Here is a fun question

[CA Fuzz]

Here is a fun legal scenario question for all of you wannabe lawyers and in the know police officers and criminal justice majors.

If a suspect is arrested, he is read his rights. Of course one of these rights is the right to an attorney, and if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed before any questioning. What if the suspect says he cannot pay for an attorney and wants a public defender? It is found that he could afford an attorney but does not want to pay for one, instead opting for the PD for his actual trial. Does the government still have the responsibility to provide an attorney at their cost? What happens if the suspect refuses to pay and refuses to plead guilty, demeaning a trial within the time frame as prescribed by the US Constitution?

Second part of the question. The suspect refuses to talk to or cooperate in any way with the police. This even goes down to refusing to identify him or herself or any other information. What do the police do at this point?

I had this question put to me by a couple of academy graduates on training patrol a few weeks ago.

[Hightower]

I will answer the refusing to identify himself portion. If that were to happen to me, they would be taken to the jail house (If I had probable cause to arrest). Then if they still refused to give a name, they would have to explain it to the judge. And if they still would not say, I am 100% positive that the judge would hold them until they remembered what their name was.

Hightower

[Jynkxxie]

Here is a fun legal scenario question for all of you wannabe lawyers and in the know police officers and criminal justice majors.

If a suspect is arrested, he is read his rights. Of course one of these rights is the right to an attorney, and if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed before any questioning. What if the suspect says he cannot pay for an attorney and wants a public defender? It is found that he could afford an attorney but does not want to pay for one, instead opting for the PD for his actual trial. Does the government still have the responsibility to provide an attorney at their cost? What happens if the suspect refuses to pay and refuses to plead guilty, demeaning a trial within the time frame as prescribed by the US Constitution?

First..not every state has public defenders. Second, I am not positive but I was told that they do go thru your financial standing to determine if you are eligable for appointed defense..I am guessing that if you are not eligable that you have to provide your own or be your own defense. The latter is probably the stupidest thing you can do. And even if you are eligable I believe that you have to pay that attorney back.

Second part of the question. The suspect refuses to talk to or cooperate in any way with the police. This even goes down to refusing to identify him or herself or any other information. What do the police do at this point?

I had this question put to me by a couple of academy graduates on training patrol a few weeks ago.

Well I don't know about divulging any information...name..which can be found...but doesn't the 5th Amendment protect you from self incrimination? **** even on a Terry stop you don't have to answer questions.

[vadep]

A person must "qualify" financially for a court appointed attorney. If they do not qualify, the judge will inform them that they must retain their own counsel. If they show up at the trial without having retained their own lawyer, they will be tried without one.

In Virginia, you are required by law to identify yourself to police. Failure to do so would result in being held, without bond, until arraigned before a judge. Continue to refuse to identify yourself to a judge, and you'll be held until such time you remember your name. Of course, if said person has ever been previously arrested, printing them with livescan will solve the identity question pretty quickly.

[CA Fuzz]

Lets look at it way. You refuse to pay for your own defense. The judge determines that you are not capable of providing competent legal defense to yourself although you are not judged to be mentally incompetent or unable to aid in your own defense.

This very scenerio has actually occurred.

[Jynkxxie]

Can you restate that...cuz my answer is still "you become your own defense".

[CA Fuzz]

I cannot state the laws of other states, but California requires you to have "competent" council. Whether that be yourself or an attorney does not matter.

We have had some pretty good responses. I will wait a few days and see if anyone comes up with the answer.

[Jynkxxie]

Yeah I know what you are getting at now...

[Hightower]

Lets look at it way. You refuse to pay for your own defense. The judge determines that you are not capable of providing competent legal defense to yourself although you are not judged to be mentally incompetent or unable to aid in your own defense.

This very scenerio has actually occurred.

I would say that the judge will appoint a PD to represent you. But, they will still make you pay into the Public Defender's Fund after the fact.

Hightower

[ngcsubutterbar]

most places will allow cops to hold a person until their identity can be found. As far as council is concerend it was meant for indignent people, not assholes that don't want to get an atourney.

[oscarmitre]

This is only by way of information because it is from my jurisdiction and my country and therefore is not directly relevant to the law in the various jurisdictions in the U.S.

Where a defendant suggests they are unable to fund their own defence then they will file what is called a Dietrich Application - Dietrich v the Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292. This is a permanent stay of proceedings unless and until funds are found for a defence. Because most jurisdictions in Australia (if not all) have some form of legal aid (sort of like a public defender scheme) or firms that offer representation pro bono publico as the saying goes, then it is unusual for someone not to get competent representation. However we do have a case of a defendant accused of a white collar crime who is claiming he cannot fund a defence. His stay of proceedings is now several years old and looks like continuing.

On the second question. In my jurisdiction - similar to what has already been posted - the person would be arrested (allowing for reasonable cause and sufficient evidence to actually prosecute) and if they refused to identify themselves then they would be remanded in custody until they purged their contempt and gave their true identity. While in custody the person would be fingerprinted, photographed etc. and in certain circumstances would have to give a sample for DNA testing. Eventually we would find out who the defendant was and proceedings would begin against that named person.

Posted for general information only.

[greg6099]

Oscarmite: Case Law? Youse blokes down in South Aussie are good. How come we don't see too many of you doing the 'lateral transfer' up here like the NSW and Vic guys?

(1)
Too bad how sad for the defendant. He has a right to representation at the interview and it is 'basically' up to him to organise. We provide a phone, phone book, time and opportunity for him to make his own arrangement. We have 'Legal Aid' in Queensland and they are available 24hrs a day for advice. To gain legal aid after the interview, there is a 'means test' to establish if he will be granted a solicitor at the cost of the State.

(2)
Identificiation: Commits an offence if he fails / refuses / states false name and address when required. If we still cannot ID the individual he is held in custody pending ID. Prints / Photogs and DNA can be obtained. If we still cannot ID him he may only be held for a maximim of 14 days (I think - don't have my books at home).

May then be held in custody for an extended period of time for 'Contempt of Court' when the Magistrate asks him his name.

Finally, he can be convicted of the offence charged and held in custody, if a custodial sentence is given, for the original offence. After the sentence period, he will be released and we may still never know who he is.

Happened once to my knoweldge 10 or so years ago. Protestors arrested for 'street offences' and never gave their names. 'Clean skins' so no prints or DNA on record. Held in custody for no ID, pleaded guilty at first opportunity and sentenced to five days, served their time and gone and we still have no idea who they were!

[Norm357]

Second part of the question. The suspect refuses to talk to or cooperate in any way with the police. This even goes down to refusing to identify him or herself or any other information. What do the police do at this point?



Here in Ga they would be booked under John Doe until their ID could be confirmed. No matter how long it took.

[rdp]

Well, since you are in CA...we should expect a screwed up answer.

Here in NV, you need to show you are indigent in order to receive a PD for free or a reduced cost. In circumstances where the defendant is incompetent to represent himself, I have seen the judge order the PD's office to assign a lawyer.

As for ID'ng yourself, we had a law saying you must ID yourself. The 9th circus has labeled the law unconstitutional UNLESS the officer has PC for an arrest. In other words, a RS stop means they can refuse to answer.

[oscarmitre]

Greg - case law - partly because it's my job (in-field training and development of members). As for our members transferring, some of them did and some even stayed there :D