Never talk to the police
campolalaw.com
campolalaw.com
For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No exceptions. Don’t get hung up on the reason for the stop, it doesn’t matter. Additionally, police can articulate in virtually any situation that they fear for officer safety, which is reason enough in many states to order you out of the vehicle. At this point they have a foundation to frisk you for a weapon.
Resisting at any point of this is very risky.
Understanding when and where an officer doesn’t have the legal authority to do the above gets very nuanced. But generally I encourage Americans to learn the rights they have when operating a car seeing as their lives revolve around driving.
It should be well known that you are required to show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States (1996)], your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] , and you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) & Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)].
All of these requirements have been litigated to the supreme court. You should also know the difference between probably cause and reasonable suspicion. We should add these topics to high school civics or something.
Police should not be allowed to put you in that situation, period. Then you can teach everybody that one fact, instead of an incomplete list of one-off rules (that are apparently not even easy to interpret, as demonstrated by the other replies to your comment).
Looking at the comments, I will agree that there are different interpretations of the case law I cited. But the only thing that matters is can this case law be used against you to convict you for not complying with an officer, my understanding is it can, but I am not a lawyer.
I'd love to see civil rights lawyers tackle traffic stop etiquette head on and come up with clear guidance for drivers and passengers in common situations. "Keeping your mouth shut" is a good start.
Not what it establishes. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5841
> your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)]
Not what Brendlin establishes (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-8120) nor Johnson (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-1122).
Passengers in a vehicle aren't even required to have a license. There's no requirement for citizens to carry papers in the US.
(They may be required to give their name, but not carry ID.)
> you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers)
Only because "officers had stopped Mimms for a legitimate reason and, upon observing [a] bulge in his jacket" (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830)
> Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)]
Similarly, if the stop is legitimate. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1268)
E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes ?
(And "identify" isn't necessarily the same as "show ID". It's legal to not have any form of ID in the US whatsoever - this comes up with voter ID discussion a lot - and those folks are still allowed to ride in a car.)
Not legal advice.
And before someone says "but the Supreme Court overrules the states", no it doesn't. Many state courts have found that their state constitutions grant their citizens more rights than the US Constitution in various circumstances.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr...
> The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
A Terry stop includes detainments of pedestrians, who do not have an obligation to identify in most states.
> When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop.
They can't pull you over without reason in the first place.
It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify.
If you feel as though the detainment was illegal, you can sue after the fact. There’s no point in trying to litigate the situation with the officer.
Again:
> Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
It is legal for a state to require you to do so, but some have not done so.
If you have been detained in a motor vehicle you are in control of, you must identify.
A traffic stop is a Terry stop. It's within the circle on the Venn diagram.
Stop-and-frisk of a pedestrian is also a Terry stop.
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
> As of April 2008, 23 other states had similar laws. Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists, which penalize the failure to present a driver license during a traffic stop.
> As of April 2008, 23 other states had similar laws. Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists, which penalize the failure to present a driver license during a traffic stop.
A state may require it. A state does not have to require it.
(To be clear, I'm handing over my license when asked regardless. There's just no apparent law applying universally to all 50 states that says I have to.)
What we're talking about is more specific than that, and other statutes are implicated.
If you were operating a vehicle and cop pulls up next you and casually asks about your day, then you don't have to identify, because that's a consensual encounter. If he suggests that you rolled through the stop, even if you didn't, then you're subject to things like implied consent that are attached to vehicle operation.
You are required to provide a license to operate a vehicle.
"When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop."
> You are required to provide a license to operate a vehicle.
And the police are required to have probable cause to believe you are operating it without such a license to stop you for that. Thus making it… a Terry stop!
And just for clarity, a Terry stop is any brief investigative detention, not just those that arise from traffic stops.
So? Some Terry stops are vehicle-based, others are not; the ruling applies to both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
"When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop."
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45317167 - Sept 2025 (2 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24754163 - Oct 2020 (1 comment)
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)
While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved.
So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do:
1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case
2. I talk, and it screws me
3. I don't talk, and it contributes to a case not being solved
4. I don't talk, and it screws me
I read stuff like this article and it tells you about 2, but it doesn't really put that into a broader context about the likelihood that 2 is the outcome. And there is a real decision to be made here!
Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the original crime they stopped you for, but your day is still ruined.
If you match the description and are in the vicinity of the crime, you are not going to save yourself by talking to the police. You are already in "get a lawyer" territory.
