LAWYER: Cops Can IGNORE Your Request for a Lawyer

The 6th Amendment is supposed to protect you from overzealous police, but can they ignore your request for a lawyer? YES! Here's how investigators get around the 6th Amendment and how you can defend yourself.
Leave Andrew a voicemail with questions or ideas: www.speakpipe.com/flusche
NOTE: This description may contain affiliate links for you to find the items mentioned in this video and support the channel at no cost to you. Thank you for supporting the channel!

[@tehlaser]

Gotta love the double standard. Suspect: “Do I need a lawyer?” Court: “Doesn’t count, you’ve got to be clear. No reasonable person would have understood that.” Cop: “You wouldn’t mind if we took a look around to make sure you’re innocent, right?” Court: “Perfectly clear and valid way to ask if someone wants to consent to a body cavity search for no particular reason.”

[@jaaa4590]

This would be hilarious, if it wasn't the sad truth.

[@VerilyVerbatim]

It's not a 'double standard', both are questions. It's not up to the police to decide if you need a lawyer... if you want one, say that, and ONLY THAT. For the second question.... say 'no' and close the door. If anyone tries to stop you closing the door - such as blocking it with their shoes, that is now forced entry - as they have put themselves into your premises (regardless of how small that part of them is).... and without a warrant to enter.

[@tehlaser]

@@VerilyVerbatim C’mon boys, they said they didn’t mind. That’s consent. **snaps glove**

[@saintsinningsword]

The next question police asked after being asked "Do I Need A Lawyer?" was "Are You Asking For A Lawyer?" and defendant says "No." I might feel more sympathy for the wannabe gangster who don't talk good but also have no sympathy since talking normally isn't a skill.

[@snorgardark1908]

@@VerilyVerbatim But you just gave them permission to look around. They said "You wouldn’t mind if we took a look around" you answered "No" so No you would not mind if they did. If you answer yes than you are telling them yes it is okay to come inside and look around. Its a common trick cops use and its sadly legal. They get to take any ambiguity in your answer however they want to take it just the same as with the asking for a lawyer. What you need to answer with is "I don't consent to any searches without a warrant." That way its clear what you mean. Don't say I don't consent to you entering my house. Your yard is not your house. Your car is not your house, your shed is not your house, your garage that is part of your house but is it that really what someone means when they say their house, is not your house. If you specify house than clearly you consented to all searches so long as they don't enter your house. Its BS but they are aloud to do it.

[@philbarone4603]

I’ve had awful experiences with cops and the profession attracts bullies and wannabe dictators. When are the going to start vetting these applicants? It’s a disgrace.

[@apocalypsepromotions7676]

There is no vetting. Rather quite the opposite. If you have a college degree, you'll be turned away as a potential cop. Look it up if you don't believe me. They don't want someone who is smart, and questions laws and authority. They're looking for narcissistic goons to collect money for the state.

[@jerryinmon2731]

They are vetted. The problem is no amount of phycological testing can detect everyone who would have these tendencies. In addition, especially today police forces all over the country are desperate for officers. People that 10 or 20 years ago might get laugh are now being hired because the department has to have officers. It's the same thing we are seeing with teachers. Because of the decades or constant scape goating of teachers districts are hiring people they would have never considered in the past because they need someone in the classroom. Lastly, even someone who was determined to be of low risk to abuse power can become abusive because of the power that the police have. Power corrupts and it take a pretty special person not let it go to their head as well as the need of safeguards within the department to prevent that from happening.

[@arinerm1331]

They do vet applicants to the police force; the trouble is that they're looking for exactly those characteristics in people they want to employ as doughnut dumpsters. Indeed, they **WANT** these disgraces.

[@mekaelaknodt2021]

I agree 💯👍

[@SchemingGoldberg]

@@arinerm1331 You're 100% correct. They intentionally exclude intelligent honest people, they WANT bad cops.

[@stickman-1]

About 40 years ago, when I was a very young man, I was in a pretty serious auto accident. It was my fault, I was being young and dumb. No one was killed and only minor injuries but it was a pretty big wreck involving 3 cars and a boat. I was able to get to a phone and called my mom who worked for a lawyer. She contacted him, called me back and said, "He said do not make a statement. Tell them your lawyer advised you not to give a statement at this time." So when the cop asked me what happened, I said, "My lawyer said not to give a statement at this time." And I will 100% always remember that cops exact response: "That sounds like a very good idea" with a smile on his face. I ended up paying a fine, but did not lose my license and all in all it turned out pretty well for me, considering what was initially on the table.

[@Incognito1786]

3 cars AND a boat? That's a pretty uhh....that's not something you see every day.

[@marquisdelafayette1929]

Tried getting me on a charge that could have been decades in jail. Didn’t do it, but the person who did was threatened by the cops and scared gave me up to save themselves. Didn’t know that I was out of town and had proof of it. They did zero investigation and believed what the other person said. Was taken in but told them no they can’t “look in the car to get my ID”. Did so anyway, then I said I didn’t want to talk without a lawyer. Got me to the police station and was taken to interrogation where I said I wasn’t going to talk without a lawyer, AGAIN. This time signing a refusal. Then they came back and tried talking to me in the cell saying it was “off the record and won’t be held against you “… “okay so you won’t mind my lawyer to be here when that happens”. Spent 2-3 months in custody before finally the charges were dismissed. So short term incarceration was obviously worth it. Everyone should know that they may have to just lose the battle to win the war later.

[@stickman-1]

I really need to make a video on the incident. You will have no idea how this case turned out. Yes. I'm going to do it. @@Incognito1786

[@chuck8094]

Police are almost never witness to a crime, therefore almost all convictions are based on words alone. Don't give them any words.

