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.
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.
Me being in the police officers messy office just having a conversation about an incident is much different from giving them a video statement. I am referring to a case where the only evidence against myself would be what I say. As such there is not much to go on if it's just some notes the officer took while informally talking with me in their office. They have no one else with them to back up what was said or anything to prove what I said is accurate/true.
Since nothing was recorded not much could be done.
>> Since nothing was recorded not much could be done.
That's where you are incorrect. The cop was taking notes. The cop can take the stand to testify as to what you said. During that testimony he may refer to his notes. Hearsay rules are complicated but it is safe to say that anything said to a cop can, one way or another, be used in court.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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....
Everywhere in the world the police are your enemy. They exist as the manifestation of a state's domestic violence.
When they're talking to you, they're your enemy.
Fun fact: because of their French (and to a lesser degree, Spanish) influence, Louisiana's laws still follow a civil law system.
[1] https://www.apprendre-le-droit.fr/anglais-juridique/what-is-...
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incar...
Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the country and has one of the highest contracted private prison quotas in the country (96% occupancy).[1] And until recently, Louisiana had some of the harshest mandatory minimum drug sentencing requirements.[2] They still have harsh mandatory minimums for other offenses. If you're looking for an explanation for Louisiana's criminal justice issues those factors are the far more likely explanations than the existence of a civil law system.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Department_of_Publ...
[2] https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/03/pspp_louisi...
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