California Cops Can't Ask Drivers 'Do You Know Why I Pulled You Over?' | Hacker News Reader

California Cops Can't Ask Drivers 'Do You Know Why I Pulled You Over?'

themessenger.com

54 pointsjstarfish75 comments

The reason the cops ask this question is to solicit a confession. Most people think that by admitting to a little infraction, the officer will see them as being reasonable and go easy on them. The conversations go something like this:

Officer: "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

Driver: "Sorry officer, I guess I was just going 5 miles over the speed limit"

And there you just confessed to breaking the law and have no further defense for the speeding ticket. The correct answer is to just politely turn the question back to the officer ("Hi, how can I help you officer").

I was raised by my lawyer dad to believe this, but over time I've refined my beliefs and think it's generally wrong.

If you're actually speeding or breaking some other traffic law and a cop pulls you over, you're likely going to get a ticket no matter what you say. The important question when determining how to handle it, then, is whether you are going to take the time and effort to fight the ticket.

If you're busy, have plenty of money, or just generally are inclined to pay the speeding ticket and move on with your life, then refusing to answer the cop is probably suboptimal. Your justification for not confessing is that if you do so, you "have no further defense for the speeding ticket." If you're going to fight the ticket, you're right and I agree with you. If you're not going to fight it, this has no value whatsoever.

If you're not going to fight it, then you shouldn't be optimizing for maintaining the best possible legal defense; rather, you should be optimizing for not getting the ticket in the first place. I believe that for most minor traffic offenses, you're better off confessing (and throwing in a relatable reason if you can pull it off).

Going with the lawyerly response is, in my view, more likely to get you a ticket than going with, "I think you pulled me over because I was speeding, and I want to apologize for that. I just left a first date with a girl who I have a feeling is going to be my future wife and got too excited. It was irresponsible and I should know better." Cops are people too - taking responsibility and making yourself relatable just might get you out of the ticket.

Imagine getting pulled over for a malfunctioning tail light but then admitting to speeding for no good reason.

I believe with the person you are responding to. Admitting you were going slightly over the speed limit won't really hurt you.

They don't need a confession to cite you for speeding. They already know if you were or not.

I've probably been pulled over 8 times in my life and only gotten two tickets. Who knows - this could have to do with my race or my demeanor - but in general I just try to act as honestly and apologetically as possible. I think most police officers are not trying to be jackasses, and the ones that are will ticket you whether or not you "fess up" or not anyway.

(This probably doesn't hold if you are carrying drugs or going 25mph over, but otherwise I don't think it helps to treat these interactions so adversarially)

The only times I've been asked "Do you know why I pulled you over?" was when I had a tail light out. I figured the reason they asked was to see if I was already aware of the problem. In one case, I was literally on my way to buy a new headlight, and they accepted that as an answer and sent me on my way.

>I figured the reason they asked was to see if I was already aware of the problem

Interesting that they use such an underhanded phrasing, if their intentions are only good. Why not "do you know that your tail light is out?"

You're directionally correct - it's important not to admit to something that the officer doesn't already know - but your example is not a good one, since the cop is going to know you're speeding in this case. You certainly shouldn't admit to having a bunch of drugs, though.

You should probably stop assuming the possible outcomes are ticket vs. no ticket.

There's far more on the menu and cops vary wildly in competence and intention.

I prefer the be respectful and say little more than necessary to excuse yourself route, all while keeping hands visible and making no sudden movements.

There's little to be gained by participating in a voluntary interview and prolonging the interaction, with a whole lot to be potentially lost, including your life.

I understand that there's differences in possible outcomes depending on who you are and how you look (and for context I am a clean cut white guy who generally drives in safe areas). Still, I don't really accept as valid that being cooperative and acknowledging that you committed a traffic infraction is more likely to get you killed than being politely uncooperative.

Exactly this. When I'm interacting with a cop, I have two goals: to avoid "poking the bear", and to end the encounter as quickly as possible. This means being scrupulously polite and responsive while avoiding saying one word more than is required.

That says it all about police in the US

So, manipulation.

I agree with your philosophy, but I don't think you necessarily need to directly admit to it. When they ask how fast you were going, you can say something like "To be honest, officer, I'm not sure -- I was a little distracted and wasn't paying enough attention to my speed."

A couple of times in a couple of decades of driving this has gotten me sent on my way with a warning.

