What to do if you’re stopped by the police
cassandraxia.com
cassandraxia.com
Exceptions include things like giving a fake ID or name/dob or SSN to avoid certain identifications (e.g. on a traffic stop). Also, lying to a federal agent during their investigation is illegal, to my understanding. In Virginia, if you lie to the police regarding the investigation of a different person than yourself, it is considered obstruction of justice, though I can think of maybe one time that I heard of that law being used that way.
But in general, it's a good article. Assert your rights politely, but firmly. If the cop disregards it, don't try to stop them. If the cop does illegal stuff violating 4th and 5th amendment, there's a chance the case gets tossed (as it should). If you try to physically stop the 4th amendment violation, and you're wrong about it being a violation, you just made your problem worse.
Of the people who've accused me of violating their rights, 0 have been correct, but plenty of people have asserted their rights, and stopped an investigation that I had reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause on, and no further means to reasonably develop PC.
For instance, I learned from law professor James Duane's video that Martha Stewart would have completely avoided prison time if she had not lied to investigators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&feature=emb_titl...
As a cop, if you get caught lying, i.e. intentionally false testimony in court, your career is effectively over. Any defense attorney can bring that one time you got caught lying up in court, discounting your entire testimony on every case forever, making you useless. No matter how bad you screw up as a cop, the number 1 rule is don't lie about it in court.
*Maybe not in some jurisdictions? But realistically yeah, always
So if you plead not guilty to some crime, and they find you guilty, do you get prosecuted for lying in court with your plead as well as for the original crime?
Typically, one is only "sworn in" prior to giving testimony.
I'd love to hear the context for that one :)
You can never say it wasn’t yours, apparently. In any case, paid the fine. Oh well.
A couple of German exchange students once told me that you can drink in a car while the car is moving as long as the driver doesn't drink anything.
You might remember the protests in Ferguson, MO, after Michael Brown was m̶u̶r̶d̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ killed. A federal investigation later revealed the tense police/public relations under which that incident took place: the jurisdiction was essentially using the traffic laws to extract rent, overwhelmingly from black residents. A traffic citation would require attending court (often without access to a vehicle); if a court date was missed, additional fines and an arrest warrant were issued, which of course the person would only become aware of during the next traffic stop. Police were encouraged to increase stops and citations to make up for lowered taxes. It's regressive fiscal policy you see popular among American conservatives because it shifts the tax burden off of people who are then more likely to vote for them, onto people "deserving" of punishment.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguso...
> He denied having any ID, claimed he could not remember his Social Security umber, and said his name was “Mr. Horrell.”
> After police found a photo ID in the vehicle, he claimed the person pictured was his “identical cousin.”
---
He was arrested and charged with "privacy invasion and refusal to identify himself". He was acquitted of the former and convicted of the latter -- only to have it later overturned.
So, in this particular case, I suppose he won.
[0]: https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/24168-court-refusa...
https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/sites/ca3/files/2013%20Chapter%...
> If you have any weapons or potentially dangerous items on you, keep your hands visible at all times and inform the officer. Inform the officer of your every move, if you need to reach for anything (your identification, your registration, etc.).
You can run from many kinds of encounters with Police when there's no presumption of guilt.
They're not allowed to use force in pursuit unless necessary, and running does not make it necessary on its own.
Fighting back is a good way to end up in jail as well as dead. Running can result in you getting away free at least.
> A person who:
> (1) gives a false report of the commission of a crime or gives false information in the official investigation of the commission of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false;
> ...
> knowing the report or information to be false; commits false informing [0]
I've omitted (for brevity) several other things that also make a person guilty of this particular crime but read (1) again and think about how absolutely vague that sentence really is:
> gives false information in the official investigation of the commission of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false;
(Note that, here, both making a "false identity statement" and "assisting a criminal" are completely separate crimes; the above simply regards any "false information", generally.)