One night, while walking, I was stopped by police because I roughly matched the description of someone who had burgled a house nearby. They didn't tell me this straight away; they just asked who I was, where I lived, and what I was doing. I didn't have ID on me, but I answered their questions honestly. They went to their car for a bit (presumably checking that my name matched my address and/or that I didn't have a record), then came back, explained the situation, and let me go as they had no strong reason to suspect me. The whole interaction was pretty relaxed and cordial, and they didn't contact me again.
Things definitely wouldn't have gone better for me had I made a point of refusing to engage beyond the legally required minimum, and it's easy to imagine how they could have gone significantly worse.
If I want to help them out I would then prepare a written statement, approved by my solicitor, and give them that.
It's just the sensible way to go.
There's no rush. Take your time and be smart.
Your position is just bonkers.
Real lawyer opinion > armchair lawyer opinion.
But if you start invoking your rights and they think you have something to hide, they can easily find an excuse. "I smelled alcohol" is a popular one. If you refuse the test, they can invoke the smell of alcohol as an excuse to bring you in. They will eventually let you go, but that's days rather than minutes.
Police will correctly tell you that they don't want to harass you and it is much easier to simply answer their questions if you have nothing to hide. You don't have to, and most of the time they'll still just let you go as long as you comply with the actual orders. But it's not a guarantee.
It doesn't mean any of them are wrong, but experts in their respective fields are most aware of the edge cases, they might not be optimizing for what everyone else is optimizing, and they cost the most: and sometimes that cost is an opportunity cost, be it time, money, knowledge, etc.
My original reply was an attempt to prove at that.
Actually, the "retired cop" (he was not retired at the time of the video) was also a law student taking part in the law school lecture at the law school he was attending.
And those fucking cardiac surgeons are forever telling you that your brother in-law, the roofing contractor, shouldn't be performing your triple bypass surgery and that your only option is a "board certified" (whatever that bullshit means -- a couple grand every year, maybe?) heart surgeon. amirite?
And don't get me started on how useless dentists are. I have my own pliers. Geez Louise!
Please.
Cop: I pulled you over for speeding. May I have your license and registration please.
Me: (Hands over documents)
Cop: Where are you headed tonight?
Me: On my way home
Cop: Have you been drinking tonight?
Me: No sir.
Cop: walks back to his car, does whatever they do, comes back with either a ticket (which, honestly, I deserve) or a warning.
That's not to say there's never a situation where remaining silent and lawyering up is your best move, but I do not see how refusing to answer these questions or blustering about "my rights" is going to result in any better outcome in a typical roadside traffic stop.
A huge amount of police work is vibes based "this guy looks sketchy, let's wait for him to do something and check him out" stuff. If you talk, they decide there's nothing to see here, move on.
If you don't talk in a clumsy way they decide you're up to no good and pull every trick in the book to get you. And they have plenty of tricks to construe the situation to their favor once they go down that path.
You absolutely can escalate what could've been a warning or simple ticket into a full fledged drug dog fake hit type stop by being obtuse. Or in the case of a real investigation escalate a "this ain't are guy" into a "put them on the short list and really go over them" (which you hope comes to nothing, but still).
>Your position is just bonkers.
Your position is just ignorant.
Specifically England, not the UK, as Scottish law is different.
I don't think it's terrible advice to not talk to the cops but it tends to discount the reality of the world. Going through any sort of criminal trial is expensive and has devastating life impacts. Cops are the first step in that process and convincing them not to arrest you is the easy path out.
If the cops were seeking me personally (i.e the system is seeking me out) out it'd be a different story though.
Also, don't take my word for it - here's a US police officer saying the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (skip to the second half)
He wouldn't talk to police.
The police have a lot more power in any encounter, and there is no way to avoid having them make your life worse. About the only truly concrete advice is that if you are guilty of something then you absolutely, positively must get a lawyer before saying anything at all. The magic words are “I will not answer any questions without my lawyer present,” and any variation from that exposes you to the risk of the police creatively misinterpreting you.
The magic words can help you beat the rap, but they cannot help you beat the ride. If they decide that you are going to jail, then you go with them, and nothing you say or do (or not say or do) will prevent that. And you will stay there until your lawyer shows up.
This is addressed explicitly and at length in the video linked in TFA.
After Salinas v Texas, you must positively assert that you are exercising your right to silence, not simply remain silent.
The prosecutor in a murder trial argued, at trial, that silence of the defendant (during police questioning) was evidence of his guilt. The supreme court in Salinas v Texas allowed this.
