Don't Talk to the Cops(thisistrue.com)
thisistrue.com
Don't Talk to the Cops
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-dont_talk_to_the_cops.html
21 comments
But would your situation have been any better if you had just declined to speak to them? The amount of time wasted on your part could have been far greater (let alone expenses for an attorny)
Like if I was arrested or something?
If the cops/DA have any cause to arrest you, talking to them won't do anything to save you from it. They'll just use everything you say against you in addition to whatever they had on you to begin with. You can't dig yourself out of a hole with the police when your freedom is on the line. (Talking might help a little bit in traffic stops.) And if they might gain anything on you later on, you can't talk them out of it.
The purpose of not talking to the police is to avoid giving them cause to arrest you when they don't already have it. If they already have cause to arrest you, you aren't talking your way out of it.
It was plainly obvious in my situation that they weren't questioning me as a witness so much as they were playing word games, trying to trick me into incriminating myself. You can't actually get ahead with that. At best, you'll maintain your innocence and they'll get tired of playing games with you (which is what I did). You get the same outcome with less stress by shutting up. If you stand there talking, you might make a very costly mistake.
Finally, public defenders are free. They're overworked and they suck in a lot of places, but where I lived at the time (and still live now) it's pretty rural so that's less of a problem. In small towns, in fact, a public defender is often just as good as the best lawyer money can buy locally. (If you're in serious trouble you hire a lawyer from the nearest big city, of course.)
If the cops/DA have any cause to arrest you, talking to them won't do anything to save you from it. They'll just use everything you say against you in addition to whatever they had on you to begin with. You can't dig yourself out of a hole with the police when your freedom is on the line. (Talking might help a little bit in traffic stops.) And if they might gain anything on you later on, you can't talk them out of it.
The purpose of not talking to the police is to avoid giving them cause to arrest you when they don't already have it. If they already have cause to arrest you, you aren't talking your way out of it.
It was plainly obvious in my situation that they weren't questioning me as a witness so much as they were playing word games, trying to trick me into incriminating myself. You can't actually get ahead with that. At best, you'll maintain your innocence and they'll get tired of playing games with you (which is what I did). You get the same outcome with less stress by shutting up. If you stand there talking, you might make a very costly mistake.
Finally, public defenders are free. They're overworked and they suck in a lot of places, but where I lived at the time (and still live now) it's pretty rural so that's less of a problem. In small towns, in fact, a public defender is often just as good as the best lawyer money can buy locally. (If you're in serious trouble you hire a lawyer from the nearest big city, of course.)
yes, as the video makes clear, you can't compel the police to testify to anything you said, but they can use it all against you. its hearsay when you want to use and the unassailable truth when its used against you.
I'd like to see a comprehensive breakdown of exactly what you should do in real situations when approached by cops. For example, do you literally utter no words and just stare at them, or do you keep repeating "I'd rather not answer that." If the cops make a false claim, such as "we can arrest you for interfering with a police investigation if you don't answer," should you call them on the lie or what? Also a more specific breakdown by state would be great (e.g. do I have to carry/show ID while walking/driving/in my home. I've seen some rather cheesy video dramatizations (I think from the ACLU) of what to do in a traffic stop, but a nice comprehensive document would be the best.
I'd like to see a comprehensive breakdown of exactly what you should do in real situations when approached by cops.
I just read a very helpful book about that, Arrest-Proof Yourself: An Ex-Cop Reveals How Easy It Is for Anyone to Get Arrested, How Even a Single Arrest Could Ruin Your Life, and What to Do If the Police Get in Your Face by R. Dale Carson,
http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-A...
which was recommended in another thread by another HN participant. Hat tip to him. The book is very interesting and practical. (I am a lawyer and used to be a judicial clerk, but I learned new facts from the book.)
I just read a very helpful book about that, Arrest-Proof Yourself: An Ex-Cop Reveals How Easy It Is for Anyone to Get Arrested, How Even a Single Arrest Could Ruin Your Life, and What to Do If the Police Get in Your Face by R. Dale Carson,
http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-A...
which was recommended in another thread by another HN participant. Hat tip to him. The book is very interesting and practical. (I am a lawyer and used to be a judicial clerk, but I learned new facts from the book.)
"No comment" all the way.
I used to work with several ex-Policemen (UK), and their advice was exactly the same: "no comment."
One thing I stupidly didn't ask at the time though was whether there was potential for badness if you expanded on your answer, e.g. "I don't want to comment without my solicitor being present." versus "No comment." Anyone have any ideas?
I used to work with several ex-Policemen (UK), and their advice was exactly the same: "no comment."
One thing I stupidly didn't ask at the time though was whether there was potential for badness if you expanded on your answer, e.g. "I don't want to comment without my solicitor being present." versus "No comment." Anyone have any ideas?
> e.g. "I don't want to comment without my solicitor being present." versus "No comment." Anyone have any ideas?
Yes. My Boss, an ex-copper, says that you should always do the former and never the latter. Also, be polite and restrained. Respond to small talk. Be honest.
If you clam up, stay silent, and repeat no comment they will treat that as mildly suspicious.
Yes. My Boss, an ex-copper, says that you should always do the former and never the latter. Also, be polite and restrained. Respond to small talk. Be honest.
If you clam up, stay silent, and repeat no comment they will treat that as mildly suspicious.
One issue with this is that if you pull out the "I don't wish to comment without my solicitor being present" line as soon as the cop starts talking to you then they can just detain you (ie not arrest you) and take you to the police station to give you the opportunity to get your legal counsel present so they can continue.
Saying that you won't comment without legal counsel doesn't mean the police officer is going to go away. It just means the s/he will have to make a judgement call on letting you go or taking you in for questioning (detainment, not arrest) and so you are risking a loss of liberty if that occurs.
