Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Everyone is presumed innocent even cops accused of smuggling weed. But ask yourself this, where do drug dealers get the money to bribe law enforcement? Why would a cop risk his career and freedom to help them? The answer- pot prohibition profit$.

I'm amazed at how many Texans believe the negative externalities of prohibition (corruption, inter alia) are somehow caused by the drugs, or the people selling them.

When we choose to make pot illegal, we choose the corruption of our police officers. Think about it. Drug cartels have a billion dollar monopoly on the Texas cannabis market. What's easier than thinking up schemes to avoid getting caught and sending mules out who could get caught and lose their precious cargo?

Bribing law enforcement. Cops are a good investment for drug cartels.

DALLAS DALLAS (AP) -- The police chief of a small Texas town near the Mexican border faces federal charges of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession of marijuana.

The indictment unsealed Thursday charges Sullivan City Police Chief Hernan Guerra with one count of conspiracy to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms and four counts of possession with intent to distribute between 100 kilograms and 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. Guerra's attorney did not immediately return a message left by The Associated Press.

Guerra was arrested as part of a Justice Department probe called Project Deliverance, a 22-month investigation targeting Mexican drug trafficking organizations in the United States. More than 2,000 people were arrested, including 400 on Wednesday, when FBI agents raided Guerra's office.

He has been the police chief of the tiny community since 2004.

More and more Texans are starting to get it. Here's a group of concerned Texas parents calling for the regulation of the marijuana market to protect their children from drug dealers. They get it. Prohibition is the problem. We made a policy mistake and it's time to fix it. Or we can keep arresting cops corrupted by cartel cash. The choice is ours.

Apparently Plano PD didn't get the memo that 69% of Texans want some form of legalized marijuana. Otherwise, they wouldn't waste their time with meaningless "look I found a joint!" busts.

The latest victim of our inane cannabis war is Chace Crawford. Allegedly, Chace is some sort of TV star (Gossip Girl?) who was hanging out in Plano at Ringo's Pub when the fuzz found an "unlit joint". I feel safer.

Remember opportunity costs? Violent crime in Plano is up over 50% from 2009. IWhat do you want Plano PD working on? Keeping Ringo's Pub free of unlit joints? Or solving and preventing real crime (the kind with victims)?

I'll be the first to admit that news site comments are not the highest form of debate. However, they can be a useful gauge of how some members of the public feel on an issue. So how do the conservative readers of the TT feel about cannabis prohibition?

Here is a recent news story from Terrell, Texas courtesy of the Terrell Tribune.

Marijuana growing operation discovered off Lawson Road

A combined effort involving Kaufman County Sheriff;s Office investigators and the Department of Public Safety located a marijuana plant growing operation on the western edge of Kaufman County.

According to KCSO spokesperson Pat Laney, the highly developed growing operation was located in the Lawson Road area just off of U.S. Highway 80.

Authorities seized 7,125 marijuana plants. It appears that the illegal growing venture had just been started.

The street value of the marijuana plants after harvest is estimated to be in excess of $71,000, Laney said.

Nothing sexy. Just a typical cops find weed and dig it up story. To my surprise, this bust generated a lot of comments for a benign "crime" story. Instead of reposting them I invite you to head on over to the Terrell Tribune (they wrote the story and deserve the hits). Read the comments and ask yourself, which side of the debate has more logic and intellectual depth? And which side is ad hominem nonsense?

I'll make a few quick points that I've already covered in the past.
1. Opportunity costs- every minute we make cops spend digging up plants is not spent on solving and preventing real crime.
2. Marijuana can't kill you. It's non toxic.
3. There wouldn't be grow operations all over the place if weed was legal. Are there moonshine stills all over the place?

I don't blame law enforcement for this bust. Law enforcement by definition, enforces laws. But turning cops into lawn care men with guns is a bad investment that makes us less safe.

Asset forfeiture is a cancer on our criminal justice system. When you remove constitutional protections and allow the government to steal private property and keep the proceed, you can expect injustice every time. Here is a video from the merry band of libertarian lawyers at the Institute for Justice detailing the problems inherent in civil forfeiture laws.

