Don't Talk to the Cops
thisistrue.com
thisistrue.com
I had the cops come by my apartment once. Apparently some kids were shooting airsoft guns into the neighbor's yard and endangering their kids, and they thought I knew something about it. I didn't, but the cops spent the whole time acting like they had a witness who saw me talking to the kids--and singled me out by my t-shirt and car--and were convinced I knew who they were.
They even played good cop bad cop--one of them acted friendly and sympathetic, "I know you don't want to rat out your friends", complimenting me on my music (I had Iron Maiden playing on my Pandora at the time) while the other one was a total dick and kept saying "We know you're lying". They were expert at turning around everything I tried to say--I'd say "I'm sorry, I can't help you", and they'd say, "Why can't you help us? Why can't you just tell us what you know?"
Then, of course, since they were rather intimidating they kept commenting that I was acting "avoidant" and implying that meant I knew something, when actually I was just intimidated by them. It didn't help that at the beginning they told me to keep my hands out of my pockets, which is an obvious security measure but also a power game.
To this day, I still don't know if they got a tip on me from someone who saw me and misinterpreted the situation, or if they were sweeping the whole complex and bluffing their way into making everyone think they had a specific tip on them. Or maybe they were just practicing their interrogation skills. Nothing ever came of it, but I should have known from the outset to say nothing.
If the cops/DA have any cause to arrest you, talking to them won't do anything to save you from it. They'll just use everything you say against you in addition to whatever they had on you to begin with. You can't dig yourself out of a hole with the police when your freedom is on the line. (Talking might help a little bit in traffic stops.) And if they might gain anything on you later on, you can't talk them out of it.
The purpose of not talking to the police is to avoid giving them cause to arrest you when they don't already have it. If they already have cause to arrest you, you aren't talking your way out of it.
It was plainly obvious in my situation that they weren't questioning me as a witness so much as they were playing word games, trying to trick me into incriminating myself. You can't actually get ahead with that. At best, you'll maintain your innocence and they'll get tired of playing games with you (which is what I did). You get the same outcome with less stress by shutting up. If you stand there talking, you might make a very costly mistake.
Finally, public defenders are free. They're overworked and they suck in a lot of places, but where I lived at the time (and still live now) it's pretty rural so that's less of a problem. In small towns, in fact, a public defender is often just as good as the best lawyer money can buy locally. (If you're in serious trouble you hire a lawyer from the nearest big city, of course.)
I used to work with several ex-Policemen (UK), and their advice was exactly the same: "no comment."
One thing I stupidly didn't ask at the time though was whether there was potential for badness if you expanded on your answer, e.g. "I don't want to comment without my solicitor being present." versus "No comment." Anyone have any ideas?
Yes. My Boss, an ex-copper, says that you should always do the former and never the latter. Also, be polite and restrained. Respond to small talk. Be honest.
If you clam up, stay silent, and repeat no comment they will treat that as mildly suspicious.
Saying that you won't comment without legal counsel doesn't mean the police officer is going to go away. It just means the s/he will have to make a judgement call on letting you go or taking you in for questioning (detainment, not arrest) and so you are risking a loss of liberty if that occurs.
Never had any issues myself with this approach.
I got stopped in Canada, and was asked that same question. I said sure, go ahead, took 5 minutes and I was on my way again.
Same happened somewhere in Texas on a road trip, same outcome.
I asked my lawyer in Canada what would happen if I did not consent to a search, and he said they would probably have taken that as a reason to stop me again a few miles down the road for some infraction and would have searched the car top to bottom with a fine comb.
If you have nothing in your car it's quite ok to have it searched, what specific reason would you have not to consent in the knowledge they can force the issue if they want to?
a) you might have passengers in the car who have something ilegal on them. in many states if a passenger drops drugs in your car so that it is not on their person, and no one admits to it, then it is considered the driver's property. Yes, even good friends might rat on you in this situation.
b) If the cop is looking to find anything to make an arrest to help them go with a hunch about you then they can start inspecting your tires or placement of a GPS on the window (illegal in many states) and could then drum up a charge of driving dangerous vehicle etc.
c) rental cars - you can never 100% check a rental car and it has been known for innocent people in Las Vegas to get stopped and the police find traces of cocaine powder etc in the ash try or coin holder, etc that belonged to a previous renter
In my case... I drive a sports car and so I keep nothing in the car in order for it to be as light as possible (no junk in the back, no crap on the floor). I have nothing in the car, I've never been in the possession of a controlled substance, I know my car is in top condition, etc... and I still wouldn't let the police search my car.
