In the depths of the ocean, the deep-sea anglerfish (Melanocetus) attracts prey with a small source of light. The glow appears harmless. Other fish draw closer without realizing that the predator’s mouth is waiting just behind it.
The wording “give a statement regarding a police report under review,” commonly used in police summonses, can have a similar effect.
The notice appears to concern a preliminary, risk-free step. The recipient assumes that the police are still trying to understand what happened and that attending the police station will merely help clarify a detail. As a result, people often appear alone, without consulting a lawyer and without knowing what the investigation already contains.
The surprise comes during the interview.
The questions reveal that the police have already gathered evidence against the person. Although the act is described as taking a “statement,” it functions as an interrogation. At the end of the interview, or shortly afterward, the police formally identify the person as a suspect. The apparently harmless summons was, in fact, the final step before that formal designation.
Statements, witness testimony, and suspect interviews are not the same thing
A person may be heard in different capacities during a criminal investigation, depending on their role in the facts under review.
A victim or an interested informant may give a statement. A witness gives testimony about facts they saw or know. A person under investigation is questioned about suspected involvement in the offense.
Each status carries different legal consequences.
A witness has a legal duty to tell the truth and may be prosecuted for perjury under article 342 of the Brazilian Criminal Code. A person who merely gives a statement does not undertake that duty and therefore cannot be charged with that offense on that basis. A person under investigation is likewise not required to promise to tell the truth and has the right to remain silent, in full or in part, and need not answer questions that may be self-incriminating.
The Paraná State Public Prosecutor’s Office, in its institutional series “Legal Briefs for Journalists” has itself explained the distinction among the different forms of police questioning used in criminal investigations.
That distinction loses meaning, however, when the police use a notice for a “statement” to question someone they already treat as a possible perpetrator.
The problem is not the word itself. In some cases, “statement” may simply be a generic label. In others, the police may genuinely not yet have formed a view about the person’s status in the investigation.
The problem arises when enough evidence already exists to treat the person as a suspect, yet neutral wording obscures the true purpose of the interview and lowers the person’s perception of risk. The distortion is even more serious when formal designation as a suspect is already the likely outcome of the interview.
The right to remain silent does not begin with formal suspect designation
A formal suspect designation does not turn someone into a suspect. It records the police authority’s conclusion that evidence points to that person’s authorship or participation. Suspicion necessarily comes first.
When police questions are already directed at clarifying the recipient’s possible criminal responsibility, that person must be treated as under investigation, even if the formal designation occurs only after the interview.
The right to remain silent also does not begin with that formal act. It applies from the moment a person is asked questions that may incriminate them. In Brazil, this protection follows from article 5, item LXIII, of the Federal Constitution and has been extended by the courts to any person under investigation.
It includes the right not to answer, to answer only selected questions, and to postpone any explanation until the person and counsel have reviewed the available investigative material.
Accordingly, anyone who already occupies the position of a suspect should attend with counsel and may exercise the right to remain silent, even before formal designation and even when the document calls the act a “statement.”
Neutral wording lowers the perception of risk
The problem lies in the false sense of safety created by a summons that does not use words such as “interrogation,” “suspect,” or “person under investigation.”
Someone expressly summoned for questioning as a suspect will usually understand that they are facing a criminal investigation. The word “suspect” raises an immediate warning and makes it more likely that the person will seek legal advice before attending.
The formula “give a statement regarding a police report under review” sends the opposite message. In Brazil, the reference is generally to a boletim de ocorrência, or BO: the initial police report used to record an alleged incident. The wording suggests a preliminary review and a simple request for clarification.
The recipient attends believing the interview will be neutral, even though the police may already have collected documents, competing accounts, and other evidence against them.
The practical consequence is clear: the wording lowers the perceived risk, encourages attendance without counsel, and makes it less likely that the person will exercise the right to remain silent.
A lawyer must act before the interview
Legal representation is not limited to sitting beside the client while questions are asked.
Before the interview, counsel can identify the proceeding, request access to the documented investigative record, and determine the client’s actual position in the case. Only then can counsel assess whether giving a statement, remaining silent, or answering selected questions is the soundest course.
This preparation prevents the decision from being made under pressure, inside the police station, without knowing what the authorities have already established.
As we explained in “Everything you need to know about a criminal investigation—before you are called in for questioning” a summons often comes only after investigative steps have been taken without the suspect’s knowledge. By the time the person is called in, the investigation may be far more advanced than the wording of the notice suggests.
The same principle applies when authorities arrive at a business. In “Authorities at the company’s door without a warrant: the response cannot be improvised” we explained that counsel’s role is not merely to challenge actions after the fact. The more important task is to guide the initial response before conversations, consent, or voluntary handovers are used in the investigation.
The same is true of a police interview. Once the statement has been given, the discussion shifts to its consequences. Before the interview, there is still time to decide whether to speak and, if so, how.
Speaking may help, but the decision must be informed
Not every person under investigation should remain silent.
In some cases, an explanation may quickly dispel suspicion, clarify documents, or show that the police theory rests on a mistaken premise.
In others, speaking without access to the record may create contradictions, confirm information the police did not yet possess, or open new lines of inquiry.
There is no automatic answer.
The correct decision depends on the contents of the investigation, the evidence already collected, and the strategy appropriate to the particular case. What should never happen is for someone to give a version of events without knowing that the authorities already regard them as a suspect.
Before following the light, seek advice
The danger in the phrase “give a statement regarding a police report under review” lies in its appearance of neutrality.
Like the small light of the Melanocetus, it appears harmless and draws the recipient toward the police authority without revealing the risk that already exists.
Once the questions begin, the true purpose of the interview becomes clear. The police are not merely trying to understand what happened. They are comparing accounts, searching for inconsistencies, and building grounds to attribute responsibility to the person summoned. The later formal designation may simply confirm what the investigation already indicated before the interview.
The person need not ignore the summons or assume that every police notice is a trap. They do, however, need to understand why they were called, in what capacity they will be heard, and how their answers may be used.
An apparently harmless summons may mark the most important moment in the investigation.
Before following the light, you need to know what is waiting behind it.
If you have received a police summons to give a statement, seek specialized legal advice before attending. Whenever possible, do not confirm attendance before that consultation, and keep a copy of the summons at hand. Lucchesi Advocacia can review the proceeding, determine your actual status in the investigation, and advise on the appropriate strategy. To speak with our team, send a WhatsApp message to +55 41 98473-6162.
