See 24/67 Guide on Article 6 of the Convention – Right to a fair trial

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.p...

>119. Anyone accused of a criminal offence has the right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself (Funke v. France, § 44; O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 45; Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 60). Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. By providing the accused with protection against improper compulsion by the authorities these immunities contribute to avoiding miscarriages of justice and to securing the aims of Article 6 (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45).

>120. The right not to incriminate oneself applies to criminal proceedings in respect of all types of criminal offences, from the most simple to the most complex (Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 74).

>121. The right to remain silent applies from the point at which the suspect is questioned by the police (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45).

He complained that the firewall at the office would not let him download the video I had uploaded to some 3rd party service and if I could just burn him a CD and bring it. (Seriously.) I talked him into trying some other things, and did not get contacted since. That was weird.

edit: In Germany.

A) Prosecutors and judges are generally NOT elected or politically engaged. Nor are they politically appointed, with exception of some higher court judges.

B) Police in many countries are required to conduct an independent study. The must present all evidence; and so contrary to the US what you say can be used to your advantage (that still doesn't always make talking advantageous).

C) In civil law systems judges are often far more empowered to seek the truth. Where as in the US (common law), judges mainly facilitate an argument between defense and prosecutor in-front of a jury.

D) prosecutors in other countries are often tasked with finding the truth, they are not elected, and the whole system is less adversarial than the US.

E) Politics is less dysfunctional, and most European countries have civil law, which makes it easier to comply with the law. There isn't 10k statutes on the books.

F) Police is better behaved; well trained; typically governed at country level (not by local politics).

G) Many countries have a functional public defense system.

All of this differs from country to country. Some countries might not have functional public defense (G), but on average it's my understanding that western European countries do better in these ways.

That doesn't necessarily make talking to the police a good idea. But there are a lot of fewer traps people can fall into.

And so I personally would feel more comfortable helping a European police officer. After all the downside of not talking to the police is that crimes won't be solved.

Article 8 of the ECHR seems to require a court orders of some kind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv...

Not all European countries have the same exact rules as the US, some have stronger privacy in some areas and some have weaker in some areas.

But the US isn't exactly a poster child for privacy. Granted US rights on unlawful searches are for the most part decent.

> In England and Wales, a local magistrate issues search warrants, which require that a constable provide evidence that supports the warrant application. In the majority of cases where police already hold someone in custody, police can search premises without a search warrant under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which requires only the authority of an inspector.

> Under Section 18(5)a of PACE, a constable can conduct a search immediately without an inspector's authorisation. This subsection allows a constable to search the home of a suspect(s) under arrest in their presence before they take the suspect to a police station (or other custody location). Under Section 32 of PACE, a constable who arrests a person who is on their own property or has just left their premises, may immediately search both the suspect and the immediate area.

At no point did I say that the US is a "poster child for privacy," but the laws work differently.

The general concept is the same. Your original comments said:

> "not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle".

EU membership nations have laws that require search warrants in some form. Most exceptions to this are reasonable, narrow and well defined. Similar to exceptions in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_Un...

Your original comment:

> "not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle".

Suggests that this is not the case in Europe.

"suspect did not sufficiently invoke the right to remain silent when he stubbornly refused to talk:"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...

In this case, the suspect had spoken to the police, and during this didn't respond to a certain question / responded to the question with silence. If I recall correctly, the court reasoned that by first speaking, he gave up his right to remain silent. Moreover, he responded by silence rather that actively asserting his right to remain silent.

Not to say I agree with the ruling, especially because he was never mirandized. However, it is not clear cut that simply remaining silent isn't enough to assert your right against self-incrimination.

https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights

I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights.

From your quote we see that this is not the case in the UK. Something you say can later be used in your defense, so clearly if you choose to say nothing -- you have less that could be used in your defense.

> I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights.

Compared to the US?

This has lead to a lot of unsound convictions of people who were intoxicated at the time of arrest; They tell some abridged version of their story to police, leaving half the important details out, leaving them with half a case to take to court. In Scotland they have started Requiring solicitors to be present at interviews of suspects (of some crimes) because of this, making statements inadmissible unless a solicitor was present.

> You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

the wikipedia article goes into details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...