Don’t Talk to Police (2012) [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
He actually updates his stance a touch from the content in the video. Particularly in not just invoking your 5th amendment (the right not self incriminate), but also the 6th (the right to a lawyer before being interrogated)
Also this is not a "if you have nothing to hide" kind of conversation, see another top item on HN today:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147 ( People Can Be Convinced They Committed a Crime That Never Happened (psychologicalscience.org) )
Yes, it's another plug for one of my Substack articles:
They always told me to never speak to the police. Every interaction with a police officer is inviting trouble into your life.
They exist to monetize your mistakes. They have no legal obligation to assist you in any manner.
Sort of. So you're pulled over for a brake light that's out. Then, they start asking "Where are you coming from?", "Why are you here?", "Do you live near here? (when they already have your address)", "If you're coming from that far, why don't you have luggage?" etc.
I guess you can try to give as terse an answer as possible without coming across as rude? Saying nothing is your right, but they have lots of power to generate consequences if they don't like it.
The tactic feels fine for an interrogation room, where's everything is on camera. In the outside world, it's trickier.
A lot of people seem to think that not answering questions is going to aggravate the officer, and that’s not generally true in my experience. Assuming you’re asserting your rights calmly and not being belligerent, it’s well within the normal scope of behavior that they expert to encounter.
Remember it’s not a normal social interaction. They use the fact that it feels rude to refuse to answer questions to get you to incriminate yourself. They’re playing a game, and so you need to understand the rules. Not answering is not being rude. Invoke your 5th amendment right and shut up.
I understand how this might be compromising fundamental rights, but at the same time I just want to get home. Is this wrong?
Better to be a little inconvenienced and take longer to get home than say something that can later be used in a court of law to implicate you in something you had no knowledge of.
I really want to emphasize that ALL of my police family gives this same advice.
I apologize if I’m coming on strong. I’ve talked to one of my uncles in particular, who was a police officer for a long time and who now works for DHS, about the tactics that he’d use once he stopped people to try to get them to admit to something he could arrest them for. He obviously always felt like he was just doing his job: if he could get them to incriminate themselves, then he just nabbed a criminal. But he’d do a lot of really tricky stuff! And there are a lot of things that are technically illegal that they can get you in if they’re suspicious of you for some reason.
Anyway as a result this a thing that I feel pretty strongly about :)
Even if they didn't read you your Miranda rights before? My knowledge of legal affairs comes only from movies, but I got the impression that things you say before they read you Miranda can't be used against you. Are all the movies wrong?
Here’s a corroborating source: https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/when-must...
Movies are often really wrong about lots of things in the criminal justice system.
Hopefully I will never need to put my newly acquired knowledge to a test.
How much longer? In my jurisdiction the cops can hold you for 24 hours (or something like that) without formally charging you.[1] I do not believe that this is very different to other places.
TBH, the only reason they don't usually do it to the wrong guy is because cops like to have a decent set of evidence before detaining someone. If they waste their time on someone who probably isn't going to get convicted, then they aren't looking for the person who probably will get convicted, and their comparative statistics looks bad.
So, yeah, there's a fine line.
Piss off the cop for no good reason and you'll get home ... eventually.
Be polite but say as little as possible and you'll not waste more than 5m.
Be talkative and there's a good chance you'll incriminate yourself of a crime you never committed.
[1] After which time they have to either charge you or let you go.
Walking on the sidewalk, your D/L, not so much unless you were operating a vehicle, registered or not.
A polite "No idea, officer" is your answer.
Edit: to you guys claiming that's lying to an officer and you have to know your speed, I can only say show us the proof that that's ever happened.
I don't think that would ever come up in court, if you happened to challenge the ticket and if the cop happened to show up. He would say, "I clocked him at 65," you'd have no defense, case closed.
You just admitted to reckless driving. You're not allowed to not know the speed limit or your own speed while driving - the speedometer is right in front of you, and the officer knows exactly where the last speed limit sign you passed was. And if you recant on that in any way, if you even seem slightly uncertain, you just admitted to lying to an officer.
This is why the rule is "never talk to police," not "never talk to police unless you think you're clever."
When the time comes to go before a judge you and your lawyer simply say that you did not say anything apart from asking about the arrest and for a lawyer. That's it.
...
Judge: "I have a written report here from Officer Trip saying he visually observed you going 32 mph in a 30 zone. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?"