Probably not as thoroughly as a police search but more than good enough to spot the vast majority of items left behind by previous occupants (and I should probably make a listing of that some day, it makes for interesting reading).
The most annoying stop ever was one in Germany in a relatively fancy car, when I was still young. They couldn't quite match the skinny kid in the jeans and the t-shirt with the car unless there were drugs involved and they took they time about it. I think they spent a whole hour and when I drove off they still thought I'd tricked them somehow.
I've never before had my peppermints checked for illegal substances :)
Your last phrase is not true. They need probable cause for a search, and a speeding charge will not give them that.
Reason #1 to refuse: The possibility of being framed.
Reason #2 to refuse: There could be something in the car that you're not aware of. I remember an old movie called The Star Chamber (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086356/ ). As I recall the plot, a man's van was stolen and used to commit a kidnap/murder, then returned to its initial location. A subsequent illegal police search turned up the kid's shoe under a seat, something the owner really had no clue about. This is a one-in-a-million occurrence, but it's you life we're talking about.
I'm pretty paranoid on the whole, however that seems a bit extreme even to me.
I'm the guy that will go over a rental car to make sure that someone didn't leave a surprise under the carpet or in the boot and I'll board the airplane with nothing except for what I can carry and keep my luggage in view at all times.
This sounds a little over the top to me though.
Must have been pretty sloppy smugglers to forget that much dope, someone was likely shot over that one!
Here is a real life story: I rented a convertible in Ottawa for a visit to a number of places in the US, on a trip with final destination New York, mostly business.
I'd gone over the car after picking it up, and found nothing but an empty coca cola can under the seat so the car looked good to me. The weather was hot, the top was down and all was good.
We drove South for a bit, entering the US on highway 81, which is iirc a long bridge in a beautiful area of the country.
The customs guys stopped us, (I was traveling with one of my employees, a guy called Nick), asked for our passports, mine is Dutch and Nick I believe was traveling on a British passport, so we got the tourist treatment. As we were driving away, suddenly the customs guy ran after us and yelled to stop.
So I stopped the car, and asked what's up, and he said 'raise the top please'.
It took a bit of fiddling because we had no idea how to do it yet (a Sebring, worst road handling ever by the way), finally the top started moving.
And as it kept coming up further it proceeded to dump about 10 dirty diapers and half eaten mcDonalds meals all over the yard.
Customs officer not amused.
We showed him we had just rented the car and that that stuff was definitely not ours, they called some guys to clean it up.
So far for me checking the car :)
I do a better job of it since then.
The point I was trying to make is: you really don't ever truly know what's in your car and that's reason enough for me to not consent to any searches.
Since we're telling stories: I've been pulled over for a headlight being out and the cop was asking me routine questions for a stop.
Cop: "Where are you going?"
Me: "To the grocery store."
Cop: "Did you know one of your head lights was out?"
Me: "Are you serious?" (I actually didn't know my headlight was out)
Cop: grin
Me: "Yeah, I guess you're not just pulling me over for to be funny. No I didn't know it was out."
Cop: "Are you carrying any drugs?"
Me: "None that I'm aware of."
Cop: "Can I search your car?"
Me: "I do not consent to any searches."
Then he goes back to his car for a couple of minutes, comes back, and tells me I'm free to go and to get the headlight fixed. I didn't get the feeling he really wanted to search my car, just that he was doing it to do it. Did I have anything in the car that was illegal? No. Why did I refuse? There was no point. There's no connection between a headlight and what ever might have been in the car. Cops sometimes have more respect for you when you exercise your rights. At least this one did.
Yes, I figured pointing it out would make you smile, but I take your word for the story, just wonder how they explained the missing drugs to their boss, who must have assumed they had sold it on the side.
