I just got pulled over by the police after I saw a escort at a hotel. The police said that they saw me leave the hotel room and say that will arrest me as a john if i don't give information about the escort I just saw. What should have I really tell the pigs.

without speaking to your lawyer first.

(still not a lawyer)

Always, always, always refuse to incriminate yourself!  Such a threat (arresting you as a john) has no teeth unless they were in the room with you, or the room was wired... in which case they would simply arrest you.

DOWNLOAD AND READ THIS:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14527res20020304.html?Type=s

In witch city does this happend?

lying to a cop is even worse than the crime they are busting you for.  (Just ask Martha Stewart.)

If they cops says something like "Did you come here to have sex for money$"  Do not say no.  If they bust you and get you on the prostituion charge, they may try to tack on the lying to a cop charge as well.

Instead say:  "I wish to invoke my right to remain silent and I wish to speak to my lawyer."

Saying something like "I don't know what you are talking about." will only encourage the cops to ask more specific questions and that is not good for you.

The cop will give up when you start making lawyer-like noises.

Lying to a cop in this circumstance is not comparable to Martha Stewart's violation.  She lied while under oath, and not to the cops.  Just telling a cop who pulled you over a lie isn't the same - you aren't under oath.

"you aren't under oath"

But you are hindering prosecution.  Lying under oath is perjury.  That is not what Martha Stewart was convicted of, IIRC.  Since the event happened when she was not in court or a deposition, it's unlikely she was actually under oath.

The key thing to remember in the initial poster's situation is "Everything you say CAN and WILL be used against you".  A lie, no matter how nicely crafted you think it is, can bite you in the ass.

(disclaimer: not a lawyer)

""The key thing to remember in the initial poster's situation is "Everything you say CAN and WILL be used against you".  A lie, no matter how nicely crafted you think it is, can bite you in the ass.""
-----------------------------------
Not quite.  I do not belive the orignial poster was arrested or given his Miranda rights.  Thus any interrogation questions prior to being given your rights would not be admissable in court against you.  

If you were read your rights, then it would not be in your interest to lie to an officer.  In fact it's always in your best interest to say nothing at all.

Police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth and address without reading suspects their Miranda warnings.  And they can arrest you without telling you why your being arrested or giving you your rights.  But any questions they ask would be inadmissable.

You all mist a very important detail. There is no law of coming out of a hotel room anywhere in the United States. Just state, is it against the law to leave a hotel room? They will then try to ask you more questions and even put an answer in your mouth. At that point simply state that you will not answer any questions without your lawyer present. At that point ask if you can leave or if you’re under arrest.

Police only have to give Miranda warnings to suspects who are in custody.  If you're not in custody, your responses and/or your silence can be used against you and can even become the basis of additional charges.  Remember that Martha Stewart went to prison because she lied to law enforcement when she wasn't in custody and wasn't under oath.

Note that the meaning of "custody" in Miranda cases is a biut different from its everyday meaning.

Police don't have to give Miranda warning to anyone.  They only have to if they intend to question them.  

Silence used against you for additional charges?  Uhhh ok.  Please cite one instance where this occured..... I'll wait.  Last I checked, silence wasn't illegal.

A suspect's entire right to remain silent attaches regardless of whether the suspect is in custody or is the focus of a criminal investigation and can be invoked before custody. People v. Spivey, 209 Ill. App. 3d 584 (1991); People v. Young, 201 Ill. App. 3d 521 (1990); People v. Christomos, 172 Ill. App. 3d 585 (1988). A suspect may be silent without arrest or other repercussion from the investigating officers or agencies. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 61 L. Ed. 2d 357, 99 S. Ct. 2637 (1979) (stating that a person cannot be stopped and required to identify himself or herself absent reasonable suspicion of a crime); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 431-38, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389, 397-401, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 2384-88 (1991) (an individual can refuse to cooperate with random investigatory approaches of officers).

And enough with Martha.  It's not the same thing.  She was charged with USC Title 18, Section 1001.  This statute generally prohibits lying to or concealing information from a federal official.  The purpose of 18 U.S.C.  1001 is to "punish those who render positive false statements designed to pervert or undermine functions of governmental departments and agencies."

I wasn't trying to write a comprehensive treatise about the exclusionary rule under Miranda.  You're right that police don't have to Mirandize anyone they don't want to question, but your original post said they have to Mirandize EVERYONE they question and that is not true.  Police can ask you whatever they want if you're not in custody.  This is why witnesses don't have to be Mirandized, and it is also why police are able to ask preliminary questions without Mirandizing people they don't yet believe committed the crime.  Even when police do believe this, they can keep asking questions without Mirands warnings if the suspect doesn't yet realize they suspect him and has no reason to believe police will hold him.