You: "No"
Judge (thinking): I've never known Officer Pao R. Trip to be a stickler for speeding. There must be some story behind this
You: "I did not say anything apart from asking if I was under arrest and for a lawyer"
Judge (thinking): ahhh, that's it. Thank goodness, that would have been bothering me until at least the third hole
Judge: "I find you guilty of speeding, here is your fine and insurance points. Please pay at the cashier's window or online within 21 days"
<judge hammer>
you get a ticket. forward the said ticket to a traffic lawyer. the cop does not show up and the ticket gets dismissed.
ask me how i know. also, even if the cop does show up: 32 in 30 will get the cop laughed out of the room and the judge will be pissed cause he's wasting everyone's time.
bonus points for the cop's name :) hahahaha.
Your point is that you may get leniency from a judge, including demonstrating your class by hiring an attorney.
My point is that you can further decrease your chances of paying a ticket by also trying for leniency from the cop by acting nicer, iff the context is right. If it was a highway speed patrol, their goal is to fill a quota and you're likely boned once they've taken the time to pull you over. But town cops are often just looking for pretexts to pull over the wrong sort of person. Break their expectations and appeal to their humanity/authorituh, and there's a good chance they won't write you a ticket.
For example I got pulled over doing 35 in a 30 at night, in an area where 5-10 over is the norm. I had pulled out of an apartment complex where I was visiting a friend, in an otherwise boring-ass suburb. As I was backing out, the cop pulled in to round the apartment complex lot, and then followed me out to the road. When he pulled me over, I straight up told him "I saw you behind me but figured you didn't want to be stuck behind me doing exactly 30 for this whole road". He told me that apartment complex has a lot of drug activity - to which I expressed worried surprise, thanked him, and said my friend just lived there because it was close to <big company> and low rent. He ran my stuff, came back to the car, and I don't think he even gave me a written warning.
This certainly isn't an endorsement of "always talk to the police! they're so friendly and helpful!" I'm just saying there is something you're giving up by completely shutting down the social aspect.
if we are running on anecdotal evidence: every time I got a ticket I got it dismissed. 25mph zone, 40mph zone, freeway, school zone you name it. they do their number and "bark" at you. you get the ticket and take care of it later.
btw: traffic tickets are a racket. to give you an example: 72 in 60 on 405. Traffic was moving anywhere between 70-75, 4 lanes, i was in the left lane. One cop with a quota tried to give me a ticket. took the ticket and... you guessed it, got it dismissed. This is just the type of bullshit we have to put up with.
Also faster than 30 mph on the 405? Your story doesn't check out. When was your last drink tonight, sir?
They get paid for their time, so it's not as though it's volunteer work.
That can also be used against you since you're admitting that you were not paying attention to your speed. It also means you lose the ability to claim that any speed the officer says you were traveling at is wrong, since you, by your own admission, wouldn't know any better.
"You tell me" might be a better answer.
"Yes" could be used as evidence that your speeding was wilful, which probably isn't that bad but know that you're still giving them something.
I think "I believe so" or "pretty sure" was my go-to, but it's been a long time since I've been pulled over.
I actually don't even know that most cops actually ask this question. I think "do you know why I pulled you over?" is more common. To which you can often say "no" since you have no idea what actually went on in their head, but you might want something like "I can guess?" if you want to own up to some egregious action and show you were at least aware that it was wrong rather than acting as if you just drive like that all the time. But I can't tell if this is my real life experience or too many imagined interactions from message board discussions.
BTW "not that I'm aware of" when asked about weapons in the car etc. It shows that I'm aware of the technicalities and lawyerly answers (I don't know what they consider a weapon), but also engaging with them and their concerns.
As an older person, if you want to deflect blame, you can blame your lawyer, your LEO cousin, or anyone else you want.
This is the best advice for young people: if you say you're taking your parent's advice, there's a number of advantages:
a) You're not being rude,
b) You're coming across as someone who obeys authority,
c) It's nothing personal,
The goals of policing as a profession has roots in protecting capitalism and those who control capital. It hasn't deviated much from that since it started. And I would describe capitalism as malevolent. So to answer your question: yes.
If police are protecting capital and those who control capital, then they're not uniformly malevolent - coming across as someone who, in another context, might be telling them what to do is likely to get you further with them.