Saying that you won't comment without legal counsel doesn't mean the police officer is going to go away. It just means the s/he will have to make a judgement call on letting you go or taking you in for questioning (detainment, not arrest) and so you are risking a loss of liberty if that occurs.
Yeah, but then your legal counsel shows up, asks "is my client free to go", and then you leave.
Yeh, absolutely. I'd say if a cop stops you in the street - just answer their questions if it seems reasonable. Or refuse (don't mention lawyers) if not.
Never had any issues myself with this approach.
Never had any issues myself with this approach.
For what it's worth this is what I would say...
Look, I’ve been told in the past that it’s not a good idea to talk to the police without a lawyer present. The people who told me this were experts on this sort of thing and the point they made is that innocent people have been convicted by accidentally saying something that implicated them. They also made the point that this has happened even when the police officers themselves believed the person was innocent because those officers turned the case over to a District Attorney who really just wanted a conviction.
So while I know you’re just doing your job by trying to get me to talk to you I need you to understand my outlook on this which is that my life might depend on me keeping my mouth shut right now. What I will say is that I’m completely innocent of these charges and I think you’re wasting your time talking to me. Beyond that I’m going to keep my mouth shut from this point on and wait for my lawyer. Thanks for understanding.
...As far as any false claims the police might make they don't have the right to do anything without a warrant so I'd use vaguely the same speech as above but substitute in "I've been told you need a warrant to search my person or possessions"
Edit: I just IMed a friend who is a lawyer and he made a good point on searches. When the police claim they have the right to search your person or possessions you want to do two things. First, explicitly say you forbid them to search unless you are legally required to allow them to do it. Second make them take physical action (e.g. if they want to search you tell them you won’t empty your own pockets but you won’t resist if they search your pockets). Do these two things and you’ll never be searched unduly.
Look, I’ve been told in the past that it’s not a good idea to talk to the police without a lawyer present. The people who told me this were experts on this sort of thing and the point they made is that innocent people have been convicted by accidentally saying something that implicated them. They also made the point that this has happened even when the police officers themselves believed the person was innocent because those officers turned the case over to a District Attorney who really just wanted a conviction.
So while I know you’re just doing your job by trying to get me to talk to you I need you to understand my outlook on this which is that my life might depend on me keeping my mouth shut right now. What I will say is that I’m completely innocent of these charges and I think you’re wasting your time talking to me. Beyond that I’m going to keep my mouth shut from this point on and wait for my lawyer. Thanks for understanding.
...As far as any false claims the police might make they don't have the right to do anything without a warrant so I'd use vaguely the same speech as above but substitute in "I've been told you need a warrant to search my person or possessions"
Edit: I just IMed a friend who is a lawyer and he made a good point on searches. When the police claim they have the right to search your person or possessions you want to do two things. First, explicitly say you forbid them to search unless you are legally required to allow them to do it. Second make them take physical action (e.g. if they want to search you tell them you won’t empty your own pockets but you won’t resist if they search your pockets). Do these two things and you’ll never be searched unduly.
"I need you to understand my outlook on this which is that my life might depend on me keeping my mouth shut right now."
I wouldn't say that, it implies guilt (by the letter of the law and justice an innocent person's life wouldn't depend on them keeping their mouth shut).
Further more, the specific phrase "my life might depend on me keeping my mouth shut" could be interpreted by a cop as being more than what you mean - eg maybe you are harboring a criminal who has threatened to kill you.
As geeks, I think we have a tendency to 'front load' a lot of this as we try to explain our logic. A short "No comment" is best and the more you say, even in trying to justify your logic, opens up opportunity for a cop to use something against you.
I wouldn't say that, it implies guilt (by the letter of the law and justice an innocent person's life wouldn't depend on them keeping their mouth shut).
Further more, the specific phrase "my life might depend on me keeping my mouth shut" could be interpreted by a cop as being more than what you mean - eg maybe you are harboring a criminal who has threatened to kill you.
As geeks, I think we have a tendency to 'front load' a lot of this as we try to explain our logic. A short "No comment" is best and the more you say, even in trying to justify your logic, opens up opportunity for a cop to use something against you.
I'm sorry but that logic will get you thrown in jail for the exact points you outline. Police are people and they don't like a jerk and they don't like someone who seems to think he's smarter than they are. You say just "No Comment" and they aren't going to like you and that is going to make them go after you harder.
What the statement I put above conveys is a few things.
1. That I respect the cops and their job and that I know they aren't after me personally(and hence won't try to parse every sentence I say and take it out of context like you did)
2. That I've been told by people that I believe to be knowledgeable that even innocent people can be convicted of a crime they didn't commit by saying something stupid and that's the reason I have a choice in not talking to them (and hence putting the "stupid" burden on my by implying "I don't think I'm smart enough to be in a discussion with you")
3. I explicitly stated "I'm not guilty" letting the cops know I'm not trying to be smug with them and that I do want them to know I'm not guilty.
Bottom Line: By saying "No Comment" you're trying to prove you're smarter than the cops while my statement lets them think they're smarter than me while still giving them nothing they can use against me
What the statement I put above conveys is a few things.
1. That I respect the cops and their job and that I know they aren't after me personally(and hence won't try to parse every sentence I say and take it out of context like you did)
2. That I've been told by people that I believe to be knowledgeable that even innocent people can be convicted of a crime they didn't commit by saying something stupid and that's the reason I have a choice in not talking to them (and hence putting the "stupid" burden on my by implying "I don't think I'm smart enough to be in a discussion with you")
3. I explicitly stated "I'm not guilty" letting the cops know I'm not trying to be smug with them and that I do want them to know I'm not guilty.
Bottom Line: By saying "No Comment" you're trying to prove you're smarter than the cops while my statement lets them think they're smarter than me while still giving them nothing they can use against me
So first off your original statement does imply guilt - as per my original comment and I would suggest you re-examine that.