[@kevinerbs2778]

words & persuasion, now work better than real evidence.

[@martenkahr3365]

@@kevinerbs2778 Yep. Because prosecutors have discovered that real, physical evidence is easier for the defense lawyers to call into question during trial than a police officer's "experience" and "intuition".

[@TeleologicalConsistency]

There's a loophole that makes it so they can take your silence as evidence of guilt. You have to specifically state you are invoking your 5th amendment rights.

[@kevinerbs2778]

,@@TeleologicalConsistency Even when the suspects don't state that those cases usually get turned over or the verdict gets thrown out. As silence can't be taken as guilt the times when it can used are very specific. However, the supreme court has been contradicting many laws as of late with their own bad interpretations of other laws.

[@andrewburkinshaw1446]

And evidence.

[@SeattlePaulie]

That one word response "lawyer" is straight out of a scene in Better Call Saul! 😂

[@SeattlePaulie]

m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5apop6Ll7GebqM

[@tw9535]

That's where I learned it.

[@Temulon]

That episode always cracked me up. Mike leans his head down, shakes it slightly and gives a big sigh. I thought "Oh damn, he's going to give it up and come clean" and he said "Lawyer".

[@jedstanaland2897]

I have a friend that has severe hearing impairments and the police questioned him. During the questions he asked for a lawyer and the police said that they couldn't understand what he said. He was on tape asking for a lawyer and they even had a police officer who had a law degree enter the room and claim that they were a lawyer which might have been technically true but they were not his lawyer. The entire confession and everything else was thrown out by the appeals court almost five years after he was convicted on the grounds of fruit from a poisonous tree doctrine. He hadn't actually done what he was accused of but he still didn't get compensation for his lost time and money because he had been convicted and therefore wasn't eligible for compensation. I'm not joking about this because he had been convicted of a felony even though he hadn't done anything wrong he wasn't eligible for compensation even though it was overturned.

[@generalohu7782]

Those involved in your friends illegal arrest//detainment//imprisonment deserves to spend just as long in prison with no compensation!

[@sanjosemike3137]

My father always used to say: "You can wait your entire life for justice to occur but sometimes it does not." The best I can say is that I hope your friend has had some blessings to "offset" this heinous act against him. By being his friend, perhaps you are part of that blessing. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@Milesco]

That doesn't sound right. If the conviction was overturned, then he wasn't convicted. Maybe you are remembering the events inaccurately?

[@jedstanaland2897]

@Milesco It deals with some stupid language in compensation laws that basically allows certain states to bar someone who has ever been convicted of a felony or crime period from getting compensation. The way it it doesn't matter if the convicted person had it overturned. It is stupid and horrible and fairly scary. The next thing to consider is that if you ever receive charges or a ticket even if it is only a fix it ticket that record never goes away and it's possible for it to haunt you for your entire life and possibly even your children or grandchildren may have to deal with it. It doesn't matter if you were convicted or if the charges were dismissed or whatever else. This is unfortunate because things that shouldn't have harmed people have.

[@Milesco]

@@jedstanaland2897 But if the conviction was overturned, then legally it doesn't exist. As a matter of law, he wasn't convicted. So there is a fundamental problem there. Our legal system is unfair and unjust, but I still don't believe a conviction can be overturned by an appeals court and yet still be used to deny a person compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. That is so fundamentally illogical that I don't think even our effed up American courts could allow that. Maybe you can talk to your friend's lawyer and clarify the situation?

[@wallebo]

NEVER, EVER talk to the police. Invoke your 5th Amendment rights and STFU. Hard to do, I know. Also, use video to document the interaction and realize that the follow through will be grueling, but necessary. Know your rights or you will not have any rights.

[@rodh1404]

Documenting the interaction with your own video is good advice, but some police officers won't let you or anyone else do that. And often enough, they get away with doing it.

[@wallebo]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I would love for a cop to try to stop me from legally recording in public. I can guarantee that they will get sued. I have f*ck you money and can afford top shelf attorneys. These cowards prey on the weak and I am far from weak. I don't look for trouble but won't have my rights trampled on by tyrants that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.@@rodh1404

[@GratefulforFreePress]

@@rodh1404 You need to be firm and DEMAND that you will record, not request. Cite the first amendment and try to attract as much attention of bystanders as you can while doing it. They may TRY to stop people from recording but doing so is a violation of one's rights and absolutely illegal for the police to do. Sure, the system is not perfect and it may not always work in your favor, but the more attention we bring to this problem, the less able cops will be able to get away with this. We need to create a culture where cops are SCARED to violate people's rights like this, and the only way to do that is to keep standing up for our rights in anyway we can.

[@samsteel2643]

Stand for your rights or lose them

[@wallebo]

Agreed! Thank you for your thoughtful reply.@@samsteel2643

[@TimTVOfficial]

I directly told an officer "Let me call my lawyer, I want him present while you engage with me" (since I had a firm that I already work with for non-criminal law, but they also have a defense branch as well) and he said that I don't require a lawyer and kept harrassing me and eventually detained, arrested me for a coupole hours, then released me. To me that sounded like him commiting perjury of a police statement while acting under color of law. In case you're wondering, the event in that situation was that someone's parked fifth-wheel trailer was blown over in 50 knot (or about 58 MPH) wind gusts while I was on my empty property nearby wetting the dirt to keep the dust down while heavy wind was blowing, and someone called the police claiming that I tipped it onto it's side and vandelized it. I can't even make my own fifth-wheel trailer wobble. I was driving a small Prius to my lot, so no need to think I was able to take the time in heavy wind to climb up on it while staying steady on my feet, tie some ropes around it without getting spotted, and pull it sideways with a Prius. It was just a Karen and they wouldn't tell me who my accuser was so I can take them to court.

