Part 1. Definition
Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.
Part 2. Example
	hahahahahahahahhha suck it.
Answer: Yes
Explanation: The comment has the word 'suck' in it and is classified as sexually explicit. Hence, it is a positive example
Part 3. Exercise
Hindering prosecution, interfering with a peace officer and concealing evidence are not of issue with police questioning.  If the officer wants information there is a process within the rule of law that allows the officer to get that information.  A subpoena is issued by the court and the questions are asked in court, under controlled circumstances.  Keep in mind part of the Miranda warning involves the right to have council present when answering questions (from and officer or a subpoena).  Remember, you don't get the rights in the Miranda warning when arrested, you always have them.  

The court is very clear in that a person never has to speak to a police officer.   In fact a number of decisions of the supreme court of the US not only clarify these rights, but state it is in the best interest of those being questioned to exercise their rights under the 5th amendment.

In short, a person should never answer questions from a law enforcement officer unless they genuinely want to.
Answer:
No