Good advice until the last sentence.

Lifehack: How to Get Out of Traffic Tickets!

1. Say no to self-disclosure. 2. NEVER admit knowing you were doing something wrong. 3. Be civil for 5 whole minutes.

Civility is the one social engineering tactic nobody knows about! I've never gotten a ticket in 20+ years of driving and motorcycling despite being pulled over more than a dozen times. Even female officers won't cite me. Take that, pigs! I'll speed past you and kill you all with kindness.

(Works especially well nowadays, since they expect everyone to be asshole provocateurs or aspiring BLM martyrs. It's just a fucking job. They don't want to be there any more than you do.)

“How can I help you, officer?” sounds pretty dang civil to me.

"by opening your trunk. Thanks for offering"

It's trolling. You know he's only going to repeat his own question.

So how do you answer the cop's question(s) politely such they even let you go?

You don't. If they want to give you a ticket, you're getting a ticket. If they want to let you off, they'll let you off. If they want to drag you out of your car and beat you half to death, you're getting beaten half to death. The only thing you can possibly do is make the situation worse. Police are the violence arm of the state. You're not in control, and your rights, along with your life, depend on their whim.

> Police are the violence arm of the state.

It should be stressed that it's not so in every country

I see it as a polite way to redirect the conversation. I usually respond similarly -- although not that exact wording. From what I can tell it's never agitated the cop, and they've never insisted that I answer their question. They just move on with the traffic stop. Sometimes I get a ticket, sometimes I don't.

Sounds all good and fine until you meet someone on a power trip on a bad day and fit in a bucket they don't like. But in those situations at least what you describe can act as damage control.

The number one rule of talking to cops is don't talk to cops. Don't be an ass but don't say more than you absolutely have to. It may just be a job for them but that doesn't mean their job can't involve ruining your day if they think they can use you to meet their quota - your interests literally don't align.

I barely trust police officers in my own country and those actually need to go through multiple years of formal training before being let loose on society and end up in a world of bureaucratic hurt if they as much as think about pulling out their gun. Incidentally they also don't have to chase after random people for speeding because we have radar cameras for that.

A cop can just give you the speeding ticket anyway.

It's almost guaranteed that the judge will side with the officer barring any concrete evidence to the contrary.

Meanwhile the officer gets to show up to court and still get paid for it.

Most times it won't even reach that point because you'll be offered a lesser fine if you don't contest the charge, which can be way less, and is worth it since you're almost definitely likely to lose.

The officer showing up at court isn’t making progress on their quotas (unofficial or otherwise).

What a judge will do varies by jurisdiction and judge, but at least where I am they take a very dim view of cops showing up without evidence.

It's funny, the last time I got pulled over in Sydney (in the 90's), the conversation went something like this:

Cop (agitated): "Do you know why I stopped you?"

Me (apologetic, talking fast): "Yep"

Cop: "You're a fucking idiot"

Me: "I agree, that was really stupid"

Cop: "What the fuck were you thinking?"

Me: "I don't know, it was indecision"

[...]

Cop: "When I get back to the station I'm going to write you a huge fucking ticket"

Me: "Fair enough, I deserve it, it was really stupid"

The guy was a plain clothes detective in an unmarked car driving directly behind me and I'd just run a red light quite late, obviously speeding.

I've always found Sydney cops fair and reasonable, but I would never try this in the US.

I never got the ticket.

The correct answer to “do you know why I pulled you over?” is “no sir.”

There are exceptions, but as a general rule being honest, polite, and not volunteering additional information is the way to go. After all even if you were going 90 in a 35 you don’t know why he pulled you over. You’re not a mind reader.

>do you know why I pulled you over?

I never answer any question which speculates on why another human did a thing. It’s stupid and pointless, especially if the counter party is there. It’s basically saying “hey can you read my mind?”

Even if I knew I was speeding or whatever, I would still answer no to this question, because I’m not going to speak on the officer’s motives.

This question and all questions of the class “can you guess what I’m thinking?” Is always a game in any context.

Yes, and for better or for worse, what degree you play others' games dictates their cooperation with you.

Game-theory.

I’m imagining just reading the full text of your comment, verbatim , as a response to the question. Lol

"..uh, well.. anyway I noticed your taillight is out. Best get that looked at. Be safe and have a good day."

Don't Talk to the Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

One of the few 45+ minute videos I've watched on YouTube.