Granted, a prosecutor likely wouldn't bother wasting his time and the government's money to charge you over some inconsequential, petty lie but that might not stop a police officer from arresting you and making you spend a day or two in jail over it -- especially if he's having a bad day or you've done something to piss him off. Is that really a chance you want to take?
Personally, I feel that the best ("smartest") thing one can say when such an "opportunity" arises is absolutely nothing. To paraphrase Proverbs (17:28), "Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise." [1]
[0]: Indiana Code, Title 35, Article 44.1, Chapter 2, Section 3
One other thing which goes along with being polite and courteous, never lie outright to an officer. Use weasel words like, "not that I can think of" or, "I'm not sure why you would think that." That might sound suspicious at first glance, but they'll assume in the moment that just about any direct statement is a lie, anyways.
And even when you are completely confident in your universal innocence, any direct statement can be made to sound like a lie by an officer who wants to keep you off balance. Think like you're dealing with Cardinal Richelieu, who famously said: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
It's really best to avoid any encounter with cops in the US; we do not practice "policing by consent". Obey basic traffic laws and don't speak to officers on the street, even if you think doing so might help someone. Here and now, all it takes is one bad apple to give your life a terrible and irrevocable turn for the worse, assuming that you are lucky enough to leave the encounter with your life.
Don't get me wrong, I've left plenty of interactions thinking about how polite and professional the officer who I had been speaking to was. But I've also experienced plenty of cops who were callous, dishonest, insecure, and predatory, and we do not have any institutional safeguards to remove them from positions of authority. So any interaction with the law in the US is a roll of the dice, with your life/career/family/etc on the line. Are you feeling lucky?
If you're thinking about clever hacks to use when you're talking to the police you're doing it wrong.
(Unless you're AL, IANAL etc.)
Ideally you would simply never speak with a police officer. But this is a stressful and unwanted situation that we're talking about, and most people (myself certainly included) aren't going to know how to assert every one of their rights that are relevant to a situation in that stressful moment. It's fairly easy to remember to avoid giving the officers anything to work with, though.
But you make a good point, I'm not a lawyer and I only speak from anecdotal experience.
I think everyone would like to think that they would be able to identify when the important questioning starts, but I don't think you usually notice it until you are partway through the line of questioning that the officer cares about.
This is really bad advice. You need to re-watch the video you alluded to in your first paragraph.
You do not talk to police. Period. Unless you are asking a.) if you are being detained or b.) asking if you are being placed under arrest. Or to state your legal name.
Some officers do not care about your rights or the law, and if you demand a lawyer when they ask how much cash is in the vehicle after they pull you over for doing 37 in a 35 zone, then you and your lawyer are going to spend a little while dealing with the matter.
Whereas if you give nothing away while remaining polite and courteous and aware that you are probably being lied to, you might drive off with a warning. You might still need to fall back to "am I being detained", but you might not. Sometimes you simply can't completely avoid a conversation, especially when the other party can physically compel you and make up an excuse later.
There is no universal good advice for such difficult and varied situations, and acting as though there is doesn't do anyone any favors. That's why I like this article and commented on it; the author provides useful knowledge and references without being overly prescriptive.
And incidentally, the absolutist "never speak at all" part of the James Duane talk comes with the caveat, "if you are being suspected of a serious crime". The article seems to be more about officer-knocks-on-your-door or traffic stop sort of situations.
Why would they do that? Is that about being a drug dealer?
I've probably been pulled over for speeding and/or crazy driving at least 30 times, and I've never been asked that.
I was pulled over for expired tags a couple weeks ago by city police. They asked for IDs for my wife and friend in the back seat. Our 2 year old was with us as well, in his car seat. We are all quite caucasian, in case anyone is wondering.
I have no idea why we were asked this, but I declined the request. We got a warning for the tags.
Slightly more complicated, but not by much. It's not clear to me whether not talking versus explaining the situation would help or hurt your chances of keeping your money, but Civil Asset Forfeiture seems counter to the rest of the ideals of the US judicial system.
