A horrible legal precedence is government representatives and Police can lie to citizens, however it’s often illegal for citizens to lie to police or government officials.
Examples
Here’s a list of notable historical lies or false statements made by American government employees or their representatives:
1. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964)
- U.S. officials falsely claimed that North Vietnamese forces attacked U.S. naval vessels, leading to increased military involvement in Vietnam. Later evidence suggested that the incident was exaggerated or misrepresented.
2. The Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq (2003)
- Before the Iraq War, U.S. government officials, including President George W. Bush, asserted that Iraq possessed WMDs, which later turned out to be untrue. This claim was a major justification for the invasion.
3. The Iran-Contra Affair (1980s)
- During this scandal, officials in the Reagan administration illegally facilitated the sale of arms to Iran to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua, initially denying knowledge of the operations.
4. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-1972)
- U.S. Public Health Service officials misled African American men about their health status and the nature of the study, which observed the effects of untreated syphilis without informing participants they were part of an experiment.
5. The Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal (1998)
- President Bill Clinton famously stated, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, which he later admitted was false.
6. The Challenger Disaster (1986)
- Prior to the launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger, NASA officials downplayed concerns about the O-rings in cold weather, leading to the tragic explosion shortly after liftoff.
7. The Pentagon Papers (1971)
- These documents revealed that the U.S. government had misled the public about the Vietnam War, including its scope and the likelihood of success.
8. The COINTELPRO Program (1956-1971)
- The FBI conducted covert operations to surveil, infiltrate, and disrupt civil rights organizations and other groups, often using deception and misinformation against activists.
9. The “Mission Accomplished” Speech (2003)
- President George W. Bush declared major combat operations in Iraq were over while violence continued, leading to criticism that the statement was misleading.
10. The 2000 Presidential Election (Bush v. Gore)
- After the election, disputes over Florida’s vote count led to significant political manipulation and misleading statements regarding the integrity of the election process.
These examples illustrate how misinformation and deception have played roles in American history, affecting public trust and policy decisions.
COVID
Here are some statements made by Dr. Anthony Fauci during the COVID-19 pandemic that were later criticized or considered misleading, along with context:
1. Mask Guidance
- Initial Statement: In early 2020, Fauci suggested that masks were not necessary for the general public.
- Clarification: This was later clarified as public health officials aimed to ensure that masks were available for healthcare workers. Over time, the guidance shifted to recommend masks for the public to mitigate virus spread.
2. Herd Immunity Estimates
- Initial Statement: Fauci initially suggested that achieving herd immunity would require about 60-70% of the population to be vaccinated.
- Clarification: Later, as more data emerged, he indicated that higher vaccination rates (around 80-90%) might be necessary to effectively control the virus, particularly with variants.
3. COVID-19 Transmission
- Initial Statement: Early in the pandemic, Fauci indicated that asymptomatic transmission was not a major factor in spreading the virus.
- Clarification: As research progressed, it became clear that asymptomatic individuals could indeed spread the virus, leading to revised public health recommendations.
4. Boosters and Vaccination
- Initial Statement: Fauci initially indicated that booster shots might not be necessary for everyone.
- Clarification: As variants emerged and vaccine efficacy data evolved, recommendations for booster shots were updated to enhance immunity.
5. Origin of the Virus
- Initial Statement: Early on, Fauci emphasized that the virus likely originated from animal sources.
- Clarification: While this remains a leading theory, discussions regarding the possibility of a lab leak have continued, and the origins of the virus are still under investigation.
6. Therapeutics and Treatments
- Initial Statement: Fauci made statements about the effectiveness of certain treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine, which were patently false.
- Clarification: As old and new research emerged, guidelines shifted to recommend the use of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19.
Conclusion
Fauci’s statements reflect the evolving understanding of COVID-19 as new data became available. Misinformation and changing guidelines can lead to confusion, especially during a rapidly developing public health crisis.
