back

by emptybits·7y ago·view on hn ↗
FTA: The Ontario Provincial Police say, “We can knock on someone’s door and say, ‘We’re so worried about you, can we come in and chat?’”

Yikes. I understand the positive spin is the police care about the wellbeing of at-risk people with these visits. But wouldn't it also be true that anything and everything the police observe and believe as a result of such a visit could also be used against the resident or others in the home?

8 comments
I recommend everyone watch this video. It's geared towards lawyers. If the police are asking questions with any level of suspicion at all, don't talk to them. Even if you do not lie, and are innocent, the things you say can still be used against you.

Summarizing:

1. There is no way it can help.

2. If your client is guilty (or even innocent), they might admit guilt with nothing in return.

3. If your client is innocent, they can still make some small mistake or tiny mistruth that can be used to convict by seeding doubt.

4. If your client is innocent, and does not make any small mistake or tiny mistruth, what is said can still be used in court to convict.

5. If your client is innocent, and tells the police absolutely nothing incriminating at all, the police can still mis-remember the conversation and result in a conviction.

6. If your client is innocent, and tells the police absolutely nothing incriminating at all, and the clients statements are videotaped so it cannot be mischaracterized, the police can still augment the conversation from their personal knowledge and result in a conviction.

There's more, it goes on and on and on. Don't talk to police if you are being questioned about something, whether you did it or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

The police in the past actually wanted me to come in and talk to them about an issue someone had reported. I came in and they surprised me with the line "My partner is just setting up the camera in the other room if that's okay". I was quite surprised and shocked that they wanted to record what they made sound like a friendly chat.

I of course refused to give any kind of statement under video and instead just spoke privately with an officer and gave minimal details. However I fear that others less inclined about their rights or why they wanted to record would be screwing themselves.

Essentially I had a false report made against me and there was no evidence. If I said anything incriminating in a video statement by accident I would have just made evidence for them. No one advised me of this. It felt like I should have brought a lawyer with me.

Edit: This was in an Ontario based police department.

>> I of course refused to give any kind of statement under video

Realize too that a great many officers now don body cameras. If you aren't willing to say it on video, do not say it. No matter what they tell you, police officers are not capable of private conversations. Every conversation with a cop is a conversation between a person and a government. It might be recorded. The cop can take notes. They cop can get back to their car and relate the conversation to a camera, creating very powerful evidence. There is no concept of privacy when talking to police.

This video is also very enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nQ_mFJV4I

The section on consenting to searches was the most interesting. E.g. you could consent to a search of your home thinking "I've done nothing wrong so come on in" only to find out someone (relative, maintenance person etc) left something illegal in your home without your knowledge.

The other day I was reading about Miranda rights and I didn’t realize it wasn’t a thing until the 60s. It was heavily pushed and publicized by lawyers to make it a necessity to have lawyers at every step of the way. There is some debate about how harder it is to get convictions because of the Miranda rights. I’m not trying to say anything about how important the rights are when people go through the process, I just thought it was interesting.

How does the rule about not talking to police work? What about when police are canvassing the neighborhood and they are knocking on every door? Are you supposed to talk then? What about when you have info of a crime? What about when you want to report a crime? Any of these situations is potentially a way for police to twist your words.

>How does the rule about not talking to police work? What about when police are canvassing the neighborhood and they are knocking on every door? Are you supposed to talk then? What about when you have info of a crime? What about when you want to report a crime?

The important bit is "if the police are asking questions with any level of suspicion at all". Every person has to do their own personal risk assessment, and maybe you don't always know whether you're under suspicion, but if the police want to talk to you and you have any reason whatsoever to think that you're under suspicion, you're rolling the dice by agreeing to talk to them without a lawyer.

That video is very US centric.

In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy.

Also, in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you, for example it will be more difficult later to introduce exculpatory evidence that you were supposed to know of at the time you refused to speak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

>in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you

If you have read any of the anonymous blogs by those on the Job, they almost always tell you to either keep your mouth shut or say as little as possible ─ this was the wisdom imparted by 'Nightjack' before he got outed and had to delete his blog, subsequently going on to win accolades and the Orwell Prize.[1]

https://web.archive.org/web/20090426201221/http://nightjack....

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_(blogger)

> In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy.

Everywhere in the world the police are your enemy. They exist as the manifestation of a state's domestic violence.