Recently, Shelby County District Attorney Linda K. Russell, found herself on the working end of a civil rights lawsuit for allegedly supervising a highway robbery (asset forfeiture) scheme in which casino bound minorities where pulled over for traffic violations and then threatened with prosecution if they didn't sign over whatever cash they had to the State.

Linda wanted to use tax dollars (and forfeiture cash) to defend her case. Fortunately, the Attorney General put Linda in the same position as the victim of asset forfeiture- Linda will have to pay for her own defense sans government funds.

What happened in Shelby county is indicative of the problems with Texas AF laws. When you combine government greed, racism, and a lack of protection/due process for defendants you get malfeasance and corruption every time.

From DMN-

James Morrow was driving to Houston to visit his cousin when he was pulled over in the East Texas town of Tenaha for "driving too close to the white line."

The officer, Barry Washington, searched the vehicle and asked Morrow if he had any money, according to court records. Morrow, who is black, had $3,900. He said the officer took the cash and drove him to the Shelby County Jail.

That's where authorities threatened to prosecute him for money laundering unless he agreed to forfeit the money, Morrow said. He was never charged with a crime in the 2007 incident, and when he pursued legal action, he got the money back.

Driving too close to the white line isn't a crime in Texas. Still, James was detained and robbed by local police for alleged "money loaundering". Nice.

It gets worse.

Tenaha is a town of 1,112 along a U.S. highway that links Houston with several gambling destinations in Louisiana. Several motorists had large amounts of cash because they were en route to or returning from Shreveport casinos, Guillory said.

Other plaintiffs include an elderly black woman from Ohio who said that after being threatened with money laundering charges, she signed a document authorizing the seizure of $4,000; and an interracial couple from Houston who alleged that authorities said they would place their two children in foster care if they didn't hand over $6,000

What's the law on asset forfeiture in Texas?
Texas government theft/asset forfeiture laws are found in Chapter 59 of the code of criminal procedure. Basically the state can seize "contraband" or property used in the commission of, or property that is the profits from a crime.

Wouldn't that require an actual conviction for a criminal offense? Not so fast. No conviction is required to steal your property. In fact, the State doesn't even have to actually charge you with a crime to file an AF case.

Worse, even if you are later acquitted (found not guilty), the State can still try and steal your property. Forfeiture hearings are civil, and the State need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that your property is contraband.

Most asset forfeiture cases are unopposed. AF victims are mostly poor and can not afford an attorney to fight the seizure. These defendants find themselves alone against the awesome power of the State's forfeiture machine. In civil cases when you don't show up the Plaintiff gets a summary or default judgment. In my experience many, if not most, forfeiture cases end this way.

A portion of the money, cars, and property seized become part of a DA slush fund for Xmas parties etc.

This monetary incentive, combined with the lack of court appointed counsel for the victims of AF, create the perfect environment for malfeasance.

Personal friend and criminal appeals guru has reentered the world of private defense practice. His website could use some SEO magic, so here it goes.

www.souzalawdallas.com

Chris designed his own website, I outsourced mine to Justia. Check out his page of significant decisions. It's pretty significant. Chris is fluent in Spanish, a former ADA, a former public defender, and a has earned a solid Avvo review from yours truly.

You know what I enjoy? Emailing politicians and asking them to support my favorite pet causes. I can't tell you how many marijuana reform emails I've sent Joe Barton (he's not coming around on the issue at all). NORML, MPP, StopTheDrugWar.Org etc make it easy to contact your rep with a simple fill in the blank form.

Recently I asked future Texas governor Kay Bailey Hutchinson to support SWAT reform. Letting LEO play GI Joe to serve warrants on private residences is dangerous and an insult to our Constitution. This list of drug war casualties is littered with SWAT victims.

How does KBH feel?

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding responsible SWAT reform. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I fully support the brave men and women that serve on SWAT teams in police departments throughout this country. They partake in some of the most dangerous missions that police departments confront. Their tireless dedication and sacrifice to uphold and enforce the laws of this land are commendable.

