Wicklander - Zulawski and Associates, Inc.

The trusted leader in training for over 25 years.

Tips

Back to Tips

The suspect says, " Do I need an attorney?" Or, "I want an attorney."

Depending on what the suspect has said and when it was said, this is either a search for information or an expression of fear. The public and the private sectors have different legal rules to apply depending on whether the suspect is in custody.? If the suspect is in custody, he has a constitutional right to have an attorney present during any questioning if he requests one.? As long as the suspect unequivocally requests an attorney in a public law enforcement evaluation, then all questioning must cease; however, if the suspectês statement was a question then the United States Supreme Court has ruled that questioning may continue.? However, if the suspect is not in custody there is no constitutional right to an attorney.? If the suspect asks for an attorney during a non-accusatory interview, this is often an attempt to delay the interview or to intimidate the interviewer.? Remember, that a suspect who is not in custody must retain and pay for his attorney.? There is no obligation for the state to provide an attorney until an individual is in custody and cannot afford to hire his own lawyer.? For further discussion on the legal aspects of interrogation and the suspectês right to an attorney, refer to the chapter on legal issues.?? The interviewer from the private sector should refer to the appropriate company policy and procedure for the proper response.?

If the suspect is asking if he should have an attorney, the interrogator might use something like the following reply.

1) I am not an attorney and I can't offer you legal advice. Whatever you decide has to be right for you. If you choose to get an attorney I have to stop the interview at this point without going through several important issues with you. These are things that may help you make up your mind. I think it is difficult to know what is the right decision when you are not aware of all the information. The interrogator should not offer an opinion to the suspect, rather by pulling back and letting the suspect make the decision himself several positive things happen. The interrogator is viewed by the suspect as being fair and therefore enhances the trust factor between the two. Second, the interrogator creates curiosity about what else is known. The suspect delays to learn what other information is in the case file and this delay allows the rationalization process to continue to reduce the individual's resistance.

2) Isn't it interesting how things start to escalate unnecessarily. We are just two people trying to sort out a problem and all of a sudden people think the worst and ask, "Do I need a lawyer?" Well, if you need one then we need one or two and so it goes. Costing everyone money when rational minds could have worked through the issue without any help. To make the correct decision here, one needs to understand the scope of the problem being faced, which is what we are attempting to discuss now. Often the question about a lawyer comes up because the suspect is frightened and the interrogator has been too direct in his statements, not sufficiently rationalizing the suspect's involvement allowing him to save face.

3) There is a phone right over there. Give me the number and I will put through a call for you. Sometimes a challenge can be used to put the suspect into the position of making a decision to proceed. Most people do not have lawyers on retainer and must go to others to find an attorney capable of handling the case. The demand for a name and number will often result in an admission that they do not have an attorney. In which case the interrogator can use the preceding example to move back to rationalizations. However, there is a chance with this response that the suspect will make a phone call and the conversation with him will come to an end.

4) You know a lot of times when people ask that question, it is because they are uncertain and realize what they have done is wrong. The right thing to do is to get this cleared up and set the record straight showing what kind of a person you are. With this reply, the interrogator states the suspect's reality "uncertainty" and moves to another implied accusation before returning to rationalization. This should not be said to an aggressive suspect, as it will likely cause denials and an unequivocal request for an attorney.

5) I think there are three things that a person needs to consider when trying to make a decision. Another path the interrogator could use is to ignore the question and attempt to create curiosity to divert the suspect from the question he asked.

If the suspect is in police custody and specifically asks for an attorney, all questioning must cease. However if it is a non-custodial interrogation or being conducted by private sector investigators there is much more latitude in possible responses.




Back to Tips

® 2007 Wicklander-Zulawski and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. - 800-222-7789 - info@w-z.com