"I know they aren't after me (and hence won't try to parse every sentence I say and take it out of context like you did)"
yeah good luck with that one. The police will take what you have to say and bend it against you to see where it goes. It's called probing and is a legitimate investigative technique. You prefacing the situation with your pre-amble isn't going to stop that.
"I explicitly stated "I'm not guilty" letting the cops know I'm not trying to be smug with them and that I do want them to know I'm not guilty."
They haven't said you are guilty of anything, if they are just investigating. It's that kind of behavior - denying guilt before any has been laden upon the suspect - that police zero in on.
Seriously, I think you should re-consider your position and read some other people's views, especially the ACLU. You're unintentionally pushing a load of buttons that the police will pick up on with your preamble that I don't even think you realize.
"I know they aren't after me (and hence won't try to parse every sentence I say and take it out of context like you did)"
yeah good luck with that one. The police will take what you have to say and bend it against you to see where it goes. It's called probing and is a legitimate investigative technique. You prefacing the situation with your pre-amble isn't going to stop that.
"I explicitly stated "I'm not guilty" letting the cops know I'm not trying to be smug with them and that I do want them to know I'm not guilty."
They haven't said you are guilty of anything, if they are just investigating. It's that kind of behavior - denying guilt before any has been laden upon the suspect - that police zero in on.
Seriously, I think you should re-consider your position and read some other people's views, especially the ACLU. You're unintentionally pushing a load of buttons that the police will pick up on with your preamble that I don't even think you realize.
Again once you've asked for your lawyer interrogation must stop. So there will be no probing.
Second if you're being interrogated than you're suspected of something. To suggest otherwise is again treating the cops like their some kind of idiots. Be an adult and treat the cops like adults and try to create an adult understanding between you. Don't act like a petulant child and repeat a mantra over and over again.
Second if you're being interrogated than you're suspected of something. To suggest otherwise is again treating the cops like their some kind of idiots. Be an adult and treat the cops like adults and try to create an adult understanding between you. Don't act like a petulant child and repeat a mantra over and over again.
Again once you've asked for your lawyer interrogation must stop. So there will be no probing.
But they might take you down to the police station and wait for your lawyer to show up. Do you see that as a successful outcome?
Second if you're being interrogated than you're suspected of something.
You're just plain wrong about that. They may think you're a witness or have information that they need.
But they might take you down to the police station and wait for your lawyer to show up. Do you see that as a successful outcome?
Second if you're being interrogated than you're suspected of something.
You're just plain wrong about that. They may think you're a witness or have information that they need.
Can American police actually take you to the police station against your will if you're not under arrest? They can ask, of course, but no matter how forcefully they ask they're still just asking.
No, but why would you say "not without my lawyer" if you weren't actually willing to get a lawyer and talk? If you make the offer with the intent to rescind it if they take you up on it, why make the offer in the first place?
I wouldn't, personally. Even if you get a lawyer, the lawyer says not to talk. I already know that for free.
There's a difference between being a witness and being interrogated. I'd dare say you have a civic duty to answer questions that aren't about you if a Cop asks them. Cops wouldn't be able to catch actual criminals if citizens don't talk to them at all.
But once they start asking about you that's when you lawyer up
But once they start asking about you that's when you lawyer up
I'd dare say you have a civic duty to answer questions that aren't about you if a Cop asks them.
I think this is the key difference of perspective between you and the people you're debating. But what's interesting is that you're arguing the tactical disadvantages of something you believe people have a civic duty not to do. Are you sure one opinion isn't influencing the other?
I think this is the key difference of perspective between you and the people you're debating. But what's interesting is that you're arguing the tactical disadvantages of something you believe people have a civic duty not to do. Are you sure one opinion isn't influencing the other?
If you actually have information and there's not even the slightest possibility that it could turn bad for you, then sure, be a good citizen.
But if you don't have any information, or if there's even the most remote possibility at all that you could somehow be implicated by the information you have (or by the fact that you have the information in the first place), then plainly, simply, and politely: "I have nothing to say" and "May I go now?".
But if you don't have any information, or if there's even the most remote possibility at all that you could somehow be implicated by the information you have (or by the fact that you have the information in the first place), then plainly, simply, and politely: "I have nothing to say" and "May I go now?".
How many times have you actually interacted with the police? Between being pulled over several times, living in an apartment that was previously occupied by a guy with warrants, being assaulted with a golf club, and various other stupid minor run-ins, I've had exactly one experience where the cop wasn't a complete dick and possibly would have let me get halfway through that wall of text you want to preface your lack of interaction with.
It's just naive to expect that you can, as a rule, calmly explain why you don't want to talk with them.
Saying "I have nothing to say" works. Saying "May I go now?" works. Trying to justify yourself, using phrases like "I can't" or "I don't want to", implying that you might have something to say if a lawyer were around, anything more than conveying you have nothing to say and want permission to leave, is just asking for a headache.
It's just naive to expect that you can, as a rule, calmly explain why you don't want to talk with them.
Saying "I have nothing to say" works. Saying "May I go now?" works. Trying to justify yourself, using phrases like "I can't" or "I don't want to", implying that you might have something to say if a lawyer were around, anything more than conveying you have nothing to say and want permission to leave, is just asking for a headache.
First my Aunt is a CHP officer (CHP is California Highway Patrol for those who don't know)
Second I worked in a computer store where police would come in all the time and hang out for hours. I've taken hundreds of smoke breaks with them (I don't smoke but I'd stand out there with them and talk).
Third I work at a boys home for troubled children. The cops come by about twice a week for various infractions (usually involving drugs) and since I know many from my previous job I talk to them all the time even now.