[@johngalt9989]

They can ignore my request for a lawyer, and I can ignore their requests for me to say anything to them.

[@scubasmitty5135]

NEVER,, NEVER,, NEVER,, talk to Leo's without a lawyer !!!! I don't care what YOU think officer,, I want a LAWYER !!! PERIOD !!!

[@historiansayori2089]

It’s infuriating that a video like this is necessary, but I thank you for providing advice in this scenario. Hopefully, we’ll be able to reach a point where laws actually serve the people instead of feeding the prisons’ need for ‘unpaid labor’.

[@76678-m]

Agreed on everything you said. I have to say these past few years have been a wake up call for me. As an eighties kid, I bought into the mythology that police were heroes trying to keep us safe. But with all these videos of police brutality, and after learning about how police are actually allowed to lie, I fear police more than most of the people they are supposedly protecting me from.

[@theeffete3396]

But... videos like this ARE necessary. And they should be shared and widely circulated.

[@historiansayori2089]

@@theeffete3396 That was my point? The first part was me being annoyed that the system has failed so spectacularly that videos like this ARE necessary. I agree this video should be spread around as much as possible.

[@kmg501]

Some people are really stupid, they have to be told countless times information like this.

[@balijosu]

Yeah it should be pretty clear that saying "maybe a thing is true" isn't a request for anything.

[@JugglesGrenades]

A cop friend once said to me, " Admit nothing, deny everything, and say I want a lawyer."

[@monopolizedopamine]

I'm a simple person. I like simple things. "Lawyer" is my kinda simple that should be widely used.

[@Milesco]

Yeah, that's where I respectfully disagree with Attorney Flusche. (I'm a lawyer myself, so I'm allowed to do that! 😉) If I have to repeat my request for a lawyer -- I shouldn't have to, but if I do -- I would say it in a complete sentence, just like the first time: *"I want a lawyer."* That way there can be no ambiguity. The single word "lawyer" by itself is not a complete sentence, and therefore is open to interpretation. And we all know by now how the courts interpret ambiguities (even made-up ones). So you can't give them any wiggle room. Say "I want a lawyer" and repeat as necessary.

[@toadhall5041]

You had better say "I want a lawyer". If you just say " lawyer" it may be interpreted as you casually saying a word. Remember that guy who said " lawyer dawg" and it was interpreted as " lawyer dog" and therefore not a request for a lawyer. Ridiculous!

[@jasonshults368]

Why not be unambiguously clear? "I am invoking my right to an attorney, and I am envoking my right to remain silent. If you choose to infringe upon those rights, I will seek redress in the form of federal charges filed against you, as well as monetary recompense in the form of a federal lawsuit against you individually, as well as your department." There is no way they are not liable thereafter if they choose to ignore you.

[@Milesco]

@@jasonshults368 Suing the police for violating your 5th amendment rights isn't going to get you anywhere. Especially after the recent Supreme Court decision in _Vega v. Tekoh_ (2022) that says you can't sue the police for violating your 5th amendment rights. The only remedy is the inadmissibility of your statements. If you really want to be unambiguously clear, just say "I want a lawyer" and leave it at that. The simpler you say something, the less ambiguity can be squeezed out of it.

[@hannibalsdiner1365]

Isn't it SO convenient that the public schools teach you to respect the law, but leave so illiterate and poorly spoken that you can't get ANY respect from the law!

[@Andrewflusche]

Don't get me started on the state of public schools in this country.

[@jessederks8458]

I am definitely NOT a lawyer. However a lawyer I know says it doesn't matter if you are innocent, talking to the police without an attorney is a sure way to get in trouble or make it worse. Be polite, but firm. Tell them, politely, that: Thank you. You understand your rights. You will NOT be speaking with them any further until you have a lawyer. If you are a minor, also note that you will NOT speak unless your parent is present with that lawyer. They keep asking questions? Note that you already said you will NOT be speaking any further until you have a lawyer. Also reiterate, if you are a minor, you also will not speak without your parent being present with that lawyer. There is nothing wrong with getting counsel and having that professional there to help you. You hire an architect to design a safe house, a doctor to keep you healthy as plausible, and a lawyer to navigate crazy legal landscapes.

[@wholeNwon]

Not quite right. Saying you will not talk with them is not sufficient. You must state that you are invoking your Constitutional right to remain silent (5th Amend.) Just remaining silent is not sufficient either. An affirmative assertion is required.

[@sanjosemike3137]

@@wholeNwon TRUE. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@21warmasters]

architect and safe house is a funny statement

[@UtubeH8tr]

Unless they beat your ass in interrogation room and make up some bullshit you fell down stairs.

[@wholeNwon]

@@UtubeH8tr I used to work in an ER and we saw that a lot.

[@Apocalypse3434]

The problem is that most judges are either former prosecutors who worked extensively with police or law clerks trained to maintain the government's status quo.

[@roadcalm3303]

The dress color question made me burst out in laughter!😂

[@Abettorman]

Same, LOL! I came here to comment on that

[@mikey92362]

Same. I'm hoping he'll give a shout-out to Laurel and Yanni soon!

