Here is my public service announcement for the day, Norm Pattis on why talking to the police is never a good idea.  

A while back, on SoloSez, someone asked the question – would you consent to a DNA test to exclude you as the perpetrator of a brutal murder?  I said no.  I also said I wouldn’t let my clients take one (normally, of course, there are exceptions to every rule) and I also don’t like it when people talk to the police before they talk to me.  I was stunned that there were people who hold themselves out as being on my side of the aisle (bride’s side, of course) who felt otherwise about the DNA issue.  There was one who misunderstood Arizona v. Youngblood in a variety of ways, there were others who said that if you agree to give a sample the cops will know you didn’t do it since, well, why would you give a sample if you knew you did it? [That NEVER happens.  I mean, clients never say “sure cop, go look in my car” knowing full well it is loaded with (insert name of illicit substance here) and thinking “If I tell the cop he can look, he won’t look, because what sort of d-bag is going to tell a cop to look in the car knowing its loaded with (insert name of illicit substance here)? ]  And still others who suggested that it just might make your clients life easier to give a sample since he would be harrassed/stalked/targeted by the police if he didn’t.  I don’t agree that reasonable minds could differ, at least I wasn’t convinced by any of the arguments on the thread.  I say, make ’em work for it.  I have highly coveted DNA (except for the deficiency in height) and I certainly don’t want the government putting it into a database or selling it to the NIH.

But, all of those attorneys, save one, said they would not let their clients talk to the police.  No.  NO.  And HELL NO were the answers given on that question.  And now, Mr. Pattis has given a full explanation on why it is never, ever a good idea to do it.

I can’t take credit for this great Public Service Announcement, but I can pass it on.