Like the poster above you, you are confusing the court and the cops.
> Obtaining a lawyer does not in any way imply guilt
To the court. But to the cops it most definitely does imply guilt. After arrest it's worth it - they already think you are guilty. But before arrest it's not.
> whether you are guilty or not, the only words out of your mouth when you are accused of a crime should be "I'd like to speak with a lawyer"
That will help you in court, but doing that guarantees arrest. You may be released later, but I'd prefer to avoid the arrest in the first place.
To the court. But to the cops it most definitely does imply guilt.
Wow, horrible advice. Getting a lawyer tells the cops that you're not an idiot and they better do things correctly. Remember the whole reason the police are talking to you is to gather evidence. And who cares what the police think about a lawyer. No arrest warrant has been granted because someone got a lawyer.
After arrest it's worth it - they already think you are guilty. But before arrest it's not.
After an arrest while not too late, is much later than you should have gotten a lawyer. Getting a lawyer right away would likely have prevented any arrest unless there is actual real evidence against you. Skipping the lawyer means the police (profesional interrogators) get to talk to you for hours looking for anything incriminating. Not a good idea, since even an innocent person will have inconsistencies in any story told over and over and doubly so with someone trying to 'catch' them.
So please stop giving this horrible advice about not getting a lawyer. Remember, anytime the police are speaking to you they are gathering evidence and view you as a criminal. NEVER speak to the police without a lawyer.
I was watching "First 48 Hours" (show following real detectives) and when a suspect came in with a lawyer one time, the cops said on camera that this is a huge red flag for them. I'm assuming a red flag would mean they now think you're good for the crime and they should start connecting the dots right to you.
Of course the cops on a TV show are going to say that. They know that many cases hinge on what a defendant says to them prior to getting a lawyer, and often that the defendant is his/her own worst witness. If no one spoke to the police without a lawyer present it makes the cops job much harder (as it should be) and prevents them from tricking people into self incrimination and/or flat out lying.
Consider this. Many police interviews are still not video taped. If you and a cop have a discussion by yourselves and what was said comes into question who will the prosecutor, judge and jury believe? That reason alone means you always want a 3rd party present.
If you are innocent and don't speak to he police without a lawyer then fine, let them try to connect the dots.
It's just propaganda. Their job is easier when they can manipulate people into incriminating themselves. Of course they want to scare people out of coming with a lawyer.
Just always remember: with a lawyer you can get away scott free even if you did murder someone.
Wait, you're implying that bringing a lawyer with you is grounds for arrest? You need to get a better lawyer if that's happening. You realize that cops can't just arrest you for whatever right? They have to have grounds to arrest you, and in a case where you're getting voluntarily called to the station, someone has signed off on it and has either said that they can/can't arrest you for reason X, Y or Z. Walking in with a lawyer doesn't give them cause to arrest you, and if they do so, any lawyer worth their salt will ask why they're arresting you.
There are legal limits to how long they can hold you for questioning without an arrest.
> Wait, you're implying that bringing a lawyer with you is grounds for arrest?
It's not grounds. They already have grounds or they wouldn't be talking to you in the first place. But if they are unsure (which they usually are) a lawyer will tip the balance toward definite arrest.
A good lawyer will get you out later sure. But he can't prevent the arrest in the first place.
> There are legal limits to how long they can hold you for questioning without an arrest.
If they are "holding you" you are basically arrested.
Stop giving such incredibly dangerous and illogical advice.
If they had grounds to arrest you, the would simply arrest you and interrogate you while you're under arrest. If they are "merely talking" to you, they obviously don't have grounds to arrest you.
Especially when you're innocent, you can only make it worse by naively saying something that can be spun into implicating you.
It's not grounds. They already have grounds or they wouldn't be talking to you in the first place. But if they are unsure (which they usually are) a lawyer will tip the balance toward definite arrest.
A good lawyer will get you out later sure. But he can't prevent the arrest in the first place.
Citation, please. A good lawyer will absolutely prevent arrest by stopping you from saying something that implicates yourself, regardless of whether you're innocent or not.
If they are "holding you" you are basically arrested.
IANAL, but arrest, by definition, means to take into custody. Technically, arrest includes the right to transport someone, and some laws in some jurisdictions grant powers to detain but not arrest (usually in association with search warrants or traffic laws).
In most legal jurisdictions, police can question you without arresting you -- but if you aren't under arrest, you are free to leave at any time. There is not usually any legal limit on how long such questioning can last -- it is a meeting between two consenting legal entities (you and the police) and either party is free to stop the questioning and leave. In some cases, your answers to the questions under this situation could bring you under reasonable suspicion and be grounds for arrest -- and a lawyer could help with that.
If you are being 'held' (meaning you aren't free to leave), then you are under arrest, essentially by definition.
I believe many civil liberties organisations explicitly asking something like 'am I free to leave?', forcing police to either acknowledge that you aren't under arrest and may leave if you wish, or commit to legally acknowledging you are under arrest, requiring them to justify it in court if you sue them.
> Obtaining a lawyer does not in any way imply guilt
To the court. But to the cops it most definitely does imply guilt. After arrest it's worth it - they already think you are guilty. But before arrest it's not.
> whether you are guilty or not, the only words out of your mouth when you are accused of a crime should be "I'd like to speak with a lawyer"
That will help you in court, but doing that guarantees arrest. You may be released later, but I'd prefer to avoid the arrest in the first place.