[@Gabby-bot]

Steve Lehto, with whom you may may be familiar, has a channel here on KZbin, 'Lehto's Law'. He also became aware of the 'lawyer, dog' statement and had a sign made that he has on rhe wall behind that states 'LAWYER DOG', which states underneath said dog's hours of availability. I was pretty much aware of what you shared. Here in Norway, someone called the police to say that they thought I was drunk. They asked if I had ID. I said yes. They asked to see it. I responded, 'No, as I am not, for example, operating a motor vehicle, but I will identify myself', which I proceeded to do. That worked out fine. Moral of story, know and exercise your rights, or we may all lose them. Thank you for an excellent video.

[@wdtaut5650]

Are you talking about Norway as in Scandinavia, or Norway, Michigan (Lehto is in Michigan)? Maybe you have to identify your self in Norway (the foreign country) but I'm pretty sure you would not be compelled to identify yourself in those circumstances in Michigan. The cops would, undoubtedly, make noises that you do have to identify, but its still my bet you do not.

[@madmaximilian5783]

@Gabby-bot• I'm also a fan of Steve Lehto and just love how he breaks down cases. Shows like these are a necessity nowadays just to survive police encounters.

[@madnessofmymind]

Love Lehto!

[@42roadsforman44]

Everyone knows he was saying " lawyer, dawg" calling the investigator by the colloquial term... I'm willing to bet even the justices knew that.

[@MichaelOnines]

They did. The concurrence with the 6-1 per curium decision quoted the statement in its it relevant context. It was bundled in a conditional statement and prefaced.with "why don't you", so exactly the kind of ambiguous passing reference to lawyer discussed in the Davis case. Nobody was arguing about whether or not he was talking about a human lawyer, only whether or not he was actually requesting one. The cops stopped to ask him directly if he wanted a lawyer, instead he kept talking to them.

[@andrewburkinshaw1446]

That was my thought too. They took his statement out of context by moving the comma and changing the spelling. Lawyer, dawg to lawyer dog,. It’s an honest misunderstanding because we all have a dog who is a lawyer on standby. 🤦‍♂️

[@jaaa4590]

Remember anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you, not FOR you.

[@Metqa]

Exactly, CAN and WILL !

[@jaaa4590]

@@Metqa at anytime as well. A spontaneous utterance or anything said during "casual conversation" is legally admissible.

[@cementer7665]

This IS a common practice out here in rural West Texas, in a county roughly 55 miles SE of Abilene. This comes from an impeccable source...

[@Just1American1966]

I've been saying this for years. I practically yell at the people on TV (both fictional and otherwise) when they act lime this. I also notice when the cops quit right then and there, too. "Oh, he lawyered up." No, he didn't. He's merely contemplating it.

[@infinityhike]

On one side you *might* have highly specialized, trained law enforcement officers who *might* be attempting to get ahead of an egregious crime. On the other side you *might* have an every day citizen who *might* have never come in contact with the police as a suspect.

[@Barefoot-Bob]

Back in the day a policeman's word in court was absolute. my question is how can there word be no better than any other citizen as they are, allowed to " lie " ?

[@razony]

Why you don't have to say anything. Just give them your license and proof and be on your way. But people love to dig the hole deeper than it needs to be. P.S. citizens lie as well.

[@bboywolf]

​@@razonynot, make the officer's life as difficult as possible when you're innocent. If you know you're wrong then be humble and silent

[@Barefoot-Bob]

@@razony I did not mean to imply i have trouble with the police. on the contrary i am a staunch supporter. The reason for my question if you take it at face value is pretty open . A police officers word back in the day was beyond reproach, How can you have that when they are permitted to lie it goes to Ethics, that is the point i am trying to make.

[@razony]

@@bboywolf Exactly.

[@adamofblastworks1517]

@@Barefoot-Bob well they aren't allowed to lie in court later, right? That doesn't mean that they don't, but there is a time where they aren't "allowed" to. Unless some recent laws or rulings changed that in some places, which I might have heard of. I didn't follow up on it though.

[@BlueBearOne]

Unexpected comment of the day, "If you've never had a fried alligator, you are missing out!" 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

[@atkinsjoe5754]

Lol I once was picked up by the cops. First thing I said was lawyer. The cop said if you’re innocent why do you need a lawyer. I replied lawyer. And you pay for him.

[@cookncrook6902]

Just don’t speak after requesting your lawyer. They can’t force you to speak however they will try all the tricks they can to manipulate you into squawking.

[@tiredandretired7137]

I've never had a good interaction with the police. All have ranged from problematic to hirable. And that is with me cooperating fully.

[@crazysquirrel9425]

Just ban ALL interrogations unless the accused has their lawyer present at all times. No more sneakiness. No need to ask. Also, why does anyone HAVE to participate in a police interrogation?? Ban all police from LYING. Lying is an act of fraud.

[@winner33660]

Great Video Andrew, I Got it

[@randytrivette6618]

I saw a video I think by Anthony Brian Logan ABL where Seattle has passed the law that says cops are no longer allowed to lie to you. He said it was the only city in the country. Have you heard that?

[@wholeNwon]

Reference?

[@user-fn1cd6mo9z]

@@wholeNwon Sadly, it holds water about as well as a cup without a bottom. Here's a summary from the Capitol Hill Seattle Blog: Under the new policy, the city and SPD say officers are permitted to use a ruse - “a statement an officer knows is not true” - in limited circumstances under existing law. The city’s new policy, officials say, adds further guidelines and restricts the use of the ploys to “five scenarios.” Those umbrella covers a wide set of circumstances - including “de-escalation,” “to call or provide comfort,” to “promote safety of any person,” “scene management,” and “to bring potentially violent situations to a peaceful resolution.” I can't think of a single situation that couldn't be argued to fall under one of those exceptions. But, at least having a law like that somewhere is a tiny little nod in the right direction.