They need to be able to say it is "more likely than not" related to a crime. If there is a hint of weed in the air, the officer claims your pupils are slightly dilated, and they notice a lighter and a generic plastic baggie in the car, that might be enough to be able to confiscate the cash in your vehicle and the vehicle itself. The "hint of weed in the air" and "dilated pupils" are subjective and leave no physical evidence. The lighter+baggie aren't exclusive to marijuana, but they are considered paraphernalia. Also, having more than a few hundred/thousand USD cash has been considered more evidence of a crime in past cases (although I don't see how it could be).
And remember that there's probably a reason why you were approached by the officer, so they (or a prosecutor, if you've been arrested) will likely threaten you with more charges if you don't sign a waiver[1] or just lighten your charge sheet if you agree not to challenge the forfeiture.
And cash+vehicle confiscations usually happen to people driving through other states, so it's hard to get legal representation and it's usually pretty difficult to coordinate a legal case from out of state.
> When out-of-town drivers who felt victimized by a Tenaha forfeiture called local lawyers for help, their business wasn’t always welcomed. “That’d be like kicking a basket of rattlesnakes,” one defense lawyer warned a forfeiture target.[1]
Everything about Civil Asset Forfeiture has a bad smell. I wish we would just roll it back. It's a perversion of justice to allow the same government organizations who confiscate property to profit from the confiscations.
But there has been some progress, in recent years.
Not enough, though.
"It's a fair point, but I'm kind of getting tired of responding to it. I think that such an absolutist stance can be more harmful than helpful in some situations, and that view is backed by my anecdotal but not-insignificant experience."
If you do not admit anything, your statements cannot be used against you in court since you did not admit anything. And how do you tell in advance when your purported exculpatory statements will be helpful? Answer: you cannot. Hence you do not make statements.
"Some officers do not care about your rights or the law, and if you demand a lawyer when they ask how much cash is in the vehicle after they pull you over for doing 37 in a 35 zone, then you and your lawyer are going to spend a little while dealing with the matter."
If you are dealing with law enforcement that does not respect the law, why would you not want an attorney to present your side of the argument?
"Whereas if you give nothing away while remaining polite and courteous and aware that you are probably being lied to, you might drive off with a warning. You might still need to fall back to "am I being detained", but you might not. Sometimes you simply can't completely avoid a conversation, especially when the other party can physically compel you and make up an excuse later."
What you are describing is unlawful behaviour on the part of the law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer cannot "compel" you to make a statement, as that would be inadmissible in a court of law as a statement made under unlawful duress.
"There is no universal good advice for such difficult and varied situations, and acting as though there is doesn't do anyone any favors."
Yes, there is under the U.S. criminal justice system. You do not make statements to law enforcement officers who are investigating a crime.
"And incidentally, the absolutist "never speak at all" part of the James Duane talk comes with the caveat, "if you are being suspected of a serious crime". The article seems to be more about officer-knocks-on-your-door or traffic stop sort of situations."
Whether it is a criminal offense or a civil wrong, e.g. a parking ticket, the same logic applies. Do not make statements to law enforcement.
"Do not make statements" even if these statements may help investigating officer to resolve a criminal case in your neighbourhood?
Not to say that this isn't great advice that people should follow in general.
My brother pulled the "AM I BEING DETAINED" routine with a cop during a traffic stop when he was 17 and it didn't go very well for him. Knowing your rights and being firm about it is important, but on the other hand you don't want to sound like a cop-hating sovereign citizen, since those of people make cops afraid and fear is not an emotion you want to encourage during interactions with the police.
I'm not saying you should be exempt from laws but there should be some legal way to opt out of the system, as a safety valve at least.
> Good {morning, evening}. How are you officer?
On TV shows, the guy would then call his lawyer, who is under a retainer or something. The lawyer has all the context on exactly what's going on, and tells him exactly what to do, and he gets off free.
But as someone who doesn't have a lawyer, what exactly happens if and when the cop agrees to this?