* The defendant also selectively answered some questions, so perhaps there is nuance, but to be safe, a positive assertion of right to remain silent seems prudent.
IANAL, and would love if an actual lawyer would comment on this.
Can the police just question you and you have no right to legal representation?
>Can the police just question you and you have no right to legal representation?
No. You always have the right to legal representation -- at your own expense and, in criminal cases, depending on your financial situation, a court-appointed attorney. In many places, the state will only provide an attorney if you're indigent -- and can prove it.
The Miranda Warning[0] (not Miranda "Rights") is generally required if you're being arrested and/or detained for "questioning."
However. the rights mentioned in those warnings (right to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc.) don't magically appear when the warnings are given. They apply regardless of whether or not the warnings are given -- whether you're a suspect, a witness or the object of a police officer's lustful desires, etc.
What's more, the police are legally allowed to lie to you (e.g., "we have your fingerprints on the murder weapon." to get you to waive your rights).
As I understand the primary change over the past 20 years or so is that if you don't positively, verbally/in writing unequivocally invoke your rights to remain silent and have an attorney present, the police may ignore less unequivocal assertions.
N.B. IANAL.
IIUC, In a non-custodial situation, they are not required to provide the Miranda Warning[0]. However, the rights mentioned in that warning exist and are in force regardless of your status (custodial/non-custodial). One may invoke them at any time. I recommend doing so loudly if you're within two or three meters of law enforcement.
What I meant, though, is that if I'm not a suspect, they don't have to provide me a lawyer. (At least, I'm moderately sure that's the law.)
I used to have to testify in civil and criminal proceedings a few times a year as part of my job. If you aren't trained to talk to police or adversarial attorneys, don't.
The magic is essentially talk to them like you would a call center agent. One topic per interaction. Use simple language. Answer a question directly. "He went that way." "I don't know."
Don't answer unasked questions. Don't demonstrate how smart you are. Don't try to "help". If you help, do an Irish goodbye asap.
At the end of the day or incident, the officer is going to write an incident report. You never want to stand out or be interesting that report. The more interesting you are, the more likely you are to get sucked in. I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case.
Sorry, I'm not following exactly: your colleague was ordered to appear because he was genuinely involved in something bad, he was falsely set up as being involved in something bad, or he's helping to litigate an insurance fraud case?
The objective of the defense is likely to have him not show up.
In fact, the video is 14 years old and doesn't have anyone[1] from the law firm that linked to it in the video.
In light of this, I find the comments of the police officer invited to the youtube talk about how lucky the listeners are to be in the US (because police in other countries is so terrible) somewhat amusing.
In the US one should generally be terrified of the police, especially if one's skin color doesn't happen to be white. Plus everything that was said in the talk.
Pro 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Merely being silent means the prosecution is able describe your communication as "refused to cooperate with or answer questions from law enforcement" which is a "negative" finding, whereas the right to remain silent is at least meant to be interpreted neutrally.
My case in point: A neighbor's child was violently mentally ill. I have made my house a safe haven for her children on occasion, and at times have gone into her house to discreetly escort them out past the violent child.
Then the police show up, either because she was able to call them, or I did.
At that point, a refusal to provide witness information to the police would increase the danger for both the child (who I stress is mentally ill, not simply being a violent asshole), the mother, and the police.
In situations involving the police reacting to 911 calls to that house, I always answer their questions. At this point, I get "I remember this guy - you're a neighbor, right?" - because we've done this dance so many times.
Another instance - I noted someone hiding (with really obvious peaks around the corner) at the side of a house while driving home. Found multiple police cars parked on and near my block. I walked up and told the first cop I met where the "hide-and-go-seek" loser was, and answered their questions about his appearance. Hell yes I wanted to answer them.
Rando policeman stopping you and asking you questions is very different from having a local emergency, and wanting your locale to be safer. Yeah, maybe in some fantasy situation the cops could have arrested me for something during that domestic situation at my neighbors, but I value her life and her kids' lives above that paranoid outlook.
And then consider if you are are the spouse or parent of a murder victim or missing person, and are innocent. You are almost certainly going to be a potential suspect, but you also want to help them find the actual criminal, and if hiring a lawyer makes you "look guilty", then the police might focus their investigation on you rather than finding the real perpetrator.
Maybe, but it can also be VERY expensive to NOT have a lawyer.
I have a lawyer that offers free 30 minute initial conversations. But I also practically beg her to charge me for her time because it's valuable to me to get her take on the situation.
