Whittier 360 Fact Check: Does Everyone Have the Right to Consult with an Attorney Before Answering Questions or Signing Documents?

On June 24, 2025, the City of Whittier published a press release titled "City of Whittier Shares Reminder of Constitutional Rights for All Individuals." The document was shared on the City’s website and Facebook page and aimed to inform the public about their rights when interacting with law enforcement or immigration officials.

While most of the press release reflects well-established legal protections, one line has prompted concern and warranted a closer review:

"Individuals have the right to consult with an attorney before answering any questions or signing any documents."

Whittier 360 News Network contacted the City of Whittier on the morning of June 24 to request clarification on this statement. As of the time of publication on June 26, no response has been received. In the absence of a correction or clarification from the City, we are publishing this fact check for public understanding and safety.

Claim: Individuals have the right to consult with an attorney before answering questions or signing documents.

Rating: 🛑 Partially True / Context Needed

Analysis:

This statement may seem reasonable on its face, but it overstates the constitutional right to counsel and lacks critical context. The right to consult with an attorney exists in specific legal settings, but not universally.

When the Right to an Attorney Does Apply:

• During Custodial Interrogation: Under the Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruling, individuals who are in police custody and subject to interrogation must be informed of their right to remain silent and consult an attorney.

• After Criminal Charges Are Filed: The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to counsel for those who have been formally charged with a crime (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963).

• In Immigration Court Proceedings: Non-citizens have the right to hire an attorney at their own expense for immigration hearings, but this right does not extend to field interviews or document signing during ICE enforcement actions.

When the Right Does Not Automatically Apply:

• Non-Custodial Police Encounters: If you're not in custody, police may ask questions, and you can refuse to answer—but they are not required to wait for or provide an attorney.

• During Routine Immigration Checks: ICE agents conducting civil enforcement actions (not criminal arrests) are not required to provide access to legal counsel during questioning or document review.

• When Signing Forms Voluntarily: There is no legal requirement that law enforcement or immigration officials allow you to consult an attorney before signing a waiver, consent form, or departure order.

Key cases that support this distinction include:

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

• Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

• INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)

• Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977)

Conclusion:

The City of Whittier's intention to educate the public is appreciated, especially in an environment where rights awareness is critical. However, the statement in question risks creating false expectations during sensitive interactions with law enforcement or immigration officials. Individuals may assume they can demand access to an attorney in all settings, which could lead to misunderstandings, frustration, or even escalation.

Whittier 360 encourages city officials to revise the language in future releases to clearly distinguish between rights in criminal custody and those in non-custodial or administrative settings.

We remain committed to providing accurate, legally grounded information to the people of Whittier.