[@MichaelOnines]

Based on your description it seems to umbrella cover the on-the-street interaction parts through arrest and getting you to the station. It still appears to prohibit use of lies during interrogation, such as telling you your buddy already told them everything about the two of you robbing the bank, or "we have it all on tape". That's an improvement.@@user-fn1cd6mo9z

[@N.Cognito]

When i took my ccw class the instructor said that should any of us have to defend ourselves when the police get there to say "i intend to fully cooperate with your investigation, but i want my lawyer present for any and sll questioning"

[@adammitchell3462]

I know your acting in the role of the cop is super comical (but not that different from an actual cop, i been there) but it's actually very helpful... especially for somebody who's not previously been in such a situation

[@joeydehart3429]

Those court ruling I feel were wrong and eventually going to be overturned. That case out of Louisiana specifically was ignoring someone clearly invoking their right by pretending they did not understand his slang.

[@andrewburkinshaw1446]

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from watching different lawyers Channels, it’s that you should get a lawyer even if you’re innocent. They’ve pointed to many cases of innocent people unknowingly saying things that bring suspicion on them.

[@thefancytiefling]

"I am requesting a lawyer be present for any questioning you have for me. Other than that and a phone call. I have nothing to say. I'm invoking my fifth amendment right to remain silent."

[@davidcooke8005]

I got busted in 2003 for a closet cannabis grow. They had me handcuffed to a chair in my kitchen as they absolutely ransacked my house, interrogating me continuously the whole time. I must have said '5th amendment' 300 times that day. One cop after another was given a turn, Good cop. Bad cop. Woman cop. Didn't matter. If they asked a question, no matter how accusatory or innocuous I replied '5th amendment'. Finally they came upstairs and announced they had cut a water line in my basement and it was filling with water and they needed know where the shutoff valve was. '5th amendment', I said, then followed up with 'and you'll be paying to remodel my whole house for questioning me under duress after clearly stating I intended to stand on my rights.' They found the shutoff valve real quick, and stopped asking me more questions. Still busted me. Tried stealing my house in a civil forfeiture. My lawyer beat them, then in 2012 wrote the bill that legalized it here in WA. Shortly after that the Supreme Court made that kind of house forfeiture illegal. Every they did to me is now illegal. Everything I did is now legal. They get a pension. I get a felony on my record for being on the right side of history. All cops are bastards, and America is a failed state.

[@robertsteinbach7325]

Welcome to the "Land of the free". At least the cops didn't make up a "confession" or say you invoking your 5th Amendment rights was a sure sign you are guilty in court. Unfortunately, in America, you have no rights any Police are guaranteed to respect.

[@MiC-T]

I'm sure that's exactly what happened.

[@davidcooke8005]

@@robertsteinbach7325 No, that was when they came back in 2016 because an angry renter swatted me. Asked for a warrantless search, which I politely declined. They came back the next day and as they ransacked my house a second time the cop detaining me straight up said that when people stand on their rights, it's department policy to retaliate. And they did. They found nothing illegal so they framed me for a felony, but they were so sloppy they went on record saying 3 + 1 = 3. So I sued them. At deposition, King County Senior Prosecutor David Hackett was proudly quoting Joseph Goebbels to explain why his office considers the Bill of Rights to be irrelevant. I have the video. At summary judgement King County Superior Court Judge McHale agreed that 3 + 1 = 3 and dismissed my suit. All the documents are public record for you doubters. All cops are bastards, and America is a failed state.

[@MiC-T]

How is America a failed state if you beat the police and the laws were changed because they treated you wrong?

[@davidcooke8005]

@@MiC-T Obviously there is a lot more detail, but the more detail I give, the worse your narrative gets. So take the L now. It's public record. Look it up straight at the courthouse.

[@Shadare]

I always like to say "I want my lawyer, dog" and then specify "I'm not requesting a canine lawyer, Im asserting my right to an attorney and calling you a bitch."

[@charleswoods2996]

I am so grateful for your channel. You've confirmed what were only notions and "gut instincts" at one time but you clear it all up right here. I wish I could do something about the times in my past when law enforcement blatantly violated ALL of my civil and constitutional rights, and I've never gotten my day in court. However, these days, every time I leave my home, I have a law enforcement quality body camera running so that if it ever happens again I'm going to sue my local PD for so much damn money they'll have to work on a volunteer basis! They won't even be able to ride a bicycle for patrols much less think about starting up a vehicle.

[@tonysolar284]

IF there is a Police Dog, There should be a Lawyer Dog too.😄

Yes. Although firefighter dogs are totally missing out. Where are the rescue Dalmatians?

[@mlpowers1991]

If you believe you're guilty of a crime and are being interrogated by the police, you need a lawyer. If you believe you're innocent and being interrogated by the police, you REALLY need a lawyer.

[@DefiantSix]

That's why your "request" for a lawyer should never come unaccompanied. "I don't answer questions, Officer." "I don't consent to my person or property being searched, Officer." "I am not comfortable continuing this interaction with you without my attorney being present to advise me, Officer." So long as those three sentences are the only things coming out of your soup cooler, when your attorney finally does arrive, jackboot has a much weaker case to make against you, because YOU DIDN'T INCRIMINATE YOURSELF responding to his badgering.

[@bredenis5]

I agree and that is some good contribution however I actually think your last statement may still be considered ambiguous in terms of invoking counsel. I would unambiguously state “I would like a lawyer”.