That's a somewhat career limiting move in the drug trade.
Nice interaction with the police officer, if all of them were like that it would be good.
I don't envy them their jobs at all, first responders get to see a lot of bad stuff in their time.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/irish-...
No check-in luggage for me.
I get the weirdest looks though. Last year I spent a few months in Panama, arriving with nothing but a small carry-on bag.
I just joked that I heard it was warm there so I didn't need any clothing and they smiled and waved me through.
Nice country, Panama!
Anyway, note to drug smugglers: might as well smuggle a whole suitcase full of cocaine. Less suspicious.
She got 20 years for carrying drugs - and claims it was put into her bags by corrupt Customs officials in Australia.
Trust me, it's not one-in-a-million. As far as the U.S. has come in race relations, I would never as a young black male consent to a search without cause. It's just too easy to be railroaded and have your life ruined. Why would you take that risk?
Racial profiling exists here too but to a much lesser extent.
If I were black and living in the US it would change my attitude completely, but I'm not black and live in Europe, hence my 'rose coloured glasses'.
Apologies.
While you're there, check out some of the related posts. "Many" police in North America (more so in the USA I hope) have started to turn dangerous to the citizens they are supposed to be protecting.
If you read reddit on an a regular basis, you'd know there are numerous stories of totally innocent citizens being assaulted, jailed, framed, and sometimes literally killed in cold blood (no, this is not hyperbole, many have been captured on video) by this new strain of police officer.
This kind of makes this particular subject interesting...considering some of the cops on the beat these days, it might not be a particularly good idea to exercise your constitutional rights with an officer, as you might not make it out alive. (I haven't ever read of an example of this though thankfully).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hjcHjN7Fe8&feature=relat...
7 year old innocent girl killed.
Details and a very decent analysis are available here: http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2010/05/17.html
So, long story short, police in the USA operate above the law. This family, without a doubt, operated on the shady side of the fence, so if you want to write it off as that, feel free, it won't bother me.
But how will you feel when they start coming into your neighborhood and making "honest mistakes" like shooting sight unseen into a residence? I don't have the time right now, but I could link you to many youtube videos where people were doing pretty much nothing and the police came and just fucking hammered them, hard.
The thing about this one that struck me so personally is, I have a daughter.
This is a very important point: they _can't_ force the issue if they want to. That's why they're asking (or just being an asshole about it) instead of presenting you with a warrant and instructing you to step aside.
I've never been asked to consent to a search of my home or vehicle, but there are tons of legitimate reasons to say no:
1. Privacy. You know how some people really don't want search engines and random hoodlums reading their facebook profile and status updates? Well, maybe I really don't want random cops poking around my car or apartment. Maybe my girlfriend and I have a whole box of sex toys and bondage gear.
2. There are so many damned laws you might be breaking one and you'd never know. It's probably a really stupid law, too.
3. Maybe you just don't want to unpack every damn thing in your car and pack it away again. I've got like two sealed emergency survival kits in my car and I'd be pretty pissed off if some cop opened them looking for drugs that weren't there. And have you ever seen a home that was searched by cops? You have to spend the whole rest of the weekend cleaning up and putting everything away afterwards, man.
BTW, the same reasoning applies if they knock on your door and ask to search your residence. If they have to ask, the answer is no.
Finally, if they present a warrant or go ahead and search it anyway even if you explicitly decline consent, then stay out of their way and get a lawyer.
My thought would be that if they continue to press you, politely but firmly tell them that you really don't feel comfortable answering any more questions until your lawyer arrives.
If an officer asks you a simple question and you give them the third degree, they'll respond in kind.
"I don't know" is a valid answer and will work in all those cases where there isn't any hard proof that you do know (or a tip-off).
If you do know and there has been a tip-off (so they know you know) they'll press you pretty hard for information.
I've travelled all over the world in cars with foreign plates and that's a great way to meet the local law enforcement types (Canadian plates in the Southern US states for instance seem to have some magical property that attracts police vehicles), on the whole policemen (rather than 'cops') have a job to do and if you make it harder they'll make your life harder.