This was a classic. yt-dlp and skip the damn commercials.

M.O. of cops in California: If they pull you over, keep your trap shut because they're always writing a ticket. Even during "training", Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) will pull people over at random to "practice" writing them tickets without any real crime or infraction having been committed. Cops are liars, thieves, and a mafia occupying paramilitary force.

Do you have a news article for this?

I had an interesting conversation in CA with a cop that pulled me over regarding the [then] plausible legalization of shrooms. Apparently, there had been quite a bit of discussion among their rank and a civilized perspective of the inevitability had been reached. Damn shame those representatives of our republic didn’t have the nerves to see that one through.

Edit: pulled over for tail light, rest was just chatter ;)

Sounds like somebody has a hot button. It's just a question.

Answer "No I don't? How can I help you, officer?"

A new law seems like overkill.

“don’t fuck with citizens you pull over before explaining why you pulled them over” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

"Woule you like me to shine your boots officer sir"

I think some people are built to despise authority and social order. Some of this may have something to do with early childhood experiences or parenting.

edit: obviously direct bad experiences, institutional treatment, discrimination, etc. also shape attitudes. I was thinking about folks who didn't fall into these groups, eg. wealthy European luxury car drivers, etc.

Some people are built to assume trust in authority and that authority maintains social order.

The truth is that there's always another side of the coin - every framing has it's opposite.

It does seem pretty prevalent nowadays and ironically they almost never are as smart as they pretend to be.

How is that ironic? Neither accepting nor rejecting "the social order" requires one to be smart. As always in politics the question isn't simply "what do you want" but "why do you want that".

It's ironic because there's an appearance of desiring the attention of passing readers via posturing.

When the vast majority of such readers will, at best, spend a few seconds reading, and then dismiss it.

If they write genuinely convincing, well elaborated, arguments, then it wouldn't be ironic. Because then there would be a reasonable expectation of some readers actually buying it, instead of, at best, joining in on the game.

Agree, though for a lot of people authority and the prevailing social order has caused negative experiences their entire lives. I'm actually surprised there isn't more discontent.

That seems a bit dismissive to all that we know, for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutal...

Oh, authority is fine. For example, if you're a medical professional, I'll assume you have more knowledge in that domain and defer to your expertise unless I have reason to suspect you're talking out of your ass and hoping I won't notice.

But the thing with medical professionals is that they can't hold a gun to your head if you disagree with them. Law enforcement on the other hand requires no expertise (often even being ignorant of the exact laws they're supposed to enforce) and its own claim to authority is by the barrel of a gun.

You presumably don't accept the authority of a schoolyard bully, so why do you accept any "authority" only backed up by a threat of violence? And if you presumably seek relationships that see eye to eye in a romantic partner or your circle of friends, why would you accept a "social order" that puts any man below another, let alone so many below so few (even if you might happen to be among those few)?

That just doesn't sound very sensible. I don't want to oppress others and I don't want to be oppressed either. A literal armed officer who can get away with killing me is the perfect representation of that so why would I have any warm feelings towards them? Especially when modern police training in the US often literally involves telling them they're the "sheepdogs despised by the sheep because the sheep mistake them for wolves".

We know that familial violence can be cyclic with children suffering abuse by their parents normalising the abuse to cope with their experiences and then replicating the abuse when they themselves become parents. We know this takes conscious effort to break out of. We know that subjects of authoritarian governments will likewise often quickly adapt and rationalise the abuse they suffer.

What makes you think you're the sane one rather than the victim who rationalizes the abusive system they can't escape their black iron prison?

Even better, "Because you wanted to."

"Because I'm an incredibly sexy person and you wanted a better look at me"

I've actually seen someone try this. They were cited for attempted bribery.

Admit speeding

Admit not knowing you were speeding

This is something that worries alot of people and they do irrational things not knowing to do, and the legislature is aiming to promote de-escalating for both civilians and officers

You're supposed to know your speed at all times, stating that you weren't aware you were speeding is admitting to driving without due care, possibly reckless driving, if the officer wants to be an ass.

It's just a question being asked by an armed person with tremendous legal authority to fuck you over in a thousand different ways and a well-documented history of abusing that power.

It's entirely understandable that most people would be terrified when such a person is paying attention to them in particular.

It's not "just a question". We can't ignore the power differential and how incredibly intimidating the cops are.