Case law on police deception
In some ways, the law is unclear on what police deception is legal (or not). However, despite the conflicting court decisions, there are basic agreements and parameters amongst courts that can provide guidance. For example, the courts agree due process requires confessions be voluntary — a confession cannot be coerced, and such coercion can be psychological as well as physical. Further, courts generally agree they’ll decide whether a confession was voluntary or coerced based on a “totality of the circumstances.” The U.S. Supreme Court set out the totality of the circumstances criteria in Frazier v. Cupp). What other case law exists on the subject?
Let’s start with Miller v. Fenton. In this case, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction based on the interviewer presenting himself as a friend who wanted to help if the defendant would just unburden himself. Miller was also falsely told the victim was still alive. The interviewer stated several times Miller was not a criminal who should be punished but a sick individual who should receive help. One hour into the interview Miller confessed, then collapsed, and was taken to the hospital.
Let’s now consider People v. Adrian Thomas. Police interviewed the defendant for hours. Investigators told Thomas they would pick up his wife if he didn’t confess to injuring his son. They also told him 67 times it was an accident, 14 times he wouldn’t be arrested, 8 times he would be going home and 21 times that disclosure of the circumstances under which he injured his child was essential to assist the doctors attempting to save the child’s life (the infant was already brain dead). The court found the interview “patently coercive.”
In re D.A.S., 391 A.2d 255, (D.C. App. 1978), the police pretended to compare the defendant’s fingerprints to a fingerprint on the victim’s checkbook and pronounced them a match. In truth, no fingerprints were recovered. The defendant confessed to the robbery and the Court held the deception did not render the confession involuntary.
In re D.A.S. followed Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977) in which the Supreme Court upheld police falsely telling the defendant they had found his fingerprints at the scene. See also, Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) (confessing suspect had been told another person had named him as the gunman.)
In Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990), the Court held Perkins was not coerced when he confessed to committing a murder to an undercover police officer who was falsely posing as another inmate.
In State v. Patton, 362 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div.) (2003), an officer posing as an eyewitness was “interviewed” on an audiotape that was later played to the defendant who, despite his early denials of involvement, confessed upon hearing the tape. The conviction was reversed on appeal.
State v. Cayward, 552 So. 2d 971 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1989), involved the interview of a 19-year-old suspect in the rape and murder of his 5-year-old niece. Police falsely told Cayward they’d had the victim’s underwear scientifically tested and the results showed semen stains on it from him. They also showed him a false lab report of the results. The court held the verbal lie was lawful but the false documents were not. Notably, the court seemed more concerned such documents could inadvertently make their way into court records and be mistakenly viewed as true than with the coercive effect of the reports on the defendant. Other courts have disagreed with this decision.
In Arthur v. Commonwealth, 480 S.E. 2d 749 (Va. 1997), the appellate court held that police showing a suspect “dummy” reports indicating his fingerprints and hair were found at the crime scene was not unduly coercive. The court addressed the Cayward court’s concern by noting the police kept the false documents in a separate file from the actual investigative and lab reports.
In Sheriff, Washoe Co. v. Bessey, 914 P. 2d 618 (Nev. 1996), the Nevada Supreme Court criticized the Cayward court’s distinction between a verbal lie and the same lie “embodied in a piece of paper,” concluding there was no real difference. The court upheld police creating a “falsified lab report” showing a defendant had committed a sexual assault against a minor, stating, “There was nothing about the fabricated document presented in this case which would have produced a false confession.”
In People v. Henry, 518 N.Y.S.2d 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987), the court upheld a confession obtained after police confronted the defendant with fake polygraph test results indicating he had lied to police.
Other courts have sided with the Cayward decision and reversed convictions based upon confessions obtained after the police presented fabricated evidence to the defendant.
So, what’s the bottom line? Officers must know the case law in their jurisdiction.
We the people need to lobby to expand the federal law to include all individuals being paid by public funds while performing official duties for 18 U.S. Code § 1038 - False information and hoaxes.
Recommendation
(a)Criminal Violation.—
(1)In general.—Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place.
(2) This law also applies to all elected, appointed, commissioned and all employees paid by public funds while in the performance of official duties or while representing their agency.