Are they obligated to provide me with a lawyer? Or do I need to know one, or know how to find one? Do I need to do this while detained or do I have some time to do it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...
I don't believe they are obligated to provide you with a lawyer. A court is obligated to do this; the police aren't.
The point of this advice is to make sure that you don't say anything to the police, or -- if you do -- to get it thrown out of court. Because of some bad precedent, you need to make the statement that you do not wish to answer their questions as explicit as possible. You actually don't need to request a lawyer, but doing so has some beneficial effects.
What happens?
The police may ignore your expressed desire to remain silent and continue questioning you. If you are resistant to social pressure, this doesn't matter. If you aren't, you may keep answering them. Your answers should be inadmissible in court. They may not be, based on some potential arguments by the police:
- We didn't understand that he wanted to remain silent. His wording was too confusing. (This is why the advice here tells you to use the words "remain silent".)
- We stopped the interview, but then we started another one and he spoke to us willingly.
That second point is much harder for them to argue if you expressed that you did not wish to speak to them without benefit of counsel. There is no clear line to draw between the end of one interview and the beginning of a second interview after the interviewee has had a change of heart. but it is in fact obvious to the police, even in the eyes of the court, that once you've said "I will not speak to you without the advice of a lawyer", a second interview begun before you've had the opportunity to speak to a lawyer is illegitimate.
It's also important to phrase it as a declarative sentence (including the correct inflections) and be sure of what you say. If you preface it with "maybe I should..." or "can I have a lawyer?", you are not asserting your right and police are free to continue to questioning you.
I learned all I know about the law from the internet, so it's worth what you paid me to hear it. IANAL
> Once you say that you want to talk to a lawyer, officers should stop asking you questions. If they continue to ask questions, you still have the right to remain silent. If you do not have a lawyer, you may still tell the officer you want to speak to one before answering questions. If you do have a lawyer, keep his or her business card with you.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter...
In many countries the police would provide you with contact information for publicly-funded duty lawyers who can help in this emergency (assuming you are under arrest, and not just free to walk away). Sounds like in the US, it would be wise to do a bit of research and check if there are any emergency services like that in your area.
If you, um, have something to hide, you probably want to explicitly state you're invoking your fifth amendment rights.
Whenever you read about how law is applied, put it in the correct context of the jurisdiction and time frame in which it is written.
Or I can just let them look in my empty trunk.
I say this with full awareness of how fucked up it is, but your bet is to be white and polite.
The ability for police to detain you on no evidence is slight. And your opportunities for damages increase rapidly.
That's the salient question.
I don't doubt your confidence, and, likely, experience. Only the specific strategy as outlined in this thread and article.
I will certainly say that this is not universal, but refusals to search are often cited as suspicious behaviors, which then turns into more suspicious behaviors giving more reasons to continue the detention. Also, the purported difference between detention and arrest is nearly useless in practice, who feels like they are free to just get in their car and drive off.
So, the TL;DR is yes stand up for yourself and exercise your rights, but understand that in most cases in the US, if law enforcement wants to arrest you, they are going to find a reason to do so. Be smart, be safe.
I've had ... different ... experiences, though could well see others not.
And they proceed to literally tear apart your car with a knife, or if you're really unlucky, they plant evidence there.
There is a significant chance that if you assert your rights you will shortly be let go and if you let them search it will be a lengthy process. There is a non-zero chance that evidence is planted during a search. If you or any of your passengers (present or past) are drug users there is a non-zero chance that legitimate drug residue is in your vehicle. If you purchased your vehicle used there is a non-zero chance the previous owner left drug residue in it.
In my opinion having a police officer search a vehicle is more risky than asserting your rights.
Until you realize your friend left his gym bag with weed in it in your trunk. That looks bad man, and comes back on you. My best seizures came from consent searches. I've also had cars that I've stopped where I was darn sure they were moving something in it, but I didnt have PC, and I didn't have a dog nearby that I could get in reasonable time. I asked for consent, and got told "No" in no uncertain terms. They left on their merry way, and I still wonder sometimes if a compartment full of stolen guns was in that dang car.