I believe the reason for this is the idea that it's a massive waste of the public's time and resources for you to refuse to reveal evidence which could have stopped the prosecution well before it went to trial.
That sounds pretty dysfunctional to me, unless UK laws are so simple and clear cut that anyone can be expected to know and recall them.
Yeah, without some pretty strong new protections in place there is absolutely no upside and likely a significant downside to letting them in. The police are not your friends.
This post and the article have the same problem: Thinking the way police works/seems to work in the US (always out to get you) is universal to the world while it is the exception. Police in other countries usually works out of a desire to help.
Having grown up in Iceland where the police don't even carry guns I'd be very suspicious of this specific interaction. I wouldn't hesitate to talk to a police officer on the street, or chat with them if I was routinely detained at a traffic stop or whatever.

But in this scenario the police are unprompted at your door and their first ask is to come into your house.

If the police just want to talk to you because they're concerned about you personally they'll just ask to talk to you in a place they wouldn't otherwise need a search warrant signed by a judge to enter.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the US and everything to do with an asymmetric relationship.

The police have immense power, you do not.

What do you have to gain from interacting with the police? Now, compare this to what you stand to lose by interacting with the police.

The rule is simple: don't interact with the police. They are not your friends, anything you do or say can and will be used against you at a whim.

Do not romanticize other countries, please.

I don't know about Canada but I'd apply similar caution in Australia. Note that the police aren't your enemy, but the greater your surface area towards them the more likely you are to have issues, so unless you really need them you're still better off minimizing your exposure to them.
> ...the way police works/seems to work in the US ... is the exception.

Nope. I can't agree with this, as much as I wish I could. It's an easy fallacy to think the U.S. is the exception when it comes to power mad, duplicitous and hostile bullies in the police force since they're the ones getting the bulk of the media coverage. We have them in Canada, too. Yes, they're fewer in numbers, but that's not to say we don't have them. It's easy to assume other countries or cultures are innocent of a problem just because they have a lower, or perhaps invisible, prevalence of that problem.

Source: I'm a Canadian (who used to think exactly this way) with family members in the emergency services, including one estranged, asshole bully of a cop who'd happily harass someone and construct a charge if they looked at him the wrong way.

Since Three felonies a day is true almost everywhere in the world it’s clearly risky behavior to interact with police. Of course police is usually helpful just like the rest of humans.

Your local mafia clan are also nice people as long as you play by their rules (you can study organized crime in favelas where it is an ordering element similar to police).

> The police are not your friends.

This is a massive problem in itself. The police should be your friend. When it's not, that in itself is a massive condemnation of the way the police functions.

“The police are not your friends.” In some countries outside the US, they are. https://www.oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=634763
> The police are not your friends

As a Canadian, I disagree with this sentiment.

That is an incredibly US-centric view. I'd have absolutely zero problem talking to and interacting with police in Poland for instance.
"there is absolutely no upside "

The part where you're a drug addict and they've come to see if you want to go to rehab is a big potential upside.

"The police are not your friends"

Yes, the absolutely are. Despite the potential downsides.

I live in a shifty neighbourhood and visibly recognize the police staffers (I see them often, they come into the cafe etc.), there's a clinic across the street from me that deals with 'all kinds' ... in my view, a lot of policing is basically social work. That said I live in Canada.

What I find weird about all of this is that people actually answer their door to unexpected & unknown visitors?! Do you also answer your phone to unexpected & unknown callers?!

My rule of thumb built up over years of annoyance & bullshit is: if you don't know who it is, or aren't expecting anything, ignore it; 99.9% of the time someone unexpected/unknown on the phone or at your door are just going to be wasting your time and attention. (trying to sell you something/con you/religious recruitment/generally be weird/mad etc)

Random person knocking on my door during normal hours gets answered normally. Knocking on doors is high effort enough to filter out most of the spam and my door gets knocked on like twice a year so it's really not a huge loss if I get spammed.

Random person knocking at the door at 1am results in me answering the door with one of the USSR's most prolific exports within arms reach in case anybody needs the ol' East Houston treatment. They might be having an emergency and need help but it's also wise to be conscious of who's knocking. If there's three dudes on my porch and a fourth sitting in a running car then I'll ask them what they heck they want without opening the door.