Having all that experience the one thing I know,for a fact, is that Cops are people too and they hate when other people treat them badly (which is what repeating "no comment" or asking "can I go now" is considered). If your job was to get information from someone else wouldn't you be upset if they just said "no comment" and wouldn't tell you why they were saying it or even if they had the information you were looking for? The cops feel the same way and explaining exactly why you can't talk to them and giving them your word that you don't have the info they're looking for will help your relationship with them.
Second I worked in a computer store where police would come in all the time and hang out for hours. I've taken hundreds of smoke breaks with them (I don't smoke but I'd stand out there with them and talk).
Third I work at a boys home for troubled children. The cops come by about twice a week for various infractions (usually involving drugs) and since I know many from my previous job I talk to them all the time even now.
Having all that experience the one thing I know,for a fact, is that Cops are people too and they hate when other people treat them badly (which is what repeating "no comment" or asking "can I go now" is considered). If your job was to get information from someone else wouldn't you be upset if they just said "no comment" and wouldn't tell you why they were saying it or even if they had the information you were looking for? The cops feel the same way and explaining exactly why you can't talk to them and giving them your word that you don't have the info they're looking for will help your relationship with them.
If your job was to get information from someone else wouldn't you be upset if they just said "no comment" and wouldn't tell you why they were saying it or even if they had the information you were looking for?
I might be miffed, but if I had the unique ability to ruin their lives with arrest and prosecution, I'd understand a little mistrust and defensiveness.
I might be miffed, but if I had the unique ability to ruin their lives with arrest and prosecution, I'd understand a little mistrust and defensiveness.
Those sound like social or job-related interactions, which are completely and obviously different from the kind of interactions the article and I are referring to. Have you had any on-topic interactions with police?
A cop might act like refusing to say anything, refusing searches, and asking if you can go is "treating them badly", but that's gamesmanship. That's their job. If you want to appeal to their human side, just be polite about it.
The fact is, cops already know all the legitimate reasons you have for not talking to them, so there's no real misunderstanding to resolve.
The fact is, cops already know all the legitimate reasons you have for not talking to them, so there's no real misunderstanding to resolve.
I once thought my car was stolen, because I had been completely out of it with fever, and we both forgot my boyfriend was the last one to park it... and he parked it far away.
The police came. We found my car. They smiled but didn't make fun of me.
Then they invited us to a LAN party.
Maryland police are pretty nice, as long as you're white.
The police came. We found my car. They smiled but didn't make fun of me.
Then they invited us to a LAN party.
Maryland police are pretty nice, as long as you're white.
You can't get "thrown in jail" (in America) without probable cause and usually a warrant, and if they already have probable cause or a warrant on you, you're not talking yourself out of being thrown in jail. If they have nothing on you and you refuse to talk to them, they're not going to "go after you" because you're not a promising lead. It's talking to them that makes you a promising lead.
Cops by and large already know all this stuff. They might act all pissy when you refuse to talk to them, but that's gamesmanship. They understand. If you're polite and confident about it, they'll get it--even without you having to memorize a three paragraph speech they're going to interrupt you in the middle of anyway.
Cops by and large already know all this stuff. They might act all pissy when you refuse to talk to them, but that's gamesmanship. They understand. If you're polite and confident about it, they'll get it--even without you having to memorize a three paragraph speech they're going to interrupt you in the middle of anyway.
>You can't get "thrown in jail" (in America) without probable cause and usually a warrant
Enjoy your Patriot Act. The cops certainly do, as it allows them to do exactly that.
Enjoy your Patriot Act. The cops certainly do, as it allows them to do exactly that.
The more you say the more that can be twisted against you. "I'm not guilty." -> "Not guilty of what? We haven't accused you of anything. Why are you acting like you've been accused? What exactly are you not guilty of?" And so on.
The response with the smallest attack surface is "No comment."
The response with the smallest attack surface is "No comment."
First, the only reason you don't talk to cops is because you don't want to give them something they can use against you in court. So unless there's something in that statement that they can use in court (which there isn't) it doesn't matter.
Second, once you've asked for a lawyer interrogation MUST STOP by law. So there will be no follow up questions.
Finally, you're making the same erroneous assumption as dotBen above in that you're assuming the relationship with the Cops has to be adversarial and then treating it as such (which is exactly what makes someone look guilty).
What I'm saying is your best bet is to empathize with the Cops and realize that they don't like grilling people. So your goal should be to keep things amicable and give them "an out" so they don't have to interrogate you.
Second, once you've asked for a lawyer interrogation MUST STOP by law. So there will be no follow up questions.
Finally, you're making the same erroneous assumption as dotBen above in that you're assuming the relationship with the Cops has to be adversarial and then treating it as such (which is exactly what makes someone look guilty).
What I'm saying is your best bet is to empathize with the Cops and realize that they don't like grilling people. So your goal should be to keep things amicable and give them "an out" so they don't have to interrogate you.
>Finally, you're making the same erroneous assumption as dotBen above in that you're assuming the relationship with the Cops has to be adversarial and then treating it as such (which is exactly what makes someone look guilty).
As someone in this thread indicated, about a forth or so of cases exonerated by DNA evidence have "confessed". That fact enough, should make your interaction adversarial. You can be sure a lot of those people end up going to the station just "to talk" as "witnesses".
> The only reason you don't talk to cops is because you don't want to give them something they can use against you in court.
That is wrong. You don't know what you are saying can or cannot be used against you. The cops can lie to you. You don't know at which point a switch in their head decides to turn you from a witness into a suspect. They won't signal you with a wink ...
As someone in this thread indicated, about a forth or so of cases exonerated by DNA evidence have "confessed". That fact enough, should make your interaction adversarial. You can be sure a lot of those people end up going to the station just "to talk" as "witnesses".
> The only reason you don't talk to cops is because you don't want to give them something they can use against you in court.