If you feel you are being treated unfair simply shut up. Going lawyerly on them is going to backfire on you.
The police can be really annoying in some countries, and any advice in this thread should be adapted to local customs.
Not volunteering any information is a good start and is probably universal.
Look, I’ve been told in the past that it’s not a good idea to talk to the police without a lawyer present. The people who told me this were experts on this sort of thing and the point they made is that innocent people have been convicted by accidentally saying something that implicated them. They also made the point that this has happened even when the police officers themselves believed the person was innocent because those officers turned the case over to a District Attorney who really just wanted a conviction.
So while I know you’re just doing your job by trying to get me to talk to you I need you to understand my outlook on this which is that my life might depend on me keeping my mouth shut right now. What I will say is that I’m completely innocent of these charges and I think you’re wasting your time talking to me. Beyond that I’m going to keep my mouth shut from this point on and wait for my lawyer. Thanks for understanding.
...As far as any false claims the police might make they don't have the right to do anything without a warrant so I'd use vaguely the same speech as above but substitute in "I've been told you need a warrant to search my person or possessions"
Edit: I just IMed a friend who is a lawyer and he made a good point on searches. When the police claim they have the right to search your person or possessions you want to do two things. First, explicitly say you forbid them to search unless you are legally required to allow them to do it. Second make them take physical action (e.g. if they want to search you tell them you won’t empty your own pockets but you won’t resist if they search your pockets). Do these two things and you’ll never be searched unduly.
I wouldn't say that, it implies guilt (by the letter of the law and justice an innocent person's life wouldn't depend on them keeping their mouth shut).
Further more, the specific phrase "my life might depend on me keeping my mouth shut" could be interpreted by a cop as being more than what you mean - eg maybe you are harboring a criminal who has threatened to kill you.
As geeks, I think we have a tendency to 'front load' a lot of this as we try to explain our logic. A short "No comment" is best and the more you say, even in trying to justify your logic, opens up opportunity for a cop to use something against you.
What the statement I put above conveys is a few things.
1. That I respect the cops and their job and that I know they aren't after me personally(and hence won't try to parse every sentence I say and take it out of context like you did)
2. That I've been told by people that I believe to be knowledgeable that even innocent people can be convicted of a crime they didn't commit by saying something stupid and that's the reason I have a choice in not talking to them (and hence putting the "stupid" burden on my by implying "I don't think I'm smart enough to be in a discussion with you")
3. I explicitly stated "I'm not guilty" letting the cops know I'm not trying to be smug with them and that I do want them to know I'm not guilty.
Bottom Line: By saying "No Comment" you're trying to prove you're smarter than the cops while my statement lets them think they're smarter than me while still giving them nothing they can use against me
The response with the smallest attack surface is "No comment."
Second, once you've asked for a lawyer interrogation MUST STOP by law. So there will be no follow up questions.
Finally, you're making the same erroneous assumption as dotBen above in that you're assuming the relationship with the Cops has to be adversarial and then treating it as such (which is exactly what makes someone look guilty).
What I'm saying is your best bet is to empathize with the Cops and realize that they don't like grilling people. So your goal should be to keep things amicable and give them "an out" so they don't have to interrogate you.
That's key, and it is basic psychology.
Make sure the police officer has no reason to suspect you are hiding something and you'll get off without a problem, he/she hates wasting their time as much as you do.
Give a reason for suspicion or antagonize them and you're going to be a lot further in your day before you are let off.
A police officer is someone that has a relatively good eye for probability, if you are 'probably ok' (in other words, you're on the same side of the law) then there is no reason to detain you any longer and you can go. If you give them the feeling you are on opposite sides of that line (antagonistic behaviour for instance) then you may just have lost a couple of hours.
As someone in this thread indicated, about a forth or so of cases exonerated by DNA evidence have "confessed". That fact enough, should make your interaction adversarial. You can be sure a lot of those people end up going to the station just "to talk" as "witnesses".
> The only reason you don't talk to cops is because you don't want to give them something they can use against you in court.
That is wrong. You don't know what you are saying can or cannot be used against you. The cops can lie to you. You don't know at which point a switch in their head decides to turn you from a witness into a suspect. They won't signal you with a wink ...