Likewise, if one goal of individual police is to force people to "respect their authority", then you're going to have a better time when you do "respect" that authority, especially when you're at the business end of the stick. Note that I put the quotes there because you don't actually have to respect them in order to make them feel respected.
That's essentially what my argument boils down to - acknowledging their motivations, especially the nuances and not just painting with a broad brush, in a way that you personally can work with will be advantageous.
If a cop treats me courteously and greets me kindly and is respectful in doing their job, I will also greet them kindly and wish them well at the end, but I still still say “respectfully, I will provide identification/documentation and confirm basic details about my identity but am otherwise exercising my right to remain silent and to speak with an attorney”. I will acquiesce only very slightly in that I will sign the ticket they give me instead of getting arrested for refusal to sign.
If he wants to make up a reason to arrest me or potentially even harm me, I will fight it in court.
This is a poor standard, that I doubt you're actually meeting. For example, when you drive through a construction zone, do you flip off every cop you see in order to maximize your right to free expression?
I do actually agree with where you're coming from! It's just that the standard you've claimed leaves much to be desired - it's framed in a closed world zero sum way, which only makes sense if you're only considering the times you have no choice but to interact with cops.
Like for example, I have yelled at a cop doing construction duty (poorly) to "do your job" - traffic was backing up because he was looking the other way and chatting, rather than making sure cars kept moving.
I have laid on the horn at some undercover car setting up to harass some kids in a strip mall parking lot, because it stopped in the entrance to the lot with me half stuck out into the highway. Ended up drawing aggro and getting an earful about how I was disrupting their investigation about drugs blah blah blah. But at the end of the day they want to attack the people they set out to attack, rather than a side quest of hassling me because I called them out.
If a cop passes me on the highway at high speed with no lights (ie not an emergency), often times I will follow them under the rationale of equal protection under the law.
I'm sure I'll get jumped on for explicitly listing these things - people wielding "privilege" or another truncheon-of-the-day, thinking they're "progressive" but really just wanting to enforce the crab bucket. But there was principle in all of them - cops are citizens like everybody else, and should be subject to the same laws and responsibilities as everyone else. And it's all citizens' moral imperative to enforce that.
So back to the topic - the context is being pulled over for something that you are actually "guilty" of, but aren't necessarily going to get a ticket for (cf 3 Felonies a Day). Of all the times I've been pulled over, I'd say about half resulted in just a warning. So it's not that the cop will make up a reason to ticket you, but rather that they already have that reason but perhaps will show you mercy. Once I'm in their direct sights, to me the optimal way to play is whatever is most likely to make them let me go. If that involves playing the part of someone who enjoys licking boots? So be it! Dissent is better expressed in contexts where you aren't already in their sights.
And this is what I take issue with. This leads to the systemic racism we see in policing. There is no reason why a cop should change their mind on whether to ticket you for the probable cause event after they leave their vehicle and approach yours. The decision should already be made and stay that way.
> which only makes sense if you're only considering the times you have no choice but to interact with cops
Yes, I agree, but the other viewpoint I have is that I refuse to interact with cops for any reason other than being forced to. I won't talk to them, I won't call them (unless it's an emergency and someone asks me to on their behalf - and then I don't stick around unless it's crucial), I won't even open my door for them unless they have a warrant. Unless I'm being detained or they have a warrant, I'm ignoring them. If someone burst into my home right now and robbed me, I still would not call the police (although, I live alone, and having kids or a spouse might make me reconsider that since I'm calling on their behalf). I have been held at knife point fixing my car in a parking lot (Seattle) and did not call the cops.
It allows for it, but doesn't inherently lead to it. But I do agree that overbearing laws and relying on leniency makes for a terrible system. I'd be all for changing speed limits to be sensible with how people actually drive [0], and then zero tolerance enforcement (including for cops). But that isn't the world we live in now. And electing into being a martyr isn't going to change that - cops will just sort you personally into the "bad" person bucket and carry on with their prejudices.
> Also the point in the video is that this never works aside from the most absolute mundane of traffic stops, and even then you're putting yourself at risk. Did you watch it?
Not in the last 10 years, and yes I am talking about the most mundane of traffic stops. IMO the main risk comes from people spilling their internal narrative that justifies what they did, thinking that will convince a cop. "I was only speeding because I was late" etc. Don't do that! Or obviously if you have contraband in the car or are under the influence, engage as little as possible! But if that is the case then you shouldn't have been casually violating the law to begin with (and so there should be much less to hope for leniency for)....