That is wrong. You don't know what you are saying can or cannot be used against you. The cops can lie to you. You don't know at which point a switch in their head decides to turn you from a witness into a suspect. They won't signal you with a wink ...
> So your goal should be to keep things amicable and give them "an out" so they don't have to interrogate you.
That's key, and it is basic psychology.
Make sure the police officer has no reason to suspect you are hiding something and you'll get off without a problem, he/she hates wasting their time as much as you do.
Give a reason for suspicion or antagonize them and you're going to be a lot further in your day before you are let off.
A police officer is someone that has a relatively good eye for probability, if you are 'probably ok' (in other words, you're on the same side of the law) then there is no reason to detain you any longer and you can go. If you give them the feeling you are on opposite sides of that line (antagonistic behaviour for instance) then you may just have lost a couple of hours.
That's key, and it is basic psychology.
Make sure the police officer has no reason to suspect you are hiding something and you'll get off without a problem, he/she hates wasting their time as much as you do.
Give a reason for suspicion or antagonize them and you're going to be a lot further in your day before you are let off.
A police officer is someone that has a relatively good eye for probability, if you are 'probably ok' (in other words, you're on the same side of the law) then there is no reason to detain you any longer and you can go. If you give them the feeling you are on opposite sides of that line (antagonistic behaviour for instance) then you may just have lost a couple of hours.
And even beyond that...
You're supposed to refuse to talk until "your lawyer" is present. Now, I've used a lawyer's services for making a will, and my boss's wife is a lawyer specializing in environmental matters. But I don't have any sort of connection with a lawyer that would handle criminal matters.
Should one make contact with a potential lawyer today, before anything happens, and carry the lawyer's card in your pocket? Should you just call any lawyer you know at the point you need it, and ask for a referral?
You're supposed to refuse to talk until "your lawyer" is present. Now, I've used a lawyer's services for making a will, and my boss's wife is a lawyer specializing in environmental matters. But I don't have any sort of connection with a lawyer that would handle criminal matters.
Should one make contact with a potential lawyer today, before anything happens, and carry the lawyer's card in your pocket? Should you just call any lawyer you know at the point you need it, and ask for a referral?
This seems obvious to me. Put it this way, if you're ever accused of a serious crime your life will hang in the balance. So how much research would you be willing to do to save your own life?
Now if you get arrested for a serious crime you'll have one phone call and no time to do research. So yeah, I'd at least ask around and find out who the best criminal lawyer in my area is (and make sure I have his number handy)
Now if you get arrested for a serious crime you'll have one phone call and no time to do research. So yeah, I'd at least ask around and find out who the best criminal lawyer in my area is (and make sure I have his number handy)
That much makes sense. But do you think I should just find out who he is and store his name and number in my phone?
Or is there some standard process with a lawyer, where you contact him ahead of time and ask if you can keep him on file just in case?
Or is there some standard process with a lawyer, where you contact him ahead of time and ask if you can keep him on file just in case?
It would be wise to find out rates at the very least! Some lawyers might charge more than you can afford.
You might also want to ask the receptionist/assistant who answers calls to the office how you contact the lawyer outside of office hours and whether they need a retainer on file in order to service clients in these kinds of circumstances (ie call them out cos you have been arrested at 3am on a Saturday night).
You might also want to ask the receptionist/assistant who answers calls to the office how you contact the lawyer outside of office hours and whether they need a retainer on file in order to service clients in these kinds of circumstances (ie call them out cos you have been arrested at 3am on a Saturday night).
No, don't bother. The chance of you being able to get that specific person in all situations is low anyway.
Don't ask for "your" lawyer. Ask for "a" lawyer. Unless you're in a serious mess (in which case you will need proper, expensive, legal counsel) anyone will do. Usually the rote lawyers provided by the tax payer (here in the UK that is a right, Im not sure if it is elsewhere) are fine for these situations.
Lawyers can get expensive fast - especially if the Police decide to play awkward.
Don't ask for "your" lawyer. Ask for "a" lawyer. Unless you're in a serious mess (in which case you will need proper, expensive, legal counsel) anyone will do. Usually the rote lawyers provided by the tax payer (here in the UK that is a right, Im not sure if it is elsewhere) are fine for these situations.
Lawyers can get expensive fast - especially if the Police decide to play awkward.
A friend of mine got in trouble once so I have had the inestimable pleasure of being interviewed by police.
Here's the thing - there's all sorts of technicalities they may or may not use. If you totally stonewall them? If they have any leverage, they will use that leverage. You want them to lose interest in you.
A traffic stop you just comply politely, decline to be searched and say: there is no sense having a right to privacy if it is not exercised, Officer X.
Here's what I did:
0) Officer : Keefe, I hear X happened, what about Y? 1) Keefe : oh, I dunno...mumble... I'm so embarrassed... this is so embarrassing <looks at feet> 3) Goto 0
After a while, he lost interest. I saw the police report afterwards where I was noted as "uncooperative". They don't know that you're not a social reject or something, just refuse to interact.
Here's the thing - there's all sorts of technicalities they may or may not use. If you totally stonewall them? If they have any leverage, they will use that leverage. You want them to lose interest in you.
A traffic stop you just comply politely, decline to be searched and say: there is no sense having a right to privacy if it is not exercised, Officer X.
Here's what I did:
0) Officer : Keefe, I hear X happened, what about Y? 1) Keefe : oh, I dunno...mumble... I'm so embarrassed... this is so embarrassing <looks at feet> 3) Goto 0
After a while, he lost interest. I saw the police report afterwards where I was noted as "uncooperative". They don't know that you're not a social reject or something, just refuse to interact.
"I don't consent to any searches" is a good thing to say if they ask to search you or your car, or if they just try and start to.
Why?
I got stopped in Canada, and was asked that same question. I said sure, go ahead, took 5 minutes and I was on my way again.