I also didn't say that being silent in response to a police question would be a crime.  What I said was that it would be admissible against the suspect when he is put on trial for the crime being investigated.  

More specifically, such silence can be used by the prosecution in its rebuttal case if the defendant testifies but was silent at a time before his arrest when an innocent person would normally be expected to speak.

Has this ever happened?  Absolutely.  There are several Supreme Court cases directly on point.  See, e.g., Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603, 607, 102 S. Ct. 1309, 71 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1982) ["In the absence of the sort of affirmative assurances embodied in the Miranda warnings, we do not believe that it violates due process of law for a State to permit cross-examination as to postarrest silence when a defendant chooses to take the stand.].  See also Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 238-239, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980) ["The petitioner also contends that use of prearrest silence to impeach his credibility denied him the fundamental fairness guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We do not agree. Common law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted. 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1042, p. 1056 (Chadbourn rev. 1970)."]  See also Justice Stevens' opinion in the Jenkins case, in which he explained that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination only applies to those under an official compulsion to speak. Jenkins, supra, 447 U.S. at 241, 100 S.Ct. 2124 (Stevens, J., concurring).


My point about Martha Stewart wasn't that her case was exactly like the one the question originally posed.  I was responding to your claim that any questions beyond basic identifying information that law enforcement asks without first giving a Miranda warning would be inadmissible.  That simply isn't true.  If the person isn't in custody they can ask whatever they want, and the lack of a Miranda warning would not keep the answers out of evidence.

Since I do the same thing, I'll let you know why I do it.

We lay-folk have some familiarity with the law, but we do not have the expertise that a lawyer does.  Much like we all can put a band-aid on a cut, but you wouldn't want me to perform open heart surgery on you.

It is quite possible that someone will take the advice of a lay-person on this board and will end up massively screwed because we were not familiar with some critical detail of the law.

I tack on a warning so that people will be cautious when taking my advice in the legal arena.

True it's not illegal to enter or leave a hotel. But the cops can be very persuasive-
we have video of you entering and leaving that'll be on the 10:00 news for your family to see if you don't help us...
That could make some otherwise law abiding citizens think twice

I had this very conversation with a provider and she said to me.  Imagine how it might look to have an angry hooker/s show up at your doorstep after you give information or participate in a sting.

I am about to take the bar so take this for what it is worth but as an aspiring lawyer, this is the best  my knowledge of the law of arrest/detention will ever be.  Fact of the matter is that you were not arrested bc there is not enough of a basis to haul you in.  They are trying to scare you.  Unless the girl gave you up say nothing.  However, these people who tell you to act like lawyers are idiots--the only thing you'll succeed in doing is confusing yourself and telling a lie.  Just shut your mouth, let them take you in (they won't), and you'll be fine.

A few years back, I was at my ATF's apartment getting ready to have dinner, which she was cooking.  We hadn't had sex, and probably wouldn't have had until much later in the evening anyway.

BAM!  BAM!  BAM!

Someone pounding on the door.

She goes to answer the door, and a half-dozen plainclothes cops come streaming into the living room, uninvited.  They separate us and start to question us.  I let them see my ID and tell them she's my friend, which was true enough.  They try to get me to talk, by being "my pal," or threatening me with jail, etc., but I tell them I've got nothing more to say, and I clam up.  They keep us separated, with at least one cop with me at all times.  Every now and then another cop will walk over from where my provider friend is to see if I've said anything, or to try again to trick or humiliate me into making a statement.  One trick was to to pretend to call my wife on my cell phone, telling her they were the police and had caught me with a prostitute.  I didn't react.  They eventually left, after writing my friend a citation.

After they had gone, she told me they had caught a guy coming out of her apartment earlier and had leaned on him for information.  The guy spilled everything, which I guess gave them probable cause to go roust her when I was there.  The guy even called her up later to warn her about what happened, whereupon she verbally tore him a new asshole for being a spineless rat.

The only point to my story is this:  The cops will try to scare you into making their case for them, even if (or especially if) they don't have any other evidence.  Just keep your mouth shut.  Be nice, be respectful, but don't fall for their BS.  What helped me in this instance was that I was truly smitten by this lady, and wouldn't have given her up even if I had been taken to jail, but I learned that ratting her out wasn't even necessary to save my own ass.  It was all a bluff.  When you think about it, what could they arrest me for, anyway?  It's not a crime to be in a prostitute's apartment, or to walk out of it.  In any case, my remaining silent but respectful worked out well for me and for her.