Sometimes we have a reason to be suspicious, sometimes were just guessing. Just to account for confirmation bias, I'd ask for consent to search completely randomly. Sometimes I got it, spent 10 seconds searching, and was done. Sometimes I didn't and said have a nice day. Sometimes I got the consent and a stolen gun and some hard narcotics
There have been a few cases where we had enough PC to search a residence, and asked for consent. Each time it was an unusual circumstance (e.g. the roomate was selling drugs or wanted or something). Each time we were in and out in 10 minutes. If we had been told to get a warrant, we would've had to detain the home owner (which in this case means hang out with him in our car or in his yard, casually talking and killing time) while we go to get a warrant.
This means driving to the magistrates office 45 minutes away, writing the affidavit, waiting in line, doing the hearing, then driving back, maybe 2-3 hours total. If during that time the homeowner goes "Hey, screw this, just search it", we won't, as we don't want it to seem like coercion. Once consent is denied, we aren't going forward without a warrant.
So again, general rule, "Dont talk to the police, assert your rights". Except when maybe you should. If you come home and your spouse is missing and blood is everywhere, you are a suspect. Heck, at the beginning, you are probably THE suspect, but you may want to talk to the cops to help them figure out where your wife went. If the cops want to look in your house for a stolen gun that your shady roommate allegedly stole, it may be BS to just search your house, or they may just want to check that 1 room, get that stolen gun, and go.
Exactly. And this is why you should retain an attorney and let the attorney communicate with the police. Suspicion usually (and rightly so) falls on the spouse or intimate partner due to likely culpability given the statistics. Don’t become a statistic yourself and countenance yourself into an unwarranted charge.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evj89n/this-dollar2-test-...
The other common tactic I have seen is when the police want someone but cannot search or arrest then straightaway they physically surround them. 4+ police officers will stand around the person in such a way as to stop them from leaving without touching an officer. If the person pushes past the police they get arrested for assault. These stand offs can last for literally hours, in which case the police will rotate it in shifts.
I don't work in a legal profession , I just happen to live on a street with lots of bars, nightclubs and a particularly active police station.
My wife works in mental health in Japan. Nurses use this exact technique to contain potentially violent situations. Not for legal purposes, but for the safety of themselves, the patient who is surrounded and of others too.
It's pretty effective in de-escalating and does not induce force from either party.
Again, not saying this system is never abused, but in general it's safer for all parties not to up the ante in using force for the purpose of getting a faster resolution.
Restraining movement does not require enclosure or other technical means, yet is still illegal. Police can literally stop you for a few reasons and no more.
If you literally tell the police to move away because they're illegally preventing you from moving in clear terms, if they hit you while you push through they're committing assault. Treat it like any other police brutality in court.
The first thing you have to do in this abuse of power situation is to get evidence, and by stupid Japanese law you're not allowed to take photographs of policemen I think, so get something else, like sound recording.
Suing them would be a fun pastime for someone rich, and a way to get the prosecutor to throw the case.
Of course of they really want you for something illegal, they will get you in some other way.
It matches for India, China, Japan and both Koreas.
Colleges are closing because they're to expensive
What to do if you're stopped by police
The Top 10 books include 1984 and Fahrenheit 451
all we need is something about medical insurance sending people broke and the ever present incarceration rate.
You guys should really fix this (not an American), its not that hard.
But I think the assumption of YCombinator and HN is that since so much of what is under discussion here is SV related, then readers should assume it's USA-specific unless stated otherwise.
The Top 10 books include 1984 and Fahrenheit 451
Fixing one's reading comprehension (or intellectual honesty) isn't that hard, either.
Buy the book. It's cheap, and an engaging quick read. Good luck to you all!
If you're not an attorney (or as well versed in law as the attorney in the video), your best bet is usually to be friendly and comply. You comply because they're allowed to lie to you, they're allowed to search you with very little reason, and they're allowed to arrest you using circumstances and behaviors that they knowingly and purposefully antagonize out of you.