Same happened somewhere in Texas on a road trip, same outcome.
I asked my lawyer in Canada what would happen if I did not consent to a search, and he said they would probably have taken that as a reason to stop me again a few miles down the road for some infraction and would have searched the car top to bottom with a fine comb.
If you have nothing in your car it's quite ok to have it searched, what specific reason would you have not to consent in the knowledge they can force the issue if they want to?
I got stopped in Canada, and was asked that same question. I said sure, go ahead, took 5 minutes and I was on my way again.
Same happened somewhere in Texas on a road trip, same outcome.
I asked my lawyer in Canada what would happen if I did not consent to a search, and he said they would probably have taken that as a reason to stop me again a few miles down the road for some infraction and would have searched the car top to bottom with a fine comb.
If you have nothing in your car it's quite ok to have it searched, what specific reason would you have not to consent in the knowledge they can force the issue if they want to?
I don't know Canadian law, but declining a search is your constitutional right in America, even if you're cited for a moving violation. No matter what a cop says otherwise. American cops are allowed to lie, imply, threaten, and be presumptuous assholes but if you assert your civil rights you still have them. (If they ask you to step out of the car and just casually slide right into the driver's seat, and you say nothing, you just consented to a search. So lock your door when you get out and don't consent.)
This is a very important point: they _can't_ force the issue if they want to. That's why they're asking (or just being an asshole about it) instead of presenting you with a warrant and instructing you to step aside.
I've never been asked to consent to a search of my home or vehicle, but there are tons of legitimate reasons to say no:
1. Privacy. You know how some people really don't want search engines and random hoodlums reading their facebook profile and status updates? Well, maybe I really don't want random cops poking around my car or apartment. Maybe my girlfriend and I have a whole box of sex toys and bondage gear.
2. There are so many damned laws you might be breaking one and you'd never know. It's probably a really stupid law, too.
3. Maybe you just don't want to unpack every damn thing in your car and pack it away again. I've got like two sealed emergency survival kits in my car and I'd be pretty pissed off if some cop opened them looking for drugs that weren't there. And have you ever seen a home that was searched by cops? You have to spend the whole rest of the weekend cleaning up and putting everything away afterwards, man.
BTW, the same reasoning applies if they knock on your door and ask to search your residence. If they have to ask, the answer is no.
Finally, if they present a warrant or go ahead and search it anyway even if you explicitly decline consent, then stay out of their way and get a lawyer.
This is a very important point: they _can't_ force the issue if they want to. That's why they're asking (or just being an asshole about it) instead of presenting you with a warrant and instructing you to step aside.
I've never been asked to consent to a search of my home or vehicle, but there are tons of legitimate reasons to say no:
1. Privacy. You know how some people really don't want search engines and random hoodlums reading their facebook profile and status updates? Well, maybe I really don't want random cops poking around my car or apartment. Maybe my girlfriend and I have a whole box of sex toys and bondage gear.
2. There are so many damned laws you might be breaking one and you'd never know. It's probably a really stupid law, too.
3. Maybe you just don't want to unpack every damn thing in your car and pack it away again. I've got like two sealed emergency survival kits in my car and I'd be pretty pissed off if some cop opened them looking for drugs that weren't there. And have you ever seen a home that was searched by cops? You have to spend the whole rest of the weekend cleaning up and putting everything away afterwards, man.
BTW, the same reasoning applies if they knock on your door and ask to search your residence. If they have to ask, the answer is no.
Finally, if they present a warrant or go ahead and search it anyway even if you explicitly decline consent, then stay out of their way and get a lawyer.
If you have nothing in your car it's quite ok to have it searched, what specific reason would you have not to consent in the knowledge they can force the issue if they want to?
Your last phrase is not true. They need probable cause for a search, and a speeding charge will not give them that.
Reason #1 to refuse: The possibility of being framed.
Reason #2 to refuse: There could be something in the car that you're not aware of. I remember an old movie called The Star Chamber (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086356/ ). As I recall the plot, a man's van was stolen and used to commit a kidnap/murder, then returned to its initial location. A subsequent illegal police search turned up the kid's shoe under a seat, something the owner really had no clue about. This is a one-in-a-million occurrence, but it's you life we're talking about.
Your last phrase is not true. They need probable cause for a search, and a speeding charge will not give them that.
Reason #1 to refuse: The possibility of being framed.
Reason #2 to refuse: There could be something in the car that you're not aware of. I remember an old movie called The Star Chamber (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086356/ ). As I recall the plot, a man's van was stolen and used to commit a kidnap/murder, then returned to its initial location. A subsequent illegal police search turned up the kid's shoe under a seat, something the owner really had no clue about. This is a one-in-a-million occurrence, but it's you life we're talking about.
A 'one-in-a-million' occurrence from a movie and the police framing a stranger from out of state?
I'm pretty paranoid on the whole, however that seems a bit extreme even to me.
I'm the guy that will go over a rental car to make sure that someone didn't leave a surprise under the carpet or in the boot and I'll board the airplane with nothing except for what I can carry and keep my luggage in view at all times.
This sounds a little over the top to me though.
I'm pretty paranoid on the whole, however that seems a bit extreme even to me.
I'm the guy that will go over a rental car to make sure that someone didn't leave a surprise under the carpet or in the boot and I'll board the airplane with nothing except for what I can carry and keep my luggage in view at all times.
This sounds a little over the top to me though.
A 'one-in-a-million' occurrence from a movie and the police framing a stranger from out of state?
Trust me, it's not one-in-a-million. As far as the U.S. has come in race relations, I would never as a young black male consent to a search without cause. It's just too easy to be railroaded and have your life ruined. Why would you take that risk?
