Hacker News Reader

Comment by Arainach | Hacker News Reader

What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.

View on HN

You don't talk, and it annoys the cop, so they fabricate evidence against you, or charge you with some other unrelated thing that they would have otherwise let slide.

if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for?

Your position is just bonkers.

Because cops are human, and most people answer questions when cops ask them questions. Refusing to answer questions cannot be held against you in court, but it certainly often is in the minds of humans. And when a cop has "evidence" against you that they cannot use in court, that's when it seems likely they'll manufacture some evidence that is usable.

Cops being human is also exactly why the lawyer and detective in the video is exactly why never talk to cops.

Real lawyer opinion > armchair lawyer opinion.

You're screwed if you do and you're screwed if you don't. It's choosing between the lesser of two evils.

If they don't have it out for you to start with, answering their questions can get you out of it. If they pull you over and you just answer their questions, the odds are that they will just send you on your way, eventually.

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.

You make up a ton of hypotheticals to support your point, versus a lawyer and a retired detective (video in the link) who tell you explicitly to never talk to cops.

Neither of whom are disinterested. The lawyer wants you to hire him to talk to the cops for you, and the retired cop is earning money by giving his "don't talk to the cops" speeches.

>and the retired cop is earning money by giving his "don't talk to the cops" speeches.

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.

Law school lecture says you should hire a lawyer. Huh.

I know, right?

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.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking as well. Of course the lawyer says to get a lawyer. The insurance salesman will tell you how important insurance is. The security expert will tell you about the grave importance of MFA and password managers. The electrician will tell you why it's best to let the electrician handle all of the wiring. The epidemiologist is more likely to wear a mask and stay at home.

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.

Every interaction I've had with the cops has been something like:

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.

If you're heading home then he'll want to know where from. Oh, a restaurant? Did you have anything to drink? I smell alcohol! Step of the car please. That's one way it can go, and then he can say you were wobbly on your step and now it's a DUI. People have gone to prison for DUIs where they blew a 0.0. You really have to gauge whether the cop is having a bad day and taking it out on you, then figure out how to best respond. I've had very little experience with this, so I can't quite tell you, but you'd want a lawyer's response anyways.

>if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for?

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.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Brosky: I called them no names. I referred to their argument as bonkers...

The quoted guideline covered your false separation. The discouraged example called a statement idiotic.

You’ve misinterpreted “bonkers” to mean “idiotic”. That failure of charity is on you, not the GP.

Yet it did not allege that calling the statement idiotic is the same as calling its poster idiotic.

In England, a refusal to answer questions can be taken as an indicator of guilt. But you can still ask for a solicitor and they will tell you which questions to answer and which not.

Specifically England, not the UK, as Scottish law is different.

You can absolutely talk your way out of situations. Jeffery Dalhmer infamously convinced cops that his drugged victim was his boyfriend and they let him go. Probably not going to be able to do that after you're booked and in jail.

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.

Exactly. You have to remember you're not just interacting with a faceless legal system, you're interacting with a human cop. There's some nuance to it. I've talked god knows how many fishing stops down to 5min papers checks. I'd still rather have not had them, but better than if I'd have been all "officer, I have a right to remain silent" which likely would've resulted in a whole bunch of hoopla, bringing the dog around to find nothing, etc, etc, all for a petty fine.

If the cops were seeking me personally (i.e the system is seeking me out) out it'd be a different story though.

I dare say that Dahmer is an atypical example. If you are a serial killer and the police catch you, then it's well worth a gamble to try to talk your way out of it. Even if they try to fabricate evidence, it's likely not going to be as bad as what you've actually been doing.

If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment. Whether or not you need to produce ID at that point may vary by state but it’s likely the case in every state. If it’s legal for the police to demand your ID and you don’t, you can be arrested for failure to identify.

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 a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment

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.

I'm not in the US, so maybe things are very different here, but I still wonder if the absolutist advice is helpful in situations like this:

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.

It definitely depends on the country. I live in Scotland and I've been perfectly happy to chat with police officers but if I'm taken in for questioning (which in Scotland is an arrest) I would have no hesitation in asking for a solicitor and they would probably advise no comment on every question.

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.

You are detained any time your freedom of movement is interrupted. If a cop calls to you and you turn to face them, that’s a detainment. So you’re correct, you can be detained before they’ve even questioned you.

"Don't talk to police" doesn't include legally required things like identification. What you don't do is volunteer more than you're legally required to provide.

This sounds obvious but a lot of people don’t understand this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com