> If someone burst into my home right now and robbed me, I still would not call the police
I'd say this is a quite uncommon perspective - I would guess that you have had repeated very poor interactions with the police. And I say this as someone who has been wrongly arrested (aka kidnapped), detained for a night (aka ransomed), and then harassed for a year by the "justice" system. I've still called the cops since then. I'm just not the kind of person who wants to get physically aggressive, which is what would otherwise be required to DIY.
[0] For example on interstates, raise the limit for sustained speed over several miles to 80 mph, with an instantaneous speed limit of 90 or so, for passing.
Also the point in the video is that this never works aside from the most absolute mundane of traffic stops, and even then you're putting yourself at risk. Did you watch it?
The darker version is a Federal Agent says you told him something you didn't even say because it helps the case he's building. He asks you to repeat it on record and when you balk, he threatens you with a felony for "lying to a federal agent".
Don't ever do it, even if it's an investigation you're sympathetic to. If _your_ lawyer is there taking notes, they know there's less shenanigans they can pull.
This is shown in a scene from "Wolf of Wall Street"[0]. In this case the main agent gets his partner to come to within earshot of Jordan Belfort and asks Jordan to repeat his bribery offer. Testimony from one FBI agent is good, testimony from two is better.
The way it works, is they meet with you alone: You say "A, B, C". They take some notes and write down "D, E, F" because it's what they want to hear or what they wish you said. A few weeks later, they present you with a written statement to sign that says "D, E, F". You protest "but I didn't say that, I said A, B, C!" And then they threaten you: either sign the statement or we charge you with lying to a Federal Agent (a felony).
According to my Father in-law (an attorney with decades of experience), it happens way more than anyone would like to admit.
Ha. Even in a thread such as this peopled by highly educated types, you see comment after comment expressing some disbelief with this obvious advice.
This advice precedes the 5th am, incidentally. So long as you live in a system where the State has the burden of proof, it is NEVER beneficial to say ANYTHING to a cop.
But, like I said, many folks don’t understand this. So, lawyers and prisons and judges will always have a job.
I suppose it’s like a senior programmer advising a noob not to create a pointer object using ‘new()’ within a frequently called function… but, folks will do it anyway. Oh well.
While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in order to ensure my rights are protected, I cannot speak with you without a lawyer present. I appreciate your patience and understanding.
In my mind, this balances being respectful, dealing with potential follow-ups in the vein of "only a guilty person would say that", shutting down potential conversation, etc.
If anyone has good edits, I'm all ears.
While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in order to ensure my rights are protected, I must invoke my right to be silent without a lawyer present. I appreciate your patience and understanding.
I feel like there's some additional potential verbiage modification that can be made to make it more clear to the officer that you're trying to protect your rights and apologize for any inconvenience, but I can't put my finger on it. I think being cordial and respectful will deal with many potential negative side-effects of this approach.
Granted, I'm trying to amolierate the side-effect of this frustrating an officer you're interacting with or triggering their sense that you're actually guilty, causing yourself a greater headache. It's not about what's right, it's about what's effective.
Something like “I am invoking my 5th amendment right to remain silent and will not answer any questions without a lawyer present” is sufficient.
Most cops will be fine with this. They know the game a lot better than you. They’re not asking you questions to try to have a pleasant interaction with you. They’re fishing for things they can nab you on, and they know it. So, showing that you also know the game and clamming up isn’t necessarily unexpected or viewed as being rude.
Of course, you could always get a real prick who gets offended and tries to hassle you for it, in which case maybe your approach is the better one, but I suspect someone like that is going to cause problems regardless of how nicely you phrase it.
An apology goes a long way. Reading some of your other posts, I fear you're too indignant. I'm not, I only want to do what would produce the best possible outcome. I don't care about anything else and I have no righteous sentiment in this scenario.
Edit: and the police would absolutely be wrong to hassle you in this situation! It’s a right. If you don’t exercise it for yourself, nobody will do it for you.
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390344 - June 2020 (6 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police – James Duane - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717507 - April 2019 (4 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886628 - Dec 2017 (165 comments)
Don't talk to the police [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001859 - July 2013 (37 comments)
Don't talk to the police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758 - June 2008 (35 comments)
Lying to a federal agent is a felony, and often times they don't have enough evidence for the original crime, but by talking to you they get evidence of you lying
If you can, get past his ideology and that he was a Trump guy, the actual process of what happened to him and what he was charged with is pretty crazy.