Trust me, it's not one-in-a-million. As far as the U.S. has come in race relations, I would never as a young black male consent to a search without cause. It's just too easy to be railroaded and have your life ruined. Why would you take that risk?
That's my European background getting the better of me, I'm linking to 'driving while black' elsewhere in this thread to offset my innate response which is that you can rely on the police to be even-handed.
Racial profiling exists here too but to a much lesser extent.
If I were black and living in the US it would change my attitude completely, but I'm not black and live in Europe, hence my 'rose coloured glasses'.
Apologies.
Racial profiling exists here too but to a much lesser extent.
If I were black and living in the US it would change my attitude completely, but I'm not black and live in Europe, hence my 'rose coloured glasses'.
Apologies.
It's not even only blacks now, for example:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/05/03/baltimore-police-arrest...
While you're there, check out some of the related posts. "Many" police in North America (more so in the USA I hope) have started to turn dangerous to the citizens they are supposed to be protecting.
If you read reddit on an a regular basis, you'd know there are numerous stories of totally innocent citizens being assaulted, jailed, framed, and sometimes literally killed in cold blood (no, this is not hyperbole, many have been captured on video) by this new strain of police officer.
This kind of makes this particular subject interesting...considering some of the cops on the beat these days, it might not be a particularly good idea to exercise your constitutional rights with an officer, as you might not make it out alive. (I haven't ever read of an example of this though thankfully).
While you're there, check out some of the related posts. "Many" police in North America (more so in the USA I hope) have started to turn dangerous to the citizens they are supposed to be protecting.
If you read reddit on an a regular basis, you'd know there are numerous stories of totally innocent citizens being assaulted, jailed, framed, and sometimes literally killed in cold blood (no, this is not hyperbole, many have been captured on video) by this new strain of police officer.
This kind of makes this particular subject interesting...considering some of the cops on the beat these days, it might not be a particularly good idea to exercise your constitutional rights with an officer, as you might not make it out alive. (I haven't ever read of an example of this though thankfully).
One recent one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hjcHjN7Fe8&feature=relat...
7 year old innocent girl killed.
Details and a very decent analysis are available here: http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2010/05/17.html
So, long story short, police in the USA operate above the law. This family, without a doubt, operated on the shady side of the fence, so if you want to write it off as that, feel free, it won't bother me.
But how will you feel when they start coming into your neighborhood and making "honest mistakes" like shooting sight unseen into a residence? I don't have the time right now, but I could link you to many youtube videos where people were doing pretty much nothing and the police came and just fucking hammered them, hard.
The thing about this one that struck me so personally is, I have a daughter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hjcHjN7Fe8&feature=relat...
7 year old innocent girl killed.
Details and a very decent analysis are available here: http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2010/05/17.html
So, long story short, police in the USA operate above the law. This family, without a doubt, operated on the shady side of the fence, so if you want to write it off as that, feel free, it won't bother me.
But how will you feel when they start coming into your neighborhood and making "honest mistakes" like shooting sight unseen into a residence? I don't have the time right now, but I could link you to many youtube videos where people were doing pretty much nothing and the police came and just fucking hammered them, hard.
The thing about this one that struck me so personally is, I have a daughter.
This is only peripherally related, but when I took a vacation in Bali a few years back I was a little worried when I saw at customs giant signs say "Carrying drugs is punishable by death". I knew I wasn't carrying any, but on the other hand, I had handed my suitcase (which must be unlocked these days) over to TSA and then baggage handlers; who knows what could have happened.
read and shiver:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/irish-...
No check-in luggage for me.
I get the weirdest looks though. Last year I spent a few months in Panama, arriving with nothing but a small carry-on bag.
I just joked that I heard it was warm there so I didn't need any clothing and they smiled and waved me through.
Nice country, Panama!
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/irish-...
No check-in luggage for me.
I get the weirdest looks though. Last year I spent a few months in Panama, arriving with nothing but a small carry-on bag.
I just joked that I heard it was warm there so I didn't need any clothing and they smiled and waved me through.
Nice country, Panama!
The opposite for US customs. Whenever I come back from a weekend trip abroad (hey, international flights are cheap), I always get searched because I have suspiciously little luggage. It would be funny if it wasn't the government going through my backpack for no reason. (Sadly, nobody has ever wanted my crypto key for the laptop. That's what I plan for, but I forget that they are actually more concerned with alcohol people didn't pay duty on than my .emacs file. If only they wrote that in the law book, I might not even mind customs...)
Anyway, note to drug smugglers: might as well smuggle a whole suitcase full of cocaine. Less suspicious.
Anyway, note to drug smugglers: might as well smuggle a whole suitcase full of cocaine. Less suspicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schapelle_Corby
She got 20 years for carrying drugs - and claims it was put into her bags by corrupt Customs officials in Australia.
She got 20 years for carrying drugs - and claims it was put into her bags by corrupt Customs officials in Australia.
Her lawyer is on the record that he made that claim up, and it was baggage handlers, not customs officials.
The rental car situation is a great example. A friend of mine's wife used to work for Enterprise and told me a story where they got back a car where one of the interior panels had been taken off and some kind of drugs put in there.
A story from a friend of a wife who used to work somewhere :)
Must have been pretty sloppy smugglers to forget that much dope, someone was likely shot over that one!
Here is a real life story: I rented a convertible in Ottawa for a visit to a number of places in the US, on a trip with final destination New York, mostly business.
I'd gone over the car after picking it up, and found nothing but an empty coca cola can under the seat so the car looked good to me. The weather was hot, the top was down and all was good.
We drove South for a bit, entering the US on highway 81, which is iirc a long bridge in a beautiful area of the country.
The customs guys stopped us, (I was traveling with one of my employees, a guy called Nick), asked for our passports, mine is Dutch and Nick I believe was traveling on a British passport, so we got the tourist treatment. As we were driving away, suddenly the customs guy ran after us and yelled to stop.
