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.
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.
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.
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?
Walking on the sidewalk, your D/L, not so much unless you were operating a vehicle, registered or not.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.