And this is how freedom dies.
The cop is already pretty sure you did it (or he wouldn't have brought you in), so seems like there's little you can say that will change his mind.
There are different stages before arrest that matter here.
There is a burden of "reasonable suspicion", "probable cause", etc. (or some equivalent like "exigent circumstances"). An arrest requires both of these, plus some evidence of a crime. Being convicted at trial requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" (for criminal charges, as opposed to {civil, tax, military}).
You don't have to talk to them. It's probably the one thing you shouldn't do. You should respectfully refuse to answer questions, even before the point that they arrest you and read you the Miranda warning.
But you should allow a search of your vehicle. If you don't, they're just going to call a canine unit and provoke the dog to signal, regardless of whether there's anything in your car.
You should identify yourself if requested, provide proof of ID if requested, get out of the vehicle if requested, etc. Don't make any sudden movements or reach into your pockets. And smile.
This is where we live.
I don't think that's accurate, although I've previously said it myself before on social media.
I, do, think that too many citizens and lawmakers always assume police can do no wrong and are willing to give them whatever tools they ask for, no matter the cost to freedom. I think we have too many laws on the books, far too many for any person (even for a judge or attorney) to be able to read, let alone memorize, interpret, or internalize. I think the only thing that saves every last one of us from being convicted is a scarcity of police time, but technology is likely to change part of that (digital footprints on phones, GPS devices, WiFi / bluetooth devices, SaaS security systems like Ring, cars with dashcams) and the increasing changes to grade schools (campus police officers, "zero tolerance" policies) that increase the impact of normal childish outbursts.
I have lots of problems with police tools and tactics and I will continue to use my citizen voice and vote to trim those back, but I think that we aren't a police state right now.
> And this is how freedom dies.
If we live in a police state, then freedom is already dead.
It's not clear to me if police + legislatures are taking our freedoms faster than corporate land-grabs for my digital information and psychological profiling.
For instance in NSW Australia, you may be cautioned by police that “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you. It may harm your defence if you fail to mention something now which you later rely on in court.” [1][2]
The impact of this is incredibly complicated, and it'll take a lawyer to fully explain it. Which, if you don't have one on hand when you're questioned - can be a major issue.
[1] http://theconversation.com/when-you-say-nothing-at-all-nsw-a... [2] https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/oppn-slammed-...
The only movie I can find with both of those actors in it is Proof[1] from 1991, and it doesn't seem to be about anything to do with law enforcement/not speaking to police/right to silence.
First thing is we here don’t have many guns and the status quo it’s not a crime to touch or bad manner the policeman (while not recommended, they can turn it against you easily at will). Second thing is you usually want to know what the case really is, and what they know and think in general, so “remaining silent” may play against you. How it works: you get a sudden call, “hey wruza it’s you? Uhm maybe not, who’s asking? It’s detective Borisov, can you please meet me at my office here I have questions”. That’s it. You don’t get more info over the phone and if you ignore, you may get in a unknown trouble, even if they decide to not force you later in their office (it is not a crime to not go there, but they can give you a free mandatory ride if necessary). If you ignore or “remain silent” from the doorstep, you’re simply playing a blind hand against something serious. You’re innocent until guilty, so you better collect/ensure your own evidence, since it tends to decay with time.
Fighting and resisting (injuring even slightly) the police is a crime, but chances to get shot are minuscle compared to US. Gun rules are strict for them too, and even in a dangerous situation they don’t shoot an entire fucking clip into you, as youtube usually shows for US. YT search for “Полиция застрелила” (graphic content warning). It is usually few minutes of open and/or armed aggression against a cop before he decides to pull a gun. Each shot is a hard paperwork and a risk of losing their job or freedom.
Another big difference is that documents and witnessing is everything, words are nothing. You have to be damn sure that the protocol contains your words as you said it and as they asked, not rephrased or manipulated. Having a bad memory doesn’t count as a lie or justice/investigation obstruction, but a judge may find it strange that you recall everything except that one day or event.