Internal reviews of policies and reforms relating to the overuse and reliance on SWAT teams would be beneficial not only to police departments, but also to taxpayers. The use of SWAT teams should be mission-specific. Any ambiguity in that mission should be addressed and corrected. Should any legislation on this topic be created in the Senate, you may be sure that I will keep your views in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

Are there police in your neighborhood? Are you concerned about the rampant Constitutional violations that come from over zealous policing? How can you protect yourself from being a victim of unscrupulous law enforcement? Start by ordering "10 Rules for Dealing with the Police" from Flex Your Rights.

This is a must see film for anyone looking to avoid becoming another casualty of the police state.

Steve Blow published a column on the notorious I 45 speed trap. I was happy to be interviewed to highlight the highway robbery in Ellis County.
I spoke with Steve two weeks ago and reminded him that we met in 1995 at a high school journalism conference. I was a columnist for the Eagle Eye looking to hone my craft. I remember Steve's advise to this day- write columns like a letter to your friends. On to the speed trap.

I live in Ennis and my caseload is mainly in Dallas and Kaufman. Going to work in Kaufman means a 26 mile trip on state highway 34. The speed limit on this two lane country road reaches 65 mph. The limit is lower when passing through Scurry/Rosser.

When I go to Dallas I take I-45 north, an expansive 6 lane divided highway. The speed limit on I-45 N? 60 or 65 mph. Guess which road is infested with speed traps?

Here is the speed trap formula; government greed + ridiculously low speed limit = Speed Trap

The 60-65 mph speed limit on I-45 is almost universally ignored by commuters because it is meaningless. Going 70-75 (as most non local traffic does) creates no risk to traffic safety.

However, it does create a situation where LEO can ticket as many motorists as they want. The only thing that keeps LEO from writing more tickets is the Texas speed trap law that limits the % of local government revenue that can come from traffic citations.

LEO always has the same "this will save lives" reaction when criticized. Here is Palmer Police Chief John Zaidle explaining why you want his officers robbing drivers for speeding.

"We do make some revenue off the highway," conceded Palmer Police Chief John Zaidle. "But we have fatalities out there. And my feeling is the more we're out there, the less we will have of that."

I'm calling bullshit on that one. Mr. Zaidle, your speeding tickets have no effect on fatalities. However, they do have a devastating effect on commuter's wallets. This is a recession and drivers do not have a spare $200 for Palmer to steal.

Just because you can ticket drivers ad naseum, doesn't mean you should. Mr. Zaidle highlights why we need limited government and greater police oversight, because even the simple power to ticket drivers will be abused.

Government greed, not safety, is why Palmer PD harasses motorists on I-45.

Further reading-
Ferris Police and the I-45 Speed Trap
I-45 Speed Trap Follow Up

I don't have any inside information on the TABC Rainbow club raid. I did notice that the TABC was checking for public intoxication when they swarmed the gay bar in Fort Worth.

I've received a decent number of inquiries from PI defendants who claim to have been abused or unlawfully arrested by law enforcement.

I've had enough experience with criminal law to know that not every tale of police misconduct is accurate. I've also had enough experience with law enforcement to know that PI can be a great cover for malfeasance.

What makes PI so ripe for abuse?

First, it provides a built in defense for the cops- "This guy was drunk". It goes straight to the credibility of the defendant/victim. No one likes drunks, so the police can slander you just by arresting you.

Second, our appellate courts have expanded the definition of what a PI is to cover nearly any situation in which a person is in public and has been drinking. Having no standard allows the police to arrest whoever pisses them off and call it PI.

Third, PI cases rarely have video evidence. Usually the only witnesses are cops, the defendant, and maybe the defendant's friends.

I had a PI case in Fort Worth dismissed recently. A quick thinking friend of the defendant filmed the arrest on his phone. Guess what? No one was intoxicated. The defendant wasn't guilty of PI, but POP. He pissed off the police by refusing to talk with them and was arrested for PI.

What's the law on public intoxication?
From 49.02 Texas Penal Code-

(a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.

That seems like a fairly high bright line standard that requires a showing of danger to someone. Fortunately for police our pro conviction appellate courts have expanded this law to the point of absurdity.

Here are two cases that highlight the transformation of PI in Texas.

Where defendant was walking down the middle of the street in the middle of night, appeared glassy-eyed and unsteady on his feet, arrest for public intoxication in violation of Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.02(a) was proper. Williams v. State, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 3314 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. June 26 1997).

