play. If there are no witness other than me and the other guy, how can you say that is clear? And really I was hoping that you guys would bring up examples(on record) of people wrongly convicted, because they chose to stay silent until charges were pressed and a lawyer was called to give an official defense. I can't make an informed choice here. But thanks for every ones input.

[cdwjava]

Thank you for answering my other question about the legality of having to call the police in the first place.

The next part of the argument is somewhat grey, but I'll play. If there are no witness other than me and the other guy, how can you say that is clear?

I didn't. But, the facts present at the scene, coupled with the statements of the involved parties and witnesses, can each serve to build a picture of the truth. If the statements made by one party are inconsistent with the facts (injuries, scene, damage, etc.) then it tends to flesh out rather quickly.

If you have only one statement, and no facts or statements to contradict that statement, then the police - and likely the prosecutor - may have little more to go on.

And really I was hoping that you guys would bring up examples(on record) of people wrongly convicted, because they chose to stay silent until charges were pressed and a lawyer was called to give an official defense. I can't make an informed choice here. But thanks for every ones input.

I'm sure if you look, you will find that. But, you are in error when you say they are "wrongly" convicted. If a person is convicted based upon the evidence presented at trial, then it is generally a perfectly lawful conviction. The courts deal with the information presented to them. Stories that are heard for the first time in the courtroom are often subject to much skepticism and can even be subject to counter argument. Jurors might be reluctant to believe a protestation of innocence through self defense if it is raised for the first time at trial ... they might ask, "Gee, why didn't he tell someone that when it happened?" It might be hard to overcome those impressions.

[HardTime]

I'm sure if you look, you will find that. But, you are in error when you say they are "wrongly" convicted.

Are you debating philosophy here? Are you saying that even if a person did not commit a crime, that as long as the conviction was done by a jury and all evidence is brought out, that the conviction MUST be right even if the person did not actually commit the crime? That just sounds like your trying to have fun with me.

[tc498]

You get paid to gather facts to SUPPORT A CONVICTION not to clear people of crimes.



See? The blood splatter was there regardless of if he talked or not. The homeowner does not have to assist the police in their investigation -- they are investigating HIM (and maybe others) for an arrest.

Still best not to talk to the police. The evidence in the example was not going anywhere --- the defense could always re-construct the facts just like you did...but do it in court. Plus the homeowner would only be charged with 1 thing .. murder or whatnot .. instead of multiple obstruction counts to boot .. which he may be found guilty of.

Remember the Martha Stewart case, as an example. She was charged with securities issues AND obstruction (cause she talked) -- she was found not guilty on the securities issues but found guilty on the obstruction.

Always best, 100% of time, never talk to the police.

Heck JW, you may have figured it out w/o the homeowner telling you anything



An arrest is only 1 step in the process. Indictment is next. Then trial. I would rather spend 1 night in jail than 20 yrs later. Jail's not that bad.

I agree in most cases it's best to keep quiet if innocent or guilty. It certain cases,especially for minor crimes being truthful can work out in your benfit especially if your innocent,it safe yourself time .

[mortons]

I always tell clients to get a legal advisor at the police station. Alot of cases can be won or lost at the police station with the right course of action.
I'd never speak to the police as a suspect without one present.

It ain't like it is on tv, thats for sure.