[@snorgardark1908]

WRONG!! "I don't answer questions, Officer." NO! That's not using your right to remain silent. you say " I am using my right to remain silent" NOTE: They can still ask you questions but they cant use your refusal to answer against you now. If you start answering or talking back you remove your usage of the right. "I am not comfortable continuing this interaction with you without my attorney being present to advise me, Officer." NO! Did you not just watch the video? You don't have a right to feel comfortable and you did not actually ask for an attorney. You say " I WANT an attorney." NOTE: In this case the can not ask you anymore questions, but can sit with you until the lawyer arrives and see if you try and defend yourself on your own. BTW "I wont answer questions without an attorney" Is neither using your right to remain silent not is it asking for any attorney. Its stupid I know but they get away with this BS all the time. You actually have to say you are using these specific rights. FYI Don't simply stay silent. They can use that against you if you don't state your using your right. They ask some innocent questions and then the crime ones and they can say when they got to the crime one you would not answer or had to take time to think so you may be lying.

[@goofyahdemoman1134]

Or rather, “I want a lawyer.” Sound demanding too.

[@theda850two]

Better advice, there could not be! Thanks A. F. esquire.

[@goofballbiscuits3647]

Back with another banger! It's always a joy to see a new vid of yours.

[@johnnyt599]

I'm going to disagree with your , highly trained police officer statement . Most don't know zip about the law .

[@jamesgoesoff1992]

"i refuse to answer your questions without my lawyer present". it is clear and to the point. a good video for you to do would be 10 replies from first contact to walking out of custody.

[@koriko88]

If you get arrested, the only words you know are “Lawyer” and “Attorney”. “Where were you last Friday night?” “Lawyer. Attorney, lawyer.” “What’s your name?” “Lawyer lawyer lawyer.”

[@justabill5780]

How about this... Say "I want a glass of water and a lawyer.". If they bring you that glass of water, it means hat your requests were clear as they complied with the first of your demands. Which also means you were clear about second.

[@ajc-ff5cm]

Then, don't touch the glass of water cause you'll give them your fingerprints

[@justabill5780]

@@ajc-ff5cm And DNA if you actually drink from he glass or bottle.

[@MasterBiffpudwell]

They can keep asking questions but nothing is forcing you to answer said questions.

[@kevinerbs2778]

I got locked in a van, with a man blocking my exit & he was armed. Anything I said should never have been able to used in court ever because of that. As them locking the van & blocking me in is also on VIDEO too. ME asking if they were going to let me out was also recorded. The answer I got was "that depending on how you answer the questions" I should be able to sue right? (clear civil rights violations there) there are supposed to be laws about the prosecutor not being able to use any of that as evidence. As self-incriminating evidence can't be used because can be obtained while a person is under duress. oh bye the way they lie about they say too. I wasn't asked "If wanted a lawyer" I was asked specifically "if I had one". Not that I wanted one. My only reply was that "I couldn't afford one", never did I say I didn't want one.

[@joevignolor4u949]

You have to be careful when remaining silent. You have to invoke your 5th amendment rights before going silent. If you just clam up and don't say anything your silence can be used against you in court. Your silence can be taken as an admission of guilt. You specifically have to say "5th amendment" before you shut up.

[@kevinerbs2778]

@@joevignolor4u949 silence can't ever be taken a guilt in court.

[@MichaelKunz-mt2oo]

"Not talking to police in the first place is your best choice for defending yourself." Spot on. Don't open the door to your home, don't even let them know you are home. If they have a warrant they are coming through that door whether you are home or not.

[@paulne1514]

In Pennsylvania, if you want a lawyer but can’t afford one, oh well! You’re on your own.

So not even the pretense of public defenders like NYC where they basically do nothing for the accused and manipulate innocent people to plead guilty out of expediency?

[@BruceG2009]

There are two statements that should follow having your rights read to you; I understand my rights, and I want an attorney. Nothing further should be said.

[@torvus249]

I knew what the error was as soon as I saw the first skit. I pass videos like this to my friends, and each time I summarize with: "You can say two things to the police: I require medical attention (if applicable)," and, "I invoke my right to an attorney.""

[@gta4everrr]

Looks like Mike had it right the entire time. Just keep saying the word "lawyer" until they give up.

[@lumberjackjake6107]

I'll be asking for a lawyer the instant I get read my rights if it ever comes to that because I don't break the law. That being said this is huge. Thank you

[@JaredaSohn]

It is a bit infuriating that the Louisiana Supreme Court wouldn't accept "Lawyer, Dawg" or however it was exactly phased as an acceptable invocation of their rights. I don't personally use such language, however it is a common colloquialism and manner of speech that is prevalent within society, particularly with black Americans. This is similar to someone who doesn't speak English well if at all requesting a lawyer in the language they do know and their request not being an accepted invocation of their rights. Perhaps though I simply don't know enough about the situation

[@Milesco]

You are exactly 100% correct, and it IS infuriating. The decision by the Louisiana Supreme Circus is a shameful disgrace, and it brings the whole judicial system (especially the Louisiana judicial system) into disrepute. It makes a mockery of our justice system.

[@MichaelOnines]

The reason they didn't accept it has nothing to do with "dog" or "dawg" and was entirely because it was based on the conditional "if y'all think I did it". The officers stopped to clarify if Demesme wanted a lawyer, and he didn't stop talking to them.