"I know they aren't after me (and hence won't try to parse every sentence I say and take it out of context like you did)"
yeah good luck with that one. The police will take what you have to say and bend it against you to see where it goes. It's called probing and is a legitimate investigative technique. You prefacing the situation with your pre-amble isn't going to stop that.
"I explicitly stated "I'm not guilty" letting the cops know I'm not trying to be smug with them and that I do want them to know I'm not guilty."
They haven't said you are guilty of anything, if they are just investigating. It's that kind of behavior - denying guilt before any has been laden upon the suspect - that police zero in on.
Seriously, I think you should re-consider your position and read some other people's views, especially the ACLU. You're unintentionally pushing a load of buttons that the police will pick up on with your preamble that I don't even think you realize.
Second if you're being interrogated than you're suspected of something. To suggest otherwise is again treating the cops like their some kind of idiots. Be an adult and treat the cops like adults and try to create an adult understanding between you. Don't act like a petulant child and repeat a mantra over and over again.
But they might take you down to the police station and wait for your lawyer to show up. Do you see that as a successful outcome?
Second if you're being interrogated than you're suspected of something.
You're just plain wrong about that. They may think you're a witness or have information that they need.
But once they start asking about you that's when you lawyer up
But if you don't have any information, or if there's even the most remote possibility at all that you could somehow be implicated by the information you have (or by the fact that you have the information in the first place), then plainly, simply, and politely: "I have nothing to say" and "May I go now?".
I think this is the key difference of perspective between you and the people you're debating. But what's interesting is that you're arguing the tactical disadvantages of something you believe people have a civic duty not to do. Are you sure one opinion isn't influencing the other?
It's just naive to expect that you can, as a rule, calmly explain why you don't want to talk with them.
Saying "I have nothing to say" works. Saying "May I go now?" works. Trying to justify yourself, using phrases like "I can't" or "I don't want to", implying that you might have something to say if a lawyer were around, anything more than conveying you have nothing to say and want permission to leave, is just asking for a headache.
Second I worked in a computer store where police would come in all the time and hang out for hours. I've taken hundreds of smoke breaks with them (I don't smoke but I'd stand out there with them and talk).
Third I work at a boys home for troubled children. The cops come by about twice a week for various infractions (usually involving drugs) and since I know many from my previous job I talk to them all the time even now.
Having all that experience the one thing I know,for a fact, is that Cops are people too and they hate when other people treat them badly (which is what repeating "no comment" or asking "can I go now" is considered). If your job was to get information from someone else wouldn't you be upset if they just said "no comment" and wouldn't tell you why they were saying it or even if they had the information you were looking for? The cops feel the same way and explaining exactly why you can't talk to them and giving them your word that you don't have the info they're looking for will help your relationship with them.
I might be miffed, but if I had the unique ability to ruin their lives with arrest and prosecution, I'd understand a little mistrust and defensiveness.
The fact is, cops already know all the legitimate reasons you have for not talking to them, so there's no real misunderstanding to resolve.
The police came. We found my car. They smiled but didn't make fun of me.
Then they invited us to a LAN party.
Maryland police are pretty nice, as long as you're white.
Cops by and large already know all this stuff. They might act all pissy when you refuse to talk to them, but that's gamesmanship. They understand. If you're polite and confident about it, they'll get it--even without you having to memorize a three paragraph speech they're going to interrupt you in the middle of anyway.
Enjoy your Patriot Act. The cops certainly do, as it allows them to do exactly that.
You're supposed to refuse to talk until "your lawyer" is present. Now, I've used a lawyer's services for making a will, and my boss's wife is a lawyer specializing in environmental matters. But I don't have any sort of connection with a lawyer that would handle criminal matters.
Should one make contact with a potential lawyer today, before anything happens, and carry the lawyer's card in your pocket? Should you just call any lawyer you know at the point you need it, and ask for a referral?
Now if you get arrested for a serious crime you'll have one phone call and no time to do research. So yeah, I'd at least ask around and find out who the best criminal lawyer in my area is (and make sure I have his number handy)
Or is there some standard process with a lawyer, where you contact him ahead of time and ask if you can keep him on file just in case?
