So here is a hypothetical: cops show up with a picture of someone who looks like you committing a crime. (If they don’t have a warrant they have to show/tell you why they are at your home). You have a photo from the same day showing you were in Disney. If you stonewall the cops and don’t show them your picture, they will assume their photo is correct and arrest you.
At that point you will have to spend time in jail, hire a lawyer, and wait a while before a hearing or settlement conference to even begin presenting your evidence. That is expensive, can ruin your career, and reputation even if you are still able to prove your innocence eventually.
It’s a unique situation and you should never be chatty with the cops, but I’ve represented clients whose worst mistake was remaining totally silent and not answering anything. Their innocence was easily proven and they could have proven it themselves during the initial questioning, but their silence was used against them. Even though it never should be, it often is.
It’s not a bad idea, but it can cost thousands just to retain a lawyer.
If you can protect your rights, by knowing what they are, you can talk to them and likely get them off your back. If they have slam dunk evidence they wouldn’t be questioning you. If you’re guilty, then you should probably remain silent or at least know what type of answers you shouldn’t give. You could be guilty as hell and still answer a ton of questions if you know which questions necessitate incriminating answers and which ones don’t.
In what situation would you not stonewall cops? That's always the legal advice I've been given.
So here is a hypothetical: cops show up with a picture of someone who looks like you committing a crime. (If they don’t have a warrant they have to show/tell you why they are at your home). You have a photo from the same day showing you were in Disney. If you stonewall the cops and don’t show them your picture, they will assume their photo is correct and arrest you.
At that point you will have to spend time in jail, hire a lawyer, and wait a while before a hearing or settlement conference to even begin presenting your evidence. That is expensive, can ruin your career, and reputation even if you are still able to prove your innocence eventually.
It’s a unique situation and you should never be chatty with the cops, but I’ve represented clients whose worst mistake was remaining totally silent and not answering anything. Their innocence was easily proven and they could have proven it themselves during the initial questioning, but their silence was used against them. Even though it never should be, it often is.
Why shouldn't you retain a lawyer first? It really depends on the situation but getting a lawyer first is never a bad idea.
It’s not a bad idea, but it can cost thousands just to retain a lawyer.
If you can protect your rights, by knowing what they are, you can talk to them and likely get them off your back. If they have slam dunk evidence they wouldn’t be questioning you. If you’re guilty, then you should probably remain silent or at least know what type of answers you shouldn’t give. You could be guilty as hell and still answer a ton of questions if you know which questions necessitate incriminating answers and which ones don’t.
That's the problem, vast majority of people don't know the difference.