Hacker News Reader

Comment by baddox | Hacker News Reader

I'd like to see a comprehensive breakdown of exactly what you should do in real situations when approached by cops. For example, do you literally utter no words and just stare at them, or do you keep repeating "I'd rather not answer that." If the cops make a false claim, such as "we can arrest you for interfering with a police investigation if you don't answer," should you call them on the lie or what? Also a more specific breakdown by state would be great (e.g. do I have to carry/show ID while walking/driving/in my home. I've seen some rather cheesy video dramatizations (I think from the ACLU) of what to do in a traffic stop, but a nice comprehensive document would be the best.

View on HN

I'd like to see a comprehensive breakdown of exactly what you should do in real situations when approached by cops.

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.)

"No comment" all the way.

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?

> 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.

One issue with this is that if you pull out the "I don't wish to comment without my solicitor being present" line as soon as the cop starts talking to you then they can just detain you (ie not arrest you) and take you to the police station to give you the opportunity to get your legal counsel present so they can continue.

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.

Yeh, absolutely. I'd say if a cop stops you in the street - just answer their questions if it seems reasonable. Or refuse (don't mention lawyers) if not.

Never had any issues myself with this approach.

Yeah, but then your legal counsel shows up, asks "is my client free to go", and then you leave.

For what it's worth this is what I would say...

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 need you to understand my outlook on this which is that my life might depend on me keeping my mouth shut right now."

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.

I'm sorry but that logic will get you thrown in jail for the exact points you outline. Police are people and they don't like a jerk and they don't like someone who seems to think he's smarter than they are. You say just "No Comment" and they aren't going to like you and that is going to make them go after you harder.

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 more you say the more that can be twisted against you. "I'm not guilty." -> "Not guilty of what? We haven't accused you of anything. Why are you acting like you've been accused? What exactly are you not guilty of?" And so on.

The response with the smallest attack surface is "No comment."

First, 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. So unless there's something in that statement that they can use in court (which there isn't) it doesn't matter.

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.

> 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.

>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).

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 ...

So first off your original statement does imply guilt - as per my original comment and I would suggest you re-examine that.

"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.

Again once you've asked for your lawyer interrogation must stop. So there will be no probing.

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.

Again once you've asked for your lawyer interrogation must stop. So there will be no probing.

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.

There's a difference between being a witness and being interrogated. I'd dare say you have a civic duty to answer questions that aren't about you if a Cop asks them. Cops wouldn't be able to catch actual criminals if citizens don't talk to them at all.

But once they start asking about you that's when you lawyer up

If you actually have information and there's not even the slightest possibility that it could turn bad for you, then sure, be a good citizen.

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'd dare say you have a civic duty to answer questions that aren't about you if a Cop asks them.

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?

Can American police actually take you to the police station against your will if you're not under arrest? They can ask, of course, but no matter how forcefully they ask they're still just asking.

No, but why would you say "not without my lawyer" if you weren't actually willing to get a lawyer and talk? If you make the offer with the intent to rescind it if they take you up on it, why make the offer in the first place?

I wouldn't, personally. Even if you get a lawyer, the lawyer says not to talk. I already know that for free.

How many times have you actually interacted with the police? Between being pulled over several times, living in an apartment that was previously occupied by a guy with warrants, being assaulted with a golf club, and various other stupid minor run-ins, I've had exactly one experience where the cop wasn't a complete dick and possibly would have let me get halfway through that wall of text you want to preface your lack of interaction with.

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.

First my Aunt is a CHP officer (CHP is California Highway Patrol for those who don't know)

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.

Those sound like social or job-related interactions, which are completely and obviously different from the kind of interactions the article and I are referring to. Have you had any on-topic interactions with police?

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?

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.

A cop might act like refusing to say anything, refusing searches, and asking if you can go is "treating them badly", but that's gamesmanship. That's their job. If you want to appeal to their human side, just be polite about it.

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.

I once thought my car was stolen, because I had been completely out of it with fever, and we both forgot my boyfriend was the last one to park it... and he parked it far away.