This is a standard prosecutors cite often, that if you stumble while walking you are PI. This one decision created a new crime in Texas, stumbling after drinking in public.

It gets even worse...

A person commits the offense of public intoxication if that person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that he may endanger himself or another; the danger need not be immediate, it is sufficient if the accused renders himself or others subject to potential danger. Null v. State, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 2646 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. May 15 1997).

Remember, it's not legislating from the bench when you expand the scope of a criminal law beyond recognition, that's strict constructionism. The statute doesn't mention "potential danger", but pro conviction judges took out the magic appellate marker and added it.

Overbroad laws invite abuse and subject the public to arbitrary harassment. If you have a violent, homophobic, or just an asshole of a cop and you give him the arbitrary power to arrest anyone for PI you can expect violent, homophobic and assholic behavior.

The problem is amplified when you add the mutaween zeal of TABC officers. I've never seen grown men so exited to raid teenage keg parties or arrest bartenders. Really, no one cares guys. It's bad enough we subsidize TABC strip club "undercover" operations. TABC's new policy of raiding bars for PI enforcement has disaster written all over it.

Texans need the "old" PI law back, and protection from the moral busybodies at TABC.

It's that time of year when TXDOT rolls out the Click It or Ticket revenue/harrassment campaign. The ads are typical police state propaganda- The cops are watching you, they are coming to get you, change your behavior or the state will send the police to steal your money!

Texas drivers can thank the federal government when they get pulled over. Local law enforcement gets federal funds to pump out tickets, which fills up the coffers of local governments. It's a win/win for government at all levels. The only losers are the hard working Texas drivers caught up in this ticket pork scam.

How does TXDOT sell this steaming pile to the public? By telling you how much they care. (At least it's not "for the children").

Click It or Ticket isn't just about writing tickets—it's about keeping Texans safe on the road. Federal and state officials set aside funds we put to work to alert the public about buckling up. One way to do that is to send more officers out to help remind motorists to buckle up. Websites like these, TV and radio ads plus news articles and shows also help remind motorists to make buckling up a habit, too.

Why should you? Buckling up is your best bet to prevent serious injury or death in a crash. Crashes where the victims aren't wearing safety belts can be pretty bad. People who aren't buckled up are often thrown out of their car or truck, and sometimes the vehicle rolls over them.

Crashes can be..."pretty bad"? That's the justification?

You know what else is "pretty bad"? When some crazed LEO arrests a Texas driver for not wearing their seat belt. We set the stage for such malfeasance when we pump LEO full of "this will save lives" propaganda and then hand out federal dollars maximize the numbers of tickets written.

The recession makes this year's campaign even crueler. Inevitably, some hard working Texans won't be able afford their seat belt fine. Many will end up with a warrant. In a Mommy Dearest move our loving bureaucratic parents at TXDOT are going to arrest the very drivers they care so much about.

I have discovered the precise formula to measure the outrage felt by liberty minded individuals over a news event regarding government malfeasance.

EA x SOL= $#@!

EA= the enforcement action taken by the government. Basically, what means are used to achieve the government's goal. The lower end would of this scale would be public service announcements, at the higher end waterboarding at GITMO.

SOL= Stupidity of law. How stupid is the law being enforced? My feelings about consensual crimes are well known. At the low end of this scale would be crimes with actual victims, the higher end would include malum prohibitum offenses. The highest score would probably be revenue generation "crimes" like truancy enforcement.

$#@! is the outrage felt by people who value liberty, privacy, freedom etc.

This video would probably achieve one of the highest values possible (until we send a DISD truant to GITMO).

Visit SWATReform.org to find out how to help.

Kaufman is the county east of Dallas. Kaufman county is served by three major east-west highways; I-20, 175, and I-80. These highways see a steady flow of Dallas commuters, locals driving to Dallas and back for entertainment, Shreveport gamblers, and drug couriers. Basically, money comes from the east to Dallas, drugs flow out of Dallas towards Atlanta.

Kaufman law enforcement officers (LEO) dutifully carry on the futile sysiphean quest of highway drug interdiction. KC LEOs regularly intercept drug couriers and most of the cases shape up the same way. Let's look at the similarities.