You might also want to ask the receptionist/assistant who answers calls to the office how you contact the lawyer outside of office hours and whether they need a retainer on file in order to service clients in these kinds of circumstances (ie call them out cos you have been arrested at 3am on a Saturday night).
Don't ask for "your" lawyer. Ask for "a" lawyer. Unless you're in a serious mess (in which case you will need proper, expensive, legal counsel) anyone will do. Usually the rote lawyers provided by the tax payer (here in the UK that is a right, Im not sure if it is elsewhere) are fine for these situations.
Lawyers can get expensive fast - especially if the Police decide to play awkward.
Here's the thing - there's all sorts of technicalities they may or may not use. If you totally stonewall them? If they have any leverage, they will use that leverage. You want them to lose interest in you.
A traffic stop you just comply politely, decline to be searched and say: there is no sense having a right to privacy if it is not exercised, Officer X.
Here's what I did:
0) Officer : Keefe, I hear X happened, what about Y? 1) Keefe : oh, I dunno...mumble... I'm so embarrassed... this is so embarrassing <looks at feet> 3) Goto 0
After a while, he lost interest. I saw the police report afterwards where I was noted as "uncooperative". They don't know that you're not a social reject or something, just refuse to interact.
I just read a very helpful book about that, Arrest-Proof Yourself: An Ex-Cop Reveals How Easy It Is for Anyone to Get Arrested, How Even a Single Arrest Could Ruin Your Life, and What to Do If the Police Get in Your Face by R. Dale Carson,
http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-A...
which was recommended in another thread by another HN participant. Hat tip to him. The book is very interesting and practical. (I am a lawyer and used to be a judicial clerk, but I learned new facts from the book.)
In the UK, where I'm originally from, the police are not allowed to lie or ask you to do anything outside of your rights and so it is total wake up call for anyone who is not used to the way the police work here in the US.
This video is also useful, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk
However, a friend who I talked to about this did make a counter perspective... that sometimes it is worth talking to the cops in the right circumstances.
For example, if you are pulled over cos you just ran a stop sign and you have nothing illegal on you/in the car/etc then it is better just to talk to the cop and get the ticket dealt with. If you start playing the 'not going to say anything' and 'no you can't look in the car' then you are opening yourself up for a long painful experience and potentially arrest if they decide to fuck back with you and they can pin some suspicion for something on you (eg you are driving through an area that happens to be associated with drug sale, you have a LeatherMan tool you and the cop can say the knife was being carried for other intent, etc)
Cops are naturally authoritarian and can choose to make your life hell if they think you are trying to be superior or above them.
In other words, if you ran stop sign, do you want to be a "constitutional martyr" and expose yourself to a cop's rage? Do you want to be detained for a day when you have a family and a job to go to, do you want your car towed, do you want random charges that are hard to defend slapped on you? Even if all charges are cleared by a judge, the amount of effort, time and money spent is too much for most people to handle. They'd rather fly under the radar, hopefully, the cops will catch the next guy...
Am I missing something? What else could a cop do that doesn't require documented evidence of wrongdoing? I suppose Chicago-level corruption could wreck your life, and if that's the environment you're in then it's probably best to keep your head down. And take part in local government, or consider moving.
Your tires could seem to be too bold, your windshield could have a crack, your turn light might not work properly. Then the cop start "smelling drugs" that are not there (police camera don't have smell detectors!). He might decide you need to a DUI test. You might be to close to a drug or prostitution area -- so just that lets them arrest you. He thinks your license if fake, so he detains you to take you to the station to establish your identity.
If he detains or arrests you, your car is towed. You don't show up for work, your family is worried about you. Basically, you cannot win. You can only lose after you encounter a cop.
I guess what I am saying is that I am disappointed at the legal system and the disproportional power the police can project. But aside from calling my congressman, I don't know if I'd want to try to be a "constitutional martyr" and get a cop angry at me...
Learn how to deal with police by asserting your constitutional rights.
Including "10 rules for dealing with police" and other things.
BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
tldr:
-say as little as possible.
-be courteous and don't argue or complain.
-memorize the phrase "I do not consent to any searches."
-do not invite police in your house.
Sorry, just made me laugh: can they cross running water? Do they reflect in mirrors?
The TL;DR seems like good advice in general.
It's probably quite true that it will be difficult for the courts to convict you of anything if you don't talk to the police. However, it seems like there'd be a large risk of attracting a lot more attention than you otherwise would have, should you conspicuously refuse to talk to the police. Being arrested and having to endure a trial is, itself, a fairly large imposition on someone's liberty and time, and it's hard to know how many people would have been looked at far more closely had they insisted on saying nothing.
I am quite possibly the world's least legal driver; I've spent more of my adult license with a suspended license than a legitimate one. Not only that, but I drive around with expired plates. In one case, very, very expired plates. From a different state. And I drive a pretty consistent 10MPH over the limit.
And yet I very rarely get tickets. Because I am (I think) good at not antagonizing cops. For instance, here is a trick that works very reliably for me: when driving on the highway, if I see a cruiser pull out onto the road from a trap or the median, I pull over preemptively --- before the lights come on. They say, "why'd you pull over", I say "I figure you pulled out like that because I did something wrong", and they say "drive slower next time".
Similarly: dome light on, car engine off, hands on the wheel, window (mostly) down. "Got any weapons in the car"? That's a question I'm happy to answer.
I think the thing people don't realize is that most people are total assholes to police officers. Just being civil puts you in the top 10th percentile of their clientele. I'd rather be civil (and, for my neighborhood cops, helpful) than self-righteous.
Another thing, after reading the ACLU guides, watching the videos, and reading the books: you have rights, but you have no authority over the police. You usually have a constitutional right to be free from search without probable cause. But that does not mean you can prevent an unreasonable search; it merely means you're likely to win a case that hinges on evidence obtained from that search.
If you're an iota less than civil to a cop who's having a bad day, he'll arrest you. That's pretty much the ballgame. Your day is ruined. Find a friendly, polite, short way to avoid discussing incriminating topics with the police. Say, "sorry, I don't consent to searches" and, if pressed, "I'm really sorry, this is just a thing with me, but I'm not going to consent to a search; is there anything else I can do to help?". But do not say "My life might hang in the balance if I allow you to search me". You're just going to get arrested, and then immediately searched anyways.
Finally: none of these things apply near the border. You have essentially no rights near the border.
Generally the idea of not saying anything without a lawyer is sensible and advised. But I think you have to be pragmatic about it.
For example we were stopped entering a country once (by the police not border guards) and asked a few fairly routine questions about drug importation.
I answered them because there seemed little danger and got released with an apology in about 5 minutes (probably even less - they just pulled us to one side into little alcoves). But my friend clammed up and asked for a lawyer, "no comment" etc, had to wait about 40 minutes for one to turn up, got told to just answer the questions and was there answering them for about another 20m. Pointless...
You have to remember that for the most part cops are people (I need to remember that myself sometimes because they can be the most infuriating techno-phobes too :P) and usually aren't out to get us.
I advise - if you're worried, don't answer questions, but stay polite and engage in small talk if you feel safe (i.e. they aren't leading you somewhere with it). If you're confident just answer the questions and be helpful - it saves everyone time.
The kids don't have a choice in this situation, do they? From what I remember, the Supreme Court has ruled that students in public schools don't have constitutional rights. If the school wants to expel the student for not talking, they can do so.
As for interrogations, the supreme court has yet to rule on it. There is, however, a case brewing: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0405/Supreme-Court.... The fact that it's written in such a fashion as to be assumed that students have Fifth Amendment rights and the court cases are arguing over a technicality of pre-trial processing would seem to imply that students don't shed that right, either. Specifically: "A juvenile court judge determined that Paul did not understand that he had a right to remain silent and a right to have a lawyer and his parents present for the entire interrogation. The judge ruled that police coerced Paul’s confession."
