Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmitrygr | Hacker News Reader

"Everything you tweet can and will be used against you"

I do wonder what they would do if I refused to give them said info. Is it resisting arrest if I refuse to answer such idiotic queries?

View on HN

Is it resisting arrest if I refuse to answer such idiotic queries?

No, it is not.

From what I understand, "taking the fifth" is always an option.

"I respectfully decline to answer questions or consent to searches, and request to speak to my attorney."

>and request to speak to my attorney

Do people actually have an defense attorney on retainer? Even if they do, it seems like a pretty effective resource exhaustion attack. The cop gets paid for his time, whereas you have to pay $300/hr to have your lawyer around.

No. The words to use here are "an attorney", not "my attorney", and it matters mostly after you're arrested, not when you're on the street (on the street, you just say "I'd rather not answer that, sorry").

The words to use are "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"

If being detained, the words to use are "Of what crime am I suspected?"

> The words to use are "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?

Only if you want to appear in a compilation video of libertarian/sov-cit meltdowns on YouTube.

Just because there's notably wacky people doing this doesn't invalidate the suggestion. Part of a real problem with police is that they often have no idea what the limits are. If everyone had the same standard script, police would get away with much less, and the good ones would learn how far they and their colleagues can take a stop. Holding them to account is a civic responsibility. Record everything and know your rights, and never talk to the police if you're stopped. It will never help you or anyone else.

I've wondered about that. In the context of a police interview, either after being arrested or when you're fairly certain the officer intends to arrest you, the statements "I'd like to speak to an attorney" and "I'd like to speak to my attorney" convey very different things.

The second phrasing says: I have ready access to professional counsel. If you choose to continue with this confrontation, you're the one who's asking for legal trouble. On the other hand, the first one says: I don't know any attorneys, and certainly haven't engaged one. I'm unprepared and scared. I can haz public defender?

Seems like you're always better off trying to bluff.

Some people do, sure. Most don't. Your state bar will almost certainly have a referral service that you'd want to take advantage of in that case.

I subscribe to a legal service. It costs about $20 a month, and provides me access to an attorney. The service provides phone numbers that are accessible 24 hours a day. The service provides a certain number of hours of legal services and the number of hours accumulates over time if you don't use it. It's like an insurance plan, but it provides access to an attorney.

In theory. In practice, refusing to cooperate can initiate a lengthy process of them asking you why and using that for probable cause to do further searches or even arrest you. You may be right in the end, but you'll have a few bad days plus be out of quite a bit of money. That's why this is quite effective against people who really think they don't have anything to hide.

Yes and no. Laws on when you must identify yourself to officers varies wildly from state to state but social media isn't a part of that. Lawfully refusing will usually be enough, but there are cops who don't care and will arrest you for obstruction (watch YT channels like Audit the Audit, it happens all the time). It looks like this article is about LAPD cops adding this to information they ask for, just like they ask where you're going or if they can look around the car. Just assert your 5th amendment rights and decline to answer questions.

That being said, if you ever end up in court your social media activity is pretty much always discoverable. This is different from an officer demanding it during a traffic stop but still important. It is all accessible.

What if you told them you don't have any social media accounts?

Never say anything to the police.

A law professor explaining why you should never say anything to the police: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

This cannot be repeated often enough. Here is the seminal talk I'd recommend most people watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Sibling comments have the canonical video, but there's also this short one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_0i6EzWLT8

Lying to a police officer could get you in trouble:

* If driving, this violates CA Vehicle code s31: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

* If arrested, this might violate CA penal code 148.9: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

* This might also be argued as more general obstruction: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

Better to just keep quiet

But I actually don't (unless you count HN).

Then this obviously doesn’t apply?

They would count HN if they wanted to get you for obstruction or lying to a police officer. I think that's the material point.

Just better to not say anything and let them discover that your social media is HN on their own. That's the only course of action guaranteed to generate no more trouble than you may already be in. Even keeping quiet may not help if the police want to use that against you. Or they could out and out lie. No guarantees really I guess. Just try to be in a place with officers possessing some degree of professionalism I suppose. Then keeping quiet helps.

> Lying to a police officer could get you in trouble

That does not seem on point with the original question. You can lie to a [non-federal] police officer about almost anything with impunity, except your identity. That is specifically what CA 148.9 refers to.

> Better to just keep quiet

That is for sure the best answer. Any information, truthful or not, can and will be used against you by the police. The best option is to give them nothing at all.

But it is situational. Asserting your right to remain silent during a routine traffic stop where nothing indicates the cop is fishing for something unrelated is more likely to make things worse rather than better.

> Asserting your right to remain silent during a routine traffic stop where nothing indicates the cop is fishing for something unrelated is more likely to make things worse rather than better.

Even though you'll always get some absolutists arguing against it, this is the proper advice. Admitting to what I've done has gotten me out of multiple traffic tickets.

You should never volunteer information to police. Ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZz0vF2KPo

Reply on news.ycombinator.com