Dirty license plates and out of state plates
LEO only needs reasonable suspicion of any traffic violation before pulling a driver over. The pretext stop classic in KC is the dirty license plate light. If you are driving with Louisiana plates I'd suggest you check your license plate light before entering Kaufman county.

What were you doing in Dallas?
Kaufman LEOs know that Dallas is the the Sam's Wholesale club of narcotics. If you are on a quick one or two day trip to Dallas the cops are going to assume you are riding dirty.

In Texas you are under no obligation to share travel plans with police. It's always better to shut up than ramble on. If the driver has any criminal history LEO won't believe the story anyway. Popular reasons for Dallas travel are job interviews and family functions. If you are going to tell the police you went to a family reunion over the weekend but you don't have any luggage in the car that raises a red flag.

Sit down and shut up
LEO can smell fear. Cops equate nervousness with guilt. If a suspect is over talking, has shaking hands, or gets out of the car before the police walk up it's usually downhill from there.

The Consent Search
Once LEO hears your lame ass trip to Dallas story and sees your hands shaking he will move in for the kill- the consent search request. I've written about this ad naseum. Here is the cliffs notes version- never, ever, give LEO permission to search your car.

The DWI roadblock bill has passed through the Senate is working it's way through the House as I type this. The roadblock, I mean "checkpoint" bill is SB 298.

So how much security are we getting for our freedom?
From DMN and State Senator John Carona (R-Dallas)

"We're not taking anyone's rights away. We're trying to make sure my right and your right to drive safely is protected," Carona said....

Checkpoints could save 300 lives a year in Texas, Carona said, citing federal highway safety experts.

I beg to differ. In fact, you are taking away this right

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..

and replacing it with a new "right" to be stopped without cause and forced to prove yourself not intoxicated. I've searched the US and Texas constitution for the "right to drive safely" and I couldn't find it. Maybe John can show me where he go that from.

What's in 298?
There are limitations on these these random suspicionless searches of Texas drivers. They are only allowed in counties over 250,000. Only one a year per location. The police have to stop cars at random (every third or fourth etc). Here are some other "protections" that caught my attention.

From 298-

(i) A peace officer at the sobriety checkpoint may not
require a motor vehicle operator to perform a sobriety test unless
the officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe
that the operator is in violation of Section 49.04 or 49.045, Penal
Code. A peace officer who requires or requests an operator to
provide a specimen of breath, blood, or urine must comply with
Chapter 724, Transportation Code.

(j) Unless a peace officer has reasonable suspicion or
probable cause to detain a motor vehicle operator for a criminal
offense, the time during which an officer makes an inquiry of an
operator should not exceed three minutes, and the total time during
which the operator must wait to pass through the checkpoint should
not exceed 10 minutes. The law enforcement agency shall make
reasonable efforts to reduce these periods to not more than one and
five minutes, respectively.

On a side note, SWAT home invasion searches have less statutory requirements than a roadblock. But that's for a different post.

Notice the weasel word "should". "Shall not exceed three minutes" would actually mean something. "Should" is a suggestion, and I predict the appellate courts will treat it as such. If there really was a three minutes limitation why not just lock the windows and refuse to cooperate for 3 minutes?

The only "shall" requirement is to take "reasonable efforts" to keep these between one and five minutes. I don't expect zealous enforcement of that requirement by our appellate courts.

Prediction 1- I predict the standard for reasonable suspicion at a roadblock is going to become; "slurred speech, odor of alcoholic beverage, and bloodshot eyes." Those are three most common boilerplate signs of "intoxication" listed in police reports. And, what else can you observe from a driver sitting in a vehicle?

Prediction 2- When Senator Corona's 300 fatality reduction doesn't materialize a new "tougher" DWI checkpoint bill will be drafted doing away with the already anemic "protections" this bill offers. Once you get the public used to roadblocks, it's a much easier sell to get "tougher" at roadblocks. Why not demand a breath sample of every driver? Or a blood sample? Or make all drivers take SFSTs?

Prediction 3- Once we legalize random suspicionless searches there will be a call to expand to other causes du jour. It won't be long until another "crisis" demands it's own version of a checkpoint.