He was very stupid for talking to agents without a lawyer. But, they went in and got him to lie about something that wasn’t a crime, and he didn’t actually do.
Also on the front page of HN right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147
Flynn is a cut-and-dried example of how 18 USC 1001 can make sense. He wasn't entrapped. He hung himself out to dry. It's a great example of the logic of this thread and the post: don't talk to federal agents, because if you're an idiot and try to bullshit your way past basic facts of their investigation, they'll convict you for it.
https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-editio...
In many/most cases if they're asking questions they already know the truth behind at least some of them. They are attempting to leverage you into cooperating against co-conspirators or at least be able to hit you with a felony for misleading/false statements in the event the original investigation doesn't pan out to charges.
Lying to the police is dumb in general because it can be used against you. In the federal sense it’s dumber as it is a felony in of itself.
This is often cited as an abuse of power etc. I think there’s a lot of nuance.
E.g. it's generally a bad idea to shut up completely once you're in a police station in Japan, as they may hold you up for 23 days w/o pressing charges and allowing you to communicate with the outside world.
He was trying to figure out where he was using the map on a bus stop and approached a nearby police car to ask for assistance.
They demanded his ID which he was not carrying at the time. He explained that it was in his bag at the place where he was staying and they said he needed to be able to identify himself, so they arrested him on the spot and he was not free again until the following morning. As a result he missed a ferry and had to spend the money booking another one.
[1]: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/paspoort-en-identit...
We do not carry ID unless we are driving (driving license), using long-distance transport, or going to vote.
Always carrying ID is such a strange idea!
I live in a state that allows for having my driver license on my phone.
Not hard for me since it’s in my wallet and I use one of those slim wallets and don’t carry many other cards and don’t stash receipts in the bill area like some people do.
the generic advice is “leave your passport locked at the hotel so you dont get it stolen by pickpockets”
but also “never not have your passport on you because the local government wants to check it at any time”
how do you all reconcile that on a day to day basis?
Jeez. That is the reason why it is a good idea. Go out, and learn how similar or different other places are. Do you want to always experience the same old, same old? Yeah it causes an inconvenience sometimes, and good times at others.
travel frequently changes my aspirations from being exposed to things that I didnt know were options
there are a lot of developed nations out there now, I dont know where your frame of reference is from, but some of those developed nations are very far ahead of superpowers in a variety of ways that could be beneficial to you
That's why travelling is good?
I always thought as well that there is “Ausweispflicht” (ID carrying obligatory) in Germany.
I figured it worked the same in the Netherlands, but from what I can tell it's true that you always need to carry it and you can get fined if you don't. So quite a bit more strict. That sucks.
https://de.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rechte_und_Pflichten_im_Umga... (German)
But that is of course only reliably true if you’re Dutch. The right kind of Dutch, too. Autochtoon used to be considered the polite term. (I always found it rather menacing personally.)
If you have contact with a police agent and you’re speaking English or are brown, yeah, better have that ID.
Of course anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time - maybe the agents the OP’s friend approached were conducting surveillance and interpreted an approach by a stranger without ID as suspicious under the circumstances. But I have also simply seen lots of differences in how police decide to enforce the law based on whom they are dealing with.
to be clear, my stance is BLM/ACAB
I suspect there is more to this story - i.e. they had a reason to think he was an illegal immigrant or on drugs or something - of course that reason could be something racist or completely unfounded, but I presume they don't just arrest anyone who forgets their ID.
Interestingly the English explanation is much more ambiguous than the Dutch:
"These officials [police] may not ask to see proof of identity without giving a reason. " https://www.government.nl/topics/identification-documents/co...
Whereas in the Dutch version:
"De politie mag alleen uw identificatiebewijs vragen als daar een goede reden voor is." Translation: "The police may only ask for your identification if there's a good reason to do so" Typical.
I would lodge a complaint: https://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/klacht-over-de-politie-in... (page in Dutch)
This is actually reprehensible, since invoking a right should mean actually engaging in it (e.g. remaining silent), with no explanation necessary.
Another topic that everybody should know about is juror nullification.
Jurors who are aware of jury nullification are routinely dismissed.