[@flamethrower82]

still doesn't make it right. @@MichaelOnines

[@honestabe411]

Moral of the story: don’t be a dumb n

[@Milesco]

@@MichaelOnines _"The reason they didn't accept it has nothing to do with "dog" or dawg" and was entirely because it was based on the conditional 'if y'all think I did it.' "_ No, that's not correct. According to the only judge on the Louisiana supreme court who wrote an opinion, the defendant allegedly said: "If y'all, this is how I feel, if y'all think I did it, I know that I didn't do it, so why don't you just give me a lawyer dog [sic] 'cause this is not what's up." Judge Scott Crighton wrote: "In my view, the defendant's ambiguous and equivocal reference to a "lawyer dog" [sic] does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview...." So clearly the judge *_did_* base his opinion on the misconception that Mr. Demesme had asked for a "lawyer dog". Judge Crichton is also wrong because, by his own admission, the defendant said "if y'all think I did it...why don't you just give me a lawyer..." There's nothing ambiguous or equivocal about that. The conditional conjunction "if" does not make the request equivocal because *the condition is clearly satisified:* the police DID think he did it. And finally, contrary to MichaelOnines' assertion, there's nothing in the judge's opinion that indicates the police stopped to clarify if Demesme wanted a lawyer. Indeed, that's what they *_should_* have done, but they did not. To the contrary, the judge specifically said the police _didn't_ have to stop to clarify whether Demesme wanted a lawyer, because his request was "ambiguous and equivocal". (Which it wasn't, as I explained above, but that's what the judge said.)

[@frederickbroniak8832]

Great advice.

[@Milesco]

3:33 "If the police ask _any_ clarifying or repetitive questions about your request for counsel, I would simply reply with the single word, "lawyer"." This is where I respectfully disagree with Attorney Flusche. If I have to repeat my request for a lawyer, I would say it in a complete sentence, just like the first time: *"I want a lawyer."* That way there can be no ambiguity. The single word "lawyer" by itself is not a complete sentence, and therefore is open to interpretation. And we all know by now how the courts interpret ambiguities (even made-up ones). So you can't give them any wiggle room. Say "I want a lawyer" and repeat as necessary.

[@ARockRaider]

you can try as many tricks as you want. it's all. meaningless if the cops don't care, and the courts won't hold the cops personally liable so why should the cops care?

[@Milesco]

@@ARockRaider Well, using complete sentences isn't a "trick". And while it's true that there's not much downside for cops who violate your rights, there is at least the possibility that the court won't allow your statements to come into evidence. If nothing else, that'll piss them off and serve as a reminder not to violate people's rights next time. But I agree that courts these days are not much interested in protecting the people's constitutional rights. ☹

[@Inpreesme]

Thank you

[@SoundsLegit71]

I asked for a lawyer three times once in the police car twice in the room. They just kept talking and my phone call was useless because my phone was in my car so who was i gonna call 1800 lawyer. I had bail money, was i gonna wire the money to them maybe they will take me to my bank lol.

[@wholeNwon]

They can keep talking. But you shut up. Good idea to note the names of the officers involved when you demanded counsel.

[@FelipeNaranja]

Of all rights, what applies to tourists? For example, if I'm being detained as a tourist in Virginia, can I invoke the fifth? I know I have to call Andrew Flusche if I need a lawyer, that name will cause fear in cops, but what rights I'm entitled to as a tourist?

[@jeffreypierson2064]

You are entitled to all the same rights as a citizen. "I want a lawyer. I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent."

[@itowmyhome797]

Thank you

[@tallthinkev]

100% the same rights as a US citizen. If not you, or indeed I, (been to Virginia many times), can do what ever we want and there is nothing the cops can do about it.

[@jerryinmon2731]

A resident of the U.S. which is anybody here whether they have the legal right to be have virtually all of the same rights as any person born here. This is especially true of people traveling from one state to another. The privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that states treat residents of other states the same as their own.

[@wholeNwon]

You realize that the Bill of Rights is part of the U.S. Constitution, right? UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Your rights follow you everywhere in the Country.

[@IanK369]

"Golden Retriever, Attorney at Law" would make for an excellent sitcom though.

[@NoSuffix]

Nice info! But fried alligator? We tried that once at Everglades National Park and definitely don't want to touch it again. LOL

[@falcorthewonderdog2758]

You can just refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer. Once you declare you right to a lawyer you need to declare your right to remain silent and not answer any questions without a lawyer present.

[@prague5419]

You know we love you, right Andrew?

[@fsebek678]

Thank you for your videos Sad part is the taxpayers pay for this abuse,judges need to be replaced like the president every 4 years

[@Geneticspore]

Lawyer. And that dress is gold and white.

[@anonnymowse]

Very nice bowtie but still not bright enough. This is one you could wear in court. 😀

[@riftalope]

My nephew was being questioned on the street and his answers were... "I don't answer questions without my lawyer." "Are you asking questions without my lawyer being here?" "Funny how MY Lawyer isn't here." My answer IS lawyer." "My fuk'n Lawer ain't here, is he?" and MY favorite, "Lawyer. lawyerlawyer. Law-EE-yer!" The cops just walked away.

[@davidhunter1424]

I look at it this way, if I get no lawyer, then I will maintain my fifth amendment rights until I get one. You have the right to remain silent.

[@theeffete3396]

Thinking the guy wanted a "Lawyer dog" should be enough to grant an appeal

[@MichaelOnines]

Nobody thought he wanted a canine to represent him. It was all about how the reference to a lawyer was tied up in a conditional statement and "why don't you" which is exactly what the Davis decision said did not invoke your right to counsel. The cops paused the interview and asked him if he wanted to get a lawyer. He didn't. He's just trying after-the-fact to get his damning statements off the record because somewhere in the transcript the word "lawyer" appears. Don't talk to cops.

[@thefreedomguyuk]

They might not stop asking questions. But WE are still not obliged to neither talk nor comply. Only repeat you request a lawyer, and that you do not consent to anything.