Why not look for illegal immigrants at a checkpoint? Why not search for drugs at a checkpoint? Why not search for sex offenders at a checkpoint? Why not search for terrorists, nuclear weapons, illegal handguns or illegal sex toys at a checkpoint? Why limit this to cars? Let's search passengers on the DART rail. Or search private homes for drugs, child pornography, or "passion parties".

Do roadblocks work? Depends on what the goal is. Even MADD admits the "primary" goal of a checkpoint is deterrence. From MADD.org

The point of a checkpoint is to deter primarily and to enforce the law when required. Sobriety checkpoints are higher visibility and raise the perceived risk of getting caught more than do roving patrols or saturation patrols.

MADD is right. They can scare the shit out of Texas drivers by stopping every car without reason and treating each driver like a criminal. Does that mean we should engage in big brother security theater? Using fear to change public behavior has catalyzed the shift from peace officers to law enforcement.

Do roadblocks prevent fatalities?
Probably not. In fact roadblocks have proven so ineffective (and so expensive) that communities are calling to end them.

And why would we expect roadblocks to reduce fatalities? If you want stop dangerous drivers cops should patrol the roads looking for dangerous driving behavior. If you want to randomly harass the public, then put up a roadblock.

Me on the radio-
I was just interviewed by ridindirtyradio.com about Texas checkpoints. I have to say it made me fairly nervous to be on the air. I had not been on the radio since the summer of 2002 when I did a few shifts for the Texas Tech student radio. (Keep it locked to the left, 88.1 FM).

I was on with Ken and Heidi aka ridin dirty radio, 830 AM in Los Angeles. I probably talked way too fast to make any sense. We discussed the roadblock bill, the driving culture in Texas, and the role parents could play in preventing DWI.

They asked if the Texas-OU game would have a checkpoint. I stated that I doubted the alumni would allow it. My guess that there will be an inverse relationship between political influence and roadblocks. Can you see Jerry Jones allowing a checkpoint outside his new stadium? Right.

NO NO NO.
Never, ever, for any reason, go to the police station (or sheriff's department) and make a statement. If the police have called and asked you to come to the station quit reading this and find a criminal defense lawyer now.

"Won't the police think I'm guilty if I get a lawyer?

I hate to break this to you, but the police already think you are guilty. In fact, they know you are guilty. They just want a nice confession before sending your file to the DA.

Detectives know they can make you confess, they just need the chance. Don't take my word for it, here is a cop telling you how he can got suspects to confess.

I have often wondered why so many suspects voluntarily drive down to a police station, sign Miranda waivers, and put up with all sorts of good cop bad cop nonsense before confessing. Allow me to speculate.

1. Naivety. They don't have any experience with the criminal justice system. There is a common belief, and a desire to believe, that law enforcement wants to help us. Another popular misnomer is that non cooperation will somehow hurt their case, or that they have no choice but to cooperate.

2. Good cop. A detective may tell you he wants to get "your side of the story" or just "ask you a few questions." Don't buy it.

3. Bad cop/Threats/Fear. Detectives will threaten to file more serious charges, let the judge/DA know you weren't cooperating, or issue a warrant and arrest you if don't come and talk to them right now!

4. Hubris/"I'm smarter than these cops". The police are going to stick you in a room with the implication that you can't leave and run through their interrogation manual until you confess. If you deny wrongdoing they will take your story and begin investigating how it can't possibly be true. This isn't Seven, or Silence of the Lambs. You are not going to make the police your pawn in a psychological crime thriller.

5. "Only guilty people confess, I"m not guilty so I'm fine." Not quite. Law enforcement techniques have advanced to the point that the innocent confess to crimes.
Why Do Innocent People Confess- Psych Central
When an Innocent Confesses- Scientific American
Why do the innocent confess to crimes?- Grits for Breakfast

Defense lawyers need to do a better job educating the public on what police threats/requests they must adhere to, and which they can refuse. For example, you have to ID yourself in a traffic stop, you don't have to consent to a search of the car etc. We have given police so much arbitrary unilateral authority that much of the public believes they must cooperate in their own prosecution. Not so. If the police are calling you about a crime quit reading this, and call an attorney.

Update- Somehow, I forgot the excellent work FlexYourRights.Org has done teaching the public how to handle police encounters.