Personally, I would prefer that we decide to address the deep, long-standing, and pervasive issues that our police forces present. But if we're not going to get that, at least we can get minor restrictions that somewhat reduce the problem.

In any other state, just feign ignorance.

Why is this worded as cannot rather than must not?

Because The Messenger is writing clickbait, not RFCs. The actual legislation explicitly requires the officers to do something, rather than specifically forbidding what the headline suggests.

> This bill would, beginning on January 1, 2024, require a peace officer making a traffic or pedestrian stop, before engaging in questioning related to a criminal investigation or traffic violation, to state the reason for the stop, unless the officer reasonably believes that withholding the reason for the stop is necessary to protect life or property from imminent threat.

Can we get a law where cops mind their fucking business and leave you alone next

If you're speeding, have a broken headlight, or are driving dangerously, then cops can serve as a reminder to fix yourself.

We can't have everyone driving selfishly or disinterested in the safety of others.

Most of the developed world has radar cameras that take a picture of your car and license plate if you go over the speed limit (plus a margin of error). Sometimes even if you pass a red light. No cops having to "fear for their lives" at random traffic stops, no inconvenienced/dead drivers. Just a flash to let you know you screwed up and eventually the person the car is registered to (and who is therefore liable) receives a letter with a pretty picture and a fine.

Well yeah they got a little carried away with authoritarianism last century. We export democracy, not gun rights.

I live in a major metropolitan city in the US. I am somehow always surprised whenever I see a car driving around with no license plates. It’s very common. I see one almost every day.

Yep. I drove around in a VW van for several years without plates or registration. (I was extremely poor then.) The other trick was, but it no longer works as much, to leave dealer plates on vehicles and never register them... this loophole has been closed in most US states by requiring registration with dealer vehicle sale. Already, it was often required for the new owner to register a vehicle integrated as part of a private party sale.

That doesn't serve the purposes of American cops hallucinating "crimes" to extract money and statistics from citizens. Cops in the US are lazy, arrogant, sad sacks, and shrug at real crimes because half of them are criminals with badges and the other half are just former high school sports stars who shoved classmates into lockers.

> The only time officers are not required to state the reason for a traffic or pedestrian stop is if the officer decides it is necessary “to protect life or property from imminent threat.”

Huh.

But cops constantly believe that their lives are imminently under threat. It's the only legally safe explanation for why they're always reaching for their guns. Soooo...then what happens?

Like what special circumstance is this exception imagining? Because it's hard to think of a scenario where withholding the information would lead to improved safety. "You have a broken tail light." "OH NO! HEARING THE WORDS 'TAIL LIGHT' TURNS ME VIOLENT!!!! DID YOU NOT SEE THE STICKER ON MY WINDOW TELLING YOU NOT TO SAY THOSE WORDS?! GRAAAHHHH!!!!"

Consider a chase where the officers finally manage to stop the vehicle. They don't need to tell the perpetrator why they pulled them over before telling them to put their hands above their head.

Let's see if there are any free speech absolutists left.

Can you explain what you mean?

Do you think people acting on behalf of the state should be able to do whatever they want or something?

Do whatever they want or say whatever they want?

A free speech absolutist would argue that they should be able to say whatever they want.

I like free speech absolutists.

You're going 10 over on the highway and a cop pulls you over. As he walks up to the car with his hand on his gun he screams

"Give me all your fucking money"

I mean he's not pointing his gun at you, he's not saying he's going to shoot you in the face, but my guess your free speech absolutist ass is totally crapping in your pants.

Free speech absolutists can screw off just as much as the authoritarian should.

Could have sworn that free speech absolutists had a brandishing exception

>> Give me all your fucking money

That's called the IRS. Should they be allowed to say that?

Just challenge them to a vigorous debate on the facts.

Since when have cops cared about facts?

nah, that's called civil forfeiture and can be done by cops. and it's 100% legal.

https://reason.com/category/criminal-justice/civil-asset-for...

I guess I don't see a particularly interesting distinction while they are acting as an agent of the state. Saying is doing.

If they don't want to follow some rules they can quit, it isn't an infringement on their rights for them to have a code of conduct while acting as the state (which one form of that is a law that they have to follow).

Everybody can quit. Everyone can quit their jobs. There are consequences of that, also for everybody.

You're saying that agents of the state don't have free speech rights, well, OK. I get that argument.

Free speech absolutists are interesting to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com