I don't answer the door for anyone in a uniform unless I'm expecting them. If the government needs to tell me something or interact with me in any legitimate capacity they'll send a letter.

I once had someone knock on the door who was having a heart attack. At first sight he looked like he was drunk. I'm glad I didn't ignore him and was able to help.
This fascinates me so much because the idea that there's anything at all risky about opening your door to a stranger is the thing that's completely alien to my world.
A friend of mine once read the local newspaper while he was on vacation somewhere, and there was a half-page article along the lines of: "Among the fans expected to show up for tomorrow's big sporting event are a large contingent of the country's worst hooligans. The police plans to increase its presence massively to ensure peace, with no less than eight extra officers."

My friend decided to move there. Maybe you should too. You do gain a certain peace of mind from being able to open your door without risk or trouble.

>What I find weird about all of this is that people actually answer their door to unexpected & unknown visitors?! Do you also answer your phone to unexpected & unknown callers?!

Wtf? Yes of course I do. Do you not have a doorbell?

I got a call from an unknown number. It was the hospital telling me my father had an accident. Do you want to miss such a call?

I always answer the door and the phone.

On the other hand I can't imagine not doing. 99% of the time it's a friend or neighbour, or the odd unexpected parcel.

Someone selling is remarkably rare, JW show up trying to sell religion every couple of years - we try and scare them off claiming devout satanism or spaghetti based religion. :)

That's about it. Maybe police if some had an accident, or something in the local area happened.

Considering the number of times someone has knocked on my door with information I need (hey, noticed something of yours was on/open/etc.), something I want (this was delivered mistakenly to me, here you go), or offer for assistance (Hey, it's me, a kid from the neighborhood. I'll shovel your driveway for $$), sure.

If you live in an area that regularly has people literally trying to con you door to door, that's an issue with where you live. It's not normal for many people.

I almost always pick up, because FOMO, but I very often end the call in the middle of the sentence of the caller, once I know it is something I am not interested in.
I open the door. In my experience, 99% of the time it's either a delivery person with a package for my wife, or a neighbourhood kid who wants to play with my son.

I also pick up the phone. 99% of the time it's a recruiter. Less enthusiastic about those odds, but it's occasionally useful.

I can't claim to have been harrassed by unexpected visitors, I also do find unannounced visits annyoing however.

It's something that I also communicate to my friends (although I would never not open the door for them, for obvious reasons). My reasoning is kind of like "I've been fulfilling my societal duties all week goddammit, if I want to be alone in my cave for a few hours just leave me be!"

Yes, most people open their doors in that case for better or worse.
When the police come to your door, you're going to answer.

Agree with the program or not, this is not spam.

The thing is that the police are not the appropriate agency to be leading "helpful" interventions. These are the people empowered to kill you, imprison you, seize your belongings, and charge you with crimes. Those people are not the ones who should be knocking on your door offering "help".
Different cultures have different ideas on the role of police.
You are generally free to decline to talk to the police. You definitely do not have to invite them into your home. Your rights around police interaction are very similar to those in the US.
police add to database "NEGATIVE_BEHAVIOR: declined invitation into home"
At the same time, I would hope that Canadian police is a bit more trustworthy and trusted than US police.

I certainly wouldn't want that kind of visit from police officers whose primary concern is to find a reason to arrest or shoot you, but if police is honestly trying to help and prevent problems, it's an entirely different matter.

Police culture, policy and accountability matters a lot in a case like this.

This should be the responsibility of social services rather than law enforcement. If someone is a likely offender then they are probably going to clam up at the sight of the police.
"police, health care professionals, and social workers participating in the Hub" - I think it probably (hopefully) mostly is.
"Wellness checks" are a thing in the US too. They are often for the case of "I haven't seen my neighbor in a week and there's a funny smell coming from their home." I don't see how it's a violation of any rights to knock on a door.
You're always free to say no.
Can you really? The article seems relatively clear that there are some problems regarding consent in this whole apparatus.

I'm torn on the article. The Canadian government isn't China and we have had quite a few pretty public cases here in Germany where lack of inter-agency coordination led to serious harm in the context of our CPS equivalent. OTOH, at least from that article, this program doesn't seem to get the oversight required for such a task.

At any rate, the lack of transparency and contractually forbidding people from talking about the program is a weird and all to common move these days.

Sounds like negative behavior, doesn't it?