It's more complicated than just saying "jury nullification." You have to explain your beliefs.
Anecdata: I can see how it might be possible, based on my own jury duty callup last month. Hundreds in the waiting room, when individual trials did "go to jury", a secondary lottery chose from the hundreds a batch of more than 60 to go for interview. So, the lawyers would be further weeding out some 80%.
It probably varies, but it isn't routine where I live. I've been called for voire dire and subsequent selection a few times, and haven't ever been asked about nullification.
(I think the majority of people get excluded based on whether the trial's schedule would be an unreasonable hardship/imposition, voluntarily disclosed conflicts of interest, etc.)
Potential juror: "I am now!"
Judges really don’t want to reduce the jury pool unless they really really need to. If they cut everyone who had seen CGP Grey’s video on Jury Nullification they’d unnecessarily thin the pool.
The way they do it is by specifically asking if you have any beliefs that would lead you to convict/acquit someone even if the evidence pointed to the opposite outcome. The question even tells you that Jury Nullification (making a false verdict) is a thing that’s possible to do. They want to know if you’re planning on doing it.
If you’re called for a murder trial and say “I don’t think murder is immoral” or “If the guy’s been accused, let him hang!” then yes, you’ll get out of jury duty. You’ll also look like a huge asshole in front of a bunch of people from your community.
And that’s how they get ya. Unless you have some really out-there views, or are willing to commit to acting like you do, you can’t get out of jury duty by going “I know about Jury Nullification!”
This needs to be rather structured as well as the cops can ignore your statement unless it has a proper syntax and names the 5th element directly. Example: "give me a lawyer dog" doesn't cut it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...)
This is, as I ubderstand it, incorrect on multiple levels. First, all you need to do is shut up to exercise the right. Second, no matter how you frame exercising the right, police can and will treat it as suspicious.
You may be confusing the right to remain silent with the right to have counsel present during questioning, which must be explicilty invoked for questioning without counsel present and its fruits to be excluded. They are separate, but related (as invoking the right to counsel also narrows the ways police can pressure you to waive the rightbto remain silent without legally tainting anything they get out of it.)
Actually, as I understand it, SCOTUS has said that merely being silent is not the same as invoking your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. I think this jurisprudence is complete bananapants, but the argument is that you have to explicitly and unambiguously invoke your Fifth Amendment right for it to kick in, and being silent isn't an unambiguous invocation.
You MUST EXPLICITLY invoke your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.
(Okay, there may be some edge cases where invoking the fifth is implied, but SCOTUS has merely acknowledged that these edge cases could exist, but to my knowledge has never given rules for when it applies. Better safe than sorry.)
e: see Salinas v Texas[0] for example
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-246#writing...
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/18/archives/krough-pleads-5t...
Incorrect. The police can continue interrogation if you sit quietly.
Also, it’s possible to revoke your assertion of the 5th after you have invoked it. If the police say you did, and you say you didn’t, who do you think the courts will believe?
As such, most legal advice I have heard is to simply say “I am not speaking until I get a lawyer.” It is unambiguous during interrogation, and it’ll stand up well during any suppression hearings.
> Second, no matter how you frame exercising the right, police can and will treat it as suspicious.
“You can beat the time but you can’t beat the ride.”
If you are in a position where you are invoking these rights you are already considered suspicious. You may be arrested. You might be tried. But keep your eye on the prize: your goal is to not get convicted.
You don't need training for that. Most everyone assumes that a cagey person is hiding something :-/
If "never talk to the police" sounds like a reasonable hard and fast rule to you, it's probably best that you just follow it. It's a good first brush.
But attorneys aren't magic. It's possible to judge your situation, recall facts, and represent your rights without saying things that further implicate you, or that can be misconstrued. Especially when dealing with relatively low stakes situations like a minor traffic accident, where hiring an attorney is basically equivalent to having lost.
If it's the kind of traffic accident that you're likely at fault for or someone went to the hospital or substances are involved, then you do indeed need to shut the fuck up.
The defense against that isn't talking to the police, it's having a good dashcam.
The ones who are portrayed as protagonists/good guys are often obsessed assholes who will do whatever it takes to solve the case, ranging from manipulating witnesses to doing borderline illegal things. Then their bozo superior gets in the way because they don’t see how, actually, in this case it would be totally worth it to do something without proper procedure, and actually being a maverick cop who just follows his gut is perfectly good and okay.