Imagine how paranoid and afraid that'd make you after a while!
Given that, it's not really surprising we have police officers killing someone who "pulled a gun" -- except that then they discover it was just a candy bar.
I've got a few friends who are police officers and I wouldn't want to do their jobs. Of course, my LEO friends are all older, smarter, and, due to experience I suppose, more "laid back".
Nowadays the first thing drilled into a new police officer's head is that "everyone wants to kill you".
Does anyone still remember the tragedy of Debian founder Ian Murdock suicided in San Francisco?
in EU or Asia, policeforce seems more approachable.
Can someone with know how elaborate on what exactly this means, in practical terms? What should someone do in the U.K.? Still remain silent?
Your refusal to speak to police can't be the only evidence against you. Silence is not a confession. It merely means that when you're in court the prosecution may make something of the fact that you didn't say anything to the police. They may claim that your testimony is less credible than it would have been. But it's up to the jury whether or not they agree with that. It is much more important what you say in court.
On the other hand, if you do speak to the police that may well be used against you as well, indeed it may be the main evidence if you unintentionally admit to a crime that you didn't know you committed, or you may provide crucial evidence for one aspect of a crime (such as intention) that would otherwise be difficult for them to prove.
If you do say something to police, a transcript will be made and it probably will be available to the jury. They will compare what you said to the police to what you said in court. Your court date may be a long time from your police interview. So you'd better be sure you can reproduce your answers months into the future.
Stating the obvious, I hope, but advice should vary by jurisdiction so here's the Canadian flavour of asserting rights around arrest, talking, search, etc.:
https://bccla.org/our_work/the-arrest-handbook-a-guide-to-yo...
Wherever you live, please consider supporting your national or local Civil Liberties Association if you have time or money and want to keep the future as free as possible.
* Act like a normal, sensible person. Don't try to provoke them, and don't give them any reason to escalate the encounter.
* Don't allow police in your home without a warrant.
* Affirmatively deny consent for searches. This includes your home, car, and personal belongings.
* Assert your right to remain silent.
Unless you're reporting a crime where you're the victim (and, sometimes, even then), you should only talk to police with a lawyer representing you present.
Aren't police allowed too search all sorts of things with easy excuse? My refusal is a form of escalation especially since they can arrest me on whatever, then let me go, and that alone could jeopardize my immigration status (all those visa questionnaires starting with "have you ever been arrested").
By calmly and clearly asserting your rights, you're preserving whatever slight edge you have. All the better if there are witnesses or recordings.
Allowing searches, answering questions, fleeing, or resisting, all work against you. Stating you don't assent, clarifying that requests are orders, and complying under protest, are options.
"Good (morning|day|evening) officer" is a good starting response. It makes clear that you aren't rattled, and concedes nothing.
And no, immigrants (or minorities) don't start with a fair break. But you can keep from letting that disadvantage erode further.
Slow movements, hands in sight, etc., all help.
Chances are that if they were going to arrest you after refusing to talk or allow them to search, they were going to arrest you anyway.
The problem is asserting your rights and not acting like a docile thankful citizen can get treated as escalation in and of itself.
And I'd be way more receptive to the 'a few bad apples' argument if the whole thing didn't react to any charges or investigations into those bad apples as an attack on the whole followed by at best a retirement right before they get disciplined and fired (where they usually just go work for a different department or security).
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/29/man-arrested-for-...
That's why you have to act like a sensible, docile, thankful citizen who also asserts your rights. Do not act "normal". Normal gets you hurt.
Whether "normal gets you hurt" or "gets you a professional interaction" says more about your particular personality than anything else.
That said, this is a complex topic and an article of that length can only cover so much. There's a lot of nuance in these kinds of things (human interaction is complex) and by behaving as the situation demands an not coming off as one of those sovereign citizen types you can turn a lot of $50 "contempt of cop while having a tail light out" tickets into warnings without giving up your rights.