I agree. This is a real problem in law enforcement. The issue is that while they're competing interests, my right to remain innocent should rationally supersede the deep profound desire for justice (but I recognize it rarely plays out this way).
Never do anything without a lawyer. Never self-host a website. Never use VPS either, use cloud. But don't try to setup cloud yourself - use our platform in the middle. Don't accept payments, use our solution in the middle. Connect with your customers by using our [A-Z]AAS, powered by AI, but don't use AI provider, use intermediate provider, which proxies your requests to providers. Don't bother with analytics, just install our analytics service that will charge you just a $ per one thousand lines of logs. And if you feel sick of this - consult a doctor, but don't try to find the solution yourself.
Yours sincerely, man in the middle.
I lead a normal life. I've never gotten into a situation where this could ever possibly concern me. I'm betting the vast majority of people who visit HN (and aren't commenting here) wouldn't have this issue, either.
I do not fear the police. The police have helped me in several situations such as car accidents. At my business they discovered my back door open and, within minutes, caught the person who stole something. My car got side swiped overnight and they walked the street to see if any neighbor had a camera. And on and on.
You wouldn't find me in an illegal situation involving the police except if I happened to be there. But I wouldn't fear being hauled off to jail cause that just won't happen except on the internet.
Reminds me of the "I've got nothing to hide" mentality. Just because I'm not breaking the law, doesn't mean I want to make it easy for bad people to abuse me.
> NO, YOU CAN'T TALK THEM OUT OF IT
> No, they don’t care about your story
If you are suspected of a crime, your inclination is going to be to explain the situation because it must be a mistake. If you find yourself suspected of a crime, you should talk to a lawyer, not the police.
People unknowingly break laws every day, yourself included. You have a right not to incriminate yourself. It is not fearing the police to recognize that innocent people get swept up in the bureaucratic law enforcement machine all the time. Talking to the police can only hurt you in this situation.
Finally, your examples are all examples where you were the victim of a crime, which is covered in the article.
My alleged coconspirator talked to cops because he knew he was innocent. They datained him overnight a couple times, showed up at his work and got him fired, and pissed off his landlord by showing up at his house a bunch of times.
I shut the hell up and refused to answer any questions without an attorney. I never heard back from the cops after that.
You don't know what normal life is in the US.
> they discovered my back door open and, within minutes, caught the person who stole something.
Plenty of people can tell you about the cops never bothering to show up to a call, or showing up hours later and shrugging. The fact that this supposedly happened to you is the outlier.
How many is "plenty of people" and what percent versus those of us who get results in minutes.
I am NOT the outlier. My stories are the stories of my neighbors and everyone I know. My stories are from what's in front of me and not random, anonymous internet posts.
Rich people have lots of experiences. They do not know what normal life is like.
> How many is "plenty of people" and what percent versus those of us who get results in minutes.
I know entire neighborhoods where people won't even call the police because they either won't do anything anyway or they will harass and find a way to fuck over the person who called. I know how cops treat brown people versus whites. I know how they will treat you if you have money and I know how they will treat you if you don't.
The people who supposedly get results in minutes are the minority.
> I am NOT the outlier. My stories are the stories of my neighbors and everyone I know.
This is a meaningless statement. I can say the exact same thing.
> My stories are from what's in front of me and not random, anonymous internet posts.
You are the random internet post to everyone else but you, mate. Try not to be so solipsistic.
I later contacted a civil rights attorney to see if there was any case for racial profiling, but instead they took the opportunity to eviscerate me for not talking my way out of detention. Truth is lawyer will say whatever you did is wrong because the premise of client fucking things up is often just a more convenient explanation.
I would honestly say it couldn't help because it's not like they'd believe you if you said no and saying yes could make them suspicious. So while it seems like something that would be important to answer for safety, maybe it's safer to decline to answer.
Of course, if they're threatening you, you should comply because the place to fight is in the courtroom, not on the road.
This is a classic! it's informative but also entertaining.
If anyone has any other videos like this (usefulness, vibes, any topic) I would appreciate recs.
Even if it's completely entirely true and they believe it and they like you and that's enough for me. It can only hurt you.
And yeah, I know, it may not always be obvious whether they are investigating you, especially if they are willing to lie or be deceptive. (If they're really investigating you, you may not even realize that you're talking to cops.) On the other hand, it might be clear enough sometimes that they are not for me to be willing to talk to them.