[@fire-in-a-theater]

“Highly specialized, trained officers…” 😆😂🤣 Good one. You’re a comedian too. 🤙🏻

[@rhess10]

AF is the best. Lawyer. There should be more great lawyers like him. Lawyer. I have been following him for years. Lawyer.

[@ApotropaicV]

This is excellent advice! Cops are doing a necessary and appreciated job of protecting people from threats. However, it’s important to remember that they are trained, they want prosecutions, and that they (as do we all) have flaws. Always ask for a lawyer. Beat that into your brain… Lawyer. Lawyer. Lawyer.

[@ShadowMokujin]

"Reasonable officer" XD ya those are ultra rare

[@Tim_the_Enchanter]

Silence is golden.

[@andrewpinkham9904]

When I said I wanted a lawyer all the cops left but not before one said they wouldn't be able to help me if I did

[@mrj-charles6383]

Thanks I learned a dog cannot be a real lawyer watching this video

[@LordofDungeons32]

When police start questioning say I WANT A LAWYER and answer no questions.

[@KHAT0VAR]

That judge's ruling on "lawyer dog" has always amazed me and was straight-up, unambiguous racism. I'm guessing he and the cops laughed SO HARD about it later at the Klan meeting.

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

This will blow your mind, they were AT the modern day, Klan meeting.

[@KHAT0VAR]

@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism The robe was different, but you're not wrong.

[@charlesw3120]

I've never seen a dog pass the bar.

[@jacobfreeman5444]

Well, if you are ignorant of English variants then it is ambiguous in meaning. So it was his fault for not being clearer so they couldn't use it against him. Still they should have followed up if there was any confusion about his meaning so it really was just the cops using the law as a weapon against the populace

[@KHAT0VAR]

@@jacobfreeman5444 I don't have enough faith or energy to continue to give them the benefit of the doubt in the "Are you stupid or evil" debate. I fully believe both the police and the judge were playing dumb so they could plausibly deny their racism.

[@Jagojoe]

I recently started coming across your videos and have been really enjoying them. Thanks for the content. Question, how does a civilian navigate the countless state laws to figure out what is and is not allowed? I've seen videos and they generally say that their comments apply to their state but I want to understand the laws in my state, MA.

[@KickYouInTheThroat]

It wouldnt be so bad if they werent allowed to just lie lol I turn down all invitations to talk for that reason alone

[@rlrudedog]

This is what gets me about law, rules, and people. Everyone wants to be your friend, your buddy, the person that will help you, and want you to think this for their whatever. Really, the court is not on your side, police is not on your side, banks are not your friend, your so-called grocery are not friendly, and mostly do not think the doctors and sure are not either. Maybe your only true one to trust is your cat or dog.

[@SylvanasWindrunnerResurrected]

What you need to tell them is that you formally request a lawyer as well as a lawyer dog. You know, to keep the lawyer company

[@NoManClatuer-pd8ck]

The last time I said wanted to speak to a lawyer, I did get the opportunity. 3 months later. He wasn't interested in what I had to say. Fortunately he had colleague's who did.

[@shaunlankford3402]

The dress was blue and black. I may have trouble not answering that one. 😂

[@crimsonmask3819]

The kind of people who operate like this (cops, judges, and other bad actors) think they're _smart_ for playing people like it's some kind of game, but really that's just their psychopathic traits showing.

[@doc693]

I’m very well versed in the law. It’s like the Forrest Gump movie, “sit down and shut up.” Also don’t open the door, if they want you bad enough they’ll come right on in.

[@gizmofrompizmo2177]

Defendant: the cops arrested me. Lawyer dog: that's ruff.

[@1984Phalanx]

"I need a lawyer dog." Lmao

[@runswithfish3830]

3:06 You read a quote that did not match the actual quote and did not make sense when you said, "If y'all this is how I feel..." I thought I was having a stroke when I heard that.

[@joshjordan1486]

Happened to me once,i just said im not answering any question until a lawer is present they implied i was guilty..2 hours later they told me they were going to request the charges be dropped.

[@joshjordan1486]

Never seen any lawyer either. 😂

[@disgruntledtoons]

The Louisiana justices who issued that opinion should have been impeached on that basis alone.

[@paulcollyer801]

3:17 Brit here, (don’t hate me cos of where I was born… 😂😂) & I was gonna mention this very case! Steve Lehto, Michigan Attorney, has done a video on that one & has a sign in his studio referencing it.

[@neuralwarp]

Police are allowed to lie. Suspect: I demand a lawyer. Officer (lying): Hi. I am your attorney. Tell me everything.

[@tanjajohnson4659]

If the police say that you have the right to remain silent "SHUT UP ! ! ! !", If they say that you have the right to an attorney, break rule #1 long enough to "TELL THEM THAT YOU WANT ONE ! ! !" Then go back to rule #1

[@Undecided0]

It would’ve been hilarious if they brought in a dog to represent him in court.

[@chrismusix5669]

I refuse to invoke my right to remain silent since that is some sort of oxymoron.

[@Milesco]

I agree. The problem is that our wonderful Supreme Court has said that you *_must_* speak up and explicitly invoke your constitutional right to remain silent, or else your silence can be used against you in court. It sucks, and it's illogical, but it is what it is. And with one-third of the SCOTUS now populated by Trump appointees, it's only gonna get worse. 😡

[@gregoryfoster8179]

I've seen some crazy interrogation videos where this type of thing has occurred. I don't guess it's too amazing though to see the number of idiots that get themselves convicted when they run their mouths or try to outsmart the professional interrogator. Criminals by and large aren't the brightest apples on the tree.