They only remain “the good guys” because they happen to catch the bad guys.
As for punishing crime - technically, the police is not supposed to decide whether crimes have been committed, nor to meet out out punishment for them. Really is a different thing, of course - but even then, the punishment is for police-undesirable behavior.
If the police have become a punishing force, or even make the rules, then something has gone very wrong. Now even in civilized societies things sometimes goes wrong, e.g. the parliament provides police with too broad a framework to operate within, in an attempt to be "tough on crime" or attempt to dictate the framework of the judicial system to ensure a minimum sentencing. It's just rare that the police force itself is to blame. Blame mostly falls back to the people writing the laws.
Around the world, the core job of the police is more: Restore the public peace. They can forgive transgressions in public if you demonstrate further disturbance of peace will cease.
They have to maintain a reasonable level of fairness, or they get overrun by vigilantes. But as long as the illusion of fairness holds good enough, they can and will crush powerless people in the wheels of justice.
America is fine, basically. Yes, cops are empowered bullies who do bad things. But that's been true for thousands of years. We're farther down the path to trying to fix that, not behind.
Wait, what? You don’t know if this is a Western European thing but you just took that “from the rest of the world”? I guess I could do the same: (1) I’m not from America (the majority here), (2) I haven’t experienced bully police asking for id, so (3) I’ll just assume that that’s an American thing. How funny!
> what I assume you mean by "around the world", since that's almost always what's meant
Were you just say “I’ll assume Western Europe based on nothing”.
> If you'd like to read about other peoples experiences with police in Western Europe
What do you mean “other”? I haven’t said where I’m from.
As I am above 30 and I look as I am now, adult, well off person, I most likely would not even have to have ID on me even when I am not in my native country.
That said, when I was 20-something and had short haircut not having ID even in my native country could cause trouble.
There are also places where Police is quite easy going like medium cities around 100k. Mostly they have enough work not to care for small infractions and are not overworked with amount of shitty people.
In small cities it might be bad because they might not have anything to do so they would hunt you down on some silly stuff.
In big cities it might be bad because they have so many shitty people to deal with so they just assume you are shithead as well and treat you like one by default.
There are also places where rich people live and if you look like you don't belong, guess what, even if you look well off adult they might ask bunch of questions and Id if you don't look like you belong in the neighborhood.
In the US the relatively recent shift to use of the term “law enforcement” both reflects and drives a self-destructive nature in the broad culture.
Your insightful point, “The police's sole purpose is to punish crime, not to prevent it” has several implications.
First is that even if you have a positive view of the cops (and if you are not in an “out group” you should) you still should follow this advice. If you’re not chatting with your next door neighbor the cop at a bbq, what you are is an unpleasant barrier to getting their job done with a minimum of hassle. Like you think of Jira or Confluence.
Another implication is to understand that their role, in cultural norm, in who it attracts to the job, and simply the cumulative impact of what they are exposed to, drives what I will euphemistically call “destructive impact”. We need cops like we need the weather, but that doesn’t mean we don’t take steps to deal with the destructive force of storms, and even to minimize storm generation.
Unfortunately the US is in a phase where they think the more brutality the better. In that the cops correctly reflect what they are asked to do.
From a game theoretical POV this is false; no good can come from speaking to them, and only bad can.
In the first case at least they are surely going to suspect you, so you should still be careful. But “no good can come of it”?
In the latter case, I would not call them at all.
What good would police contact do in either of those cases? In each instance they cannot help me.
The police (in the USA) are reactive and respond after crimes are committed, not before (unless they are responding to social disorder requests, which is generally unrelated to crime). Even then they choose which crimes they deem worthy of responding to (the classic example being rape victims being dissuaded from proceeding with making a police report).
Most people have a mistaken mental model of how police actually function. Most police officers are about as non-proactive as you can get (except near the end of the month when the traffic ticket quotas are due).
Except we're not talking about game theory here, we're talking about reality.
In most other countries, cops can ask for your ID and basic questions and detain you if you are not complying.
USA has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, police brutality and police murdering people is a bigger concern than in most places where people have to show ID on cue.
This is one of these "liberty cargo cult" rights, like the right to bear arms or not having 1 unique identifier. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't really help in the rare cases for which it was designed, and it makes things harder on the happy path.