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.

You can't get "thrown in jail" (in America) without probable cause and usually a warrant, and if they already have probable cause or a warrant on you, you're not talking yourself out of being thrown in jail. If they have nothing on you and you refuse to talk to them, they're not going to "go after you" because you're not a promising lead. It's talking to them that makes you a promising lead.

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.

>You can't get "thrown in jail" (in America) without probable cause and usually a warrant

Enjoy your Patriot Act. The cops certainly do, as it allows them to do exactly that.

And even beyond 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?

This seems obvious to me. Put it this way, if you're ever accused of a serious crime your life will hang in the balance. So how much research would you be willing to do to save your own life?

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)

That much makes sense. But do you think I should just find out who he is and store his name and number in my phone?

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?

It would be wise to find out rates at the very least! Some lawyers might charge more than you can afford.

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).

No, don't bother. The chance of you being able to get that specific person in all situations is low anyway.

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.

A friend of mine got in trouble once so I have had the inestimable pleasure of being interviewed by police.

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 don't consent to any searches" is a good thing to say if they ask to search you or your car, or if they just try and start to.

Why?

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?

good question. I would suggest:

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.

a) is a good one, b) is something I didn't know about, thanks for that one (currently not visiting the States, possibly never again, but a good warning all the same), c) I've been warned about and I check rental cars thoroughly.

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 :)

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?

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.

A 'one-in-a-million' occurrence from a movie and the police framing a stranger from out of state?

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.

The rental car situation is a great example. A friend of mine's wife used to work for Enterprise and told me a story where they got back a car where one of the interior panels had been taken off and some kind of drugs put in there.

A story from a friend of a wife who used to work somewhere :)

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.

Yes, used to work somewhere. She got laid off but I can see why that would seem funny from a random post on the internet.

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.

> I can see why that would seem funny from a random post on the internet.

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.

Rereading the GP, it didn't actually say drugs were found in the door. They probably saw something had been put in there and the rumors embroidered on that.

This is only peripherally related, but when I took a vacation in Bali a few years back I was a little worried when I saw at customs giant signs say "Carrying drugs is punishable by death". I knew I wasn't carrying any, but on the other hand, I had handed my suitcase (which must be unlocked these days) over to TSA and then baggage handlers; who knows what could have happened.

read and shiver:

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!

The opposite for US customs. Whenever I come back from a weekend trip abroad (hey, international flights are cheap), I always get searched because I have suspiciously little luggage. It would be funny if it wasn't the government going through my backpack for no reason. (Sadly, nobody has ever wanted my crypto key for the laptop. That's what I plan for, but I forget that they are actually more concerned with alcohol people didn't pay duty on than my .emacs file. If only they wrote that in the law book, I might not even mind customs...)

Anyway, note to drug smugglers: might as well smuggle a whole suitcase full of cocaine. Less suspicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schapelle_Corby

She got 20 years for carrying drugs - and claims it was put into her bags by corrupt Customs officials in Australia.

Her lawyer is on the record that he made that claim up, and it was baggage handlers, not customs officials.

A 'one-in-a-million' occurrence from a movie and the police framing a stranger from out of state?

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?

That's my European background getting the better of me, I'm linking to 'driving while black' elsewhere in this thread to offset my innate response which is that you can rely on the police to be even-handed.

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.

It's not even only blacks now, for example: http://jonathanturley.org/2010/05/03/baltimore-police-arrest...

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).

One recent one:

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.

I don't know Canadian law, but declining a search is your constitutional right in America, even if you're cited for a moving violation. No matter what a cop says otherwise. American cops are allowed to lie, imply, threaten, and be presumptuous assholes but if you assert your civil rights you still have them. (If they ask you to step out of the car and just casually slide right into the driver's seat, and you say nothing, you just consented to a search. So lock your door when you get out and don't consent.)

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.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding his that they must stop the interrogation at the moment you invoke your right to an attorney.

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.

So, you get to visit the station until your lawyer arrives, I guarantee it.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com