"Instead of "teach[ing] children to respect the diversity of ideas that is fundamental to the American system," and "that our Constitution is a living reality, not parchment preserved under glass," the Court today "teach[es] youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." The young men and women of Hazelwood East expected a civics lesson, but not the one the Court teaches them today." --Justice William J. Brennan, in dissent on said case
This is actually a healthy thing for those interested in American liberty.
All children should also be trained exactly opposite of what law enforcement teaches in the public schools. My kids talk to me first- NOT the cops.
Also, something not touched on in very many places is how close to get to law enforcement when they are out of uniform. My suggestion: arms length always, unless they are a close family member or you are as boring as a bag of green beans.
Americans traditional media will not turn against cops and will "appropriately" filter stories to make the system of government look good.
In other words, I think cops have always acted this way, it is just that the general public have been mis-informed.
I was recently the passenger in a car pulled over by the police. My iPhone rang with a text message and the cop abruptly asked "are you recording me!?" I wasn't ... but so what if I was? If cops want to talk to me, can I record the conversation?
Some journalism student just got pegged with a felony charge, and failed in his attempt to get the charged dismissed, because he surruptitiously recorded an on-duty cop here. Not worth it.
"Turn it off. Now."
"But---"
"TURN IT OFF AND STEP OUT OF THE CAR."
You're right, but not in a relevant way.
(I have a very little bit of experience with this, though not with municipal police; a friend got assaulted because of this, too).
"I'm sorry Mr./Mrs/Sargent/Lt X, but I don't talk to police on material matters without counsel present."
You might have to testify against yourself in court, without Fifth Amendment protection, if you're given immunity for whatever you are about to testify to. (This is interesting, because federal courts can use the testimony from state proceedings against you, but the state can't give you federal immunity. Double jeopardy does not apply because the state and federal courts are different. Pretty sure that's not what the framers meant when they were writing the Tenth Amendment...)
Unfortunately, the law does not agree with me.
Ever since the Hiibel ruling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distri..., the states have adopted a hodgepodge of differing identity query standards.
EG, if they start searching your car when they pull you over, and they don't have a warrant or you are not under arrest then the evidence collected is not admissible in court.
However the UK doesn't quite have a total "right to remain silent" law anymore, the current miranda warning is
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defense if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."
and as such taking the tact of not saying anything at all can actually get an innocent person into some legal difficulties if simply giving reasonable facts about your innocence would have helped the situation at the time of quesitoning.
I don’t know how that changes whether you should talk or not, though.
A suspect is stopped by the police while driving his car. During the discusion with the suspect the police officer says "I'm just going to take a look in the vehicle if that is ok?" and with the suspect saying nothing (ie not stopping him) the police officer finds something illegal in the car.
In the US this would be admissible in court because the suspect waived his rights, in the UK I believe it would not be admissible because you cannot waiver your rights.
If a cop in the US lies to you, or searches your car without cause, or otherwise 'tricks' you, it's no more admissible that it would be in the UK. The issue (in both countries) is proving the cop lied to you, tricked you, etc. Which is the whole point of have legal consul present in the first place.
One of the comments on the article mentions that the 'UK version of the "Miranda rights" includes the sentence "It may harm your defense if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."' The most common tactic I've heard cops employ in the US is "if you're innocent, it's in your best interest to talk to us." It would appear the UK has that trick built right in to the process from the start.
Well, my understanding is different. Here is an example:
Suspect is in the police station being questioned and the police officer says "we know you did it, your friend who we arrested in the car with you said you did it. he just gave a statement. Why don't you just sign this confession now and we'll sort out a deal".
(The police officer lied, the other person hadn't said anything let alone made a statement)
In the US that would be admissible in court because it doesn't matter how the confession was reached, even lies (short of beating the suspect/etc). In the UK that would not be admissible because it would obtained through lying to the suspect.
You are right though, no matter where you are in the world, by the time you are being questioned in the police station it is time to make sure you have legal counsel... and not the one provided to you by the state but a lawyer you already know. For this reason everyone should have a connection with an appropriate lawyer and have their information to hand in case of arrest.
- visitor from another country
- visitor from out-of-state
- skin colour other than default for that locality
- male / female / other
The variations are endless, and I think that for each of those the rules are subtly different.