So I stopped the car, and asked what's up, and he said 'raise the top please'.
It took a bit of fiddling because we had no idea how to do it yet (a Sebring, worst road handling ever by the way), finally the top started moving.
And as it kept coming up further it proceeded to dump about 10 dirty diapers and half eaten mcDonalds meals all over the yard.
Customs officer not amused.
We showed him we had just rented the car and that that stuff was definitely not ours, they called some guys to clean it up.
So far for me checking the car :)
I do a better job of it since then.
Must have been pretty sloppy smugglers to forget that much dope, someone was likely shot over that one!
Here is a real life story: I rented a convertible in Ottawa for a visit to a number of places in the US, on a trip with final destination New York, mostly business.
I'd gone over the car after picking it up, and found nothing but an empty coca cola can under the seat so the car looked good to me. The weather was hot, the top was down and all was good.
We drove South for a bit, entering the US on highway 81, which is iirc a long bridge in a beautiful area of the country.
The customs guys stopped us, (I was traveling with one of my employees, a guy called Nick), asked for our passports, mine is Dutch and Nick I believe was traveling on a British passport, so we got the tourist treatment. As we were driving away, suddenly the customs guy ran after us and yelled to stop.
So I stopped the car, and asked what's up, and he said 'raise the top please'.
It took a bit of fiddling because we had no idea how to do it yet (a Sebring, worst road handling ever by the way), finally the top started moving.
And as it kept coming up further it proceeded to dump about 10 dirty diapers and half eaten mcDonalds meals all over the yard.
Customs officer not amused.
We showed him we had just rented the car and that that stuff was definitely not ours, they called some guys to clean it up.
So far for me checking the car :)
I do a better job of it since then.
Yes, used to work somewhere. She got laid off but I can see why that would seem funny from a random post on the internet.
The point I was trying to make is: you really don't ever truly know what's in your car and that's reason enough for me to not consent to any searches.
Since we're telling stories: I've been pulled over for a headlight being out and the cop was asking me routine questions for a stop.
Cop: "Where are you going?"
Me: "To the grocery store."
Cop: "Did you know one of your head lights was out?"
Me: "Are you serious?" (I actually didn't know my headlight was out)
Cop: grin
Me: "Yeah, I guess you're not just pulling me over for to be funny. No I didn't know it was out."
Cop: "Are you carrying any drugs?"
Me: "None that I'm aware of."
Cop: "Can I search your car?"
Me: "I do not consent to any searches."
Then he goes back to his car for a couple of minutes, comes back, and tells me I'm free to go and to get the headlight fixed. I didn't get the feeling he really wanted to search my car, just that he was doing it to do it. Did I have anything in the car that was illegal? No. Why did I refuse? There was no point. There's no connection between a headlight and what ever might have been in the car. Cops sometimes have more respect for you when you exercise your rights. At least this one did.
The point I was trying to make is: you really don't ever truly know what's in your car and that's reason enough for me to not consent to any searches.
Since we're telling stories: I've been pulled over for a headlight being out and the cop was asking me routine questions for a stop.
Cop: "Where are you going?"
Me: "To the grocery store."
Cop: "Did you know one of your head lights was out?"
Me: "Are you serious?" (I actually didn't know my headlight was out)
Cop: grin
Me: "Yeah, I guess you're not just pulling me over for to be funny. No I didn't know it was out."
Cop: "Are you carrying any drugs?"
Me: "None that I'm aware of."
Cop: "Can I search your car?"
Me: "I do not consent to any searches."
Then he goes back to his car for a couple of minutes, comes back, and tells me I'm free to go and to get the headlight fixed. I didn't get the feeling he really wanted to search my car, just that he was doing it to do it. Did I have anything in the car that was illegal? No. Why did I refuse? There was no point. There's no connection between a headlight and what ever might have been in the car. Cops sometimes have more respect for you when you exercise your rights. At least this one did.
> I can see why that would seem funny from a random post on the internet.
Yes, I figured pointing it out would make you smile, but I take your word for the story, just wonder how they explained the missing drugs to their boss, who must have assumed they had sold it on the side.
That's a somewhat career limiting move in the drug trade.
Nice interaction with the police officer, if all of them were like that it would be good.
I don't envy them their jobs at all, first responders get to see a lot of bad stuff in their time.
Yes, I figured pointing it out would make you smile, but I take your word for the story, just wonder how they explained the missing drugs to their boss, who must have assumed they had sold it on the side.
That's a somewhat career limiting move in the drug trade.
Nice interaction with the police officer, if all of them were like that it would be good.
I don't envy them their jobs at all, first responders get to see a lot of bad stuff in their time.
Rereading the GP, it didn't actually say drugs were found in the door. They probably saw something had been put in there and the rumors embroidered on that.
good question. I would suggest:
a) you might have passengers in the car who have something ilegal on them. in many states if a passenger drops drugs in your car so that it is not on their person, and no one admits to it, then it is considered the driver's property. Yes, even good friends might rat on you in this situation.
b) If the cop is looking to find anything to make an arrest to help them go with a hunch about you then they can start inspecting your tires or placement of a GPS on the window (illegal in many states) and could then drum up a charge of driving dangerous vehicle etc.
c) rental cars - you can never 100% check a rental car and it has been known for innocent people in Las Vegas to get stopped and the police find traces of cocaine powder etc in the ash try or coin holder, etc that belonged to a previous renter
In my case... I drive a sports car and so I keep nothing in the car in order for it to be as light as possible (no junk in the back, no crap on the floor). I have nothing in the car, I've never been in the possession of a controlled substance, I know my car is in top condition, etc... and I still wouldn't let the police search my car.
a) you might have passengers in the car who have something ilegal on them. in many states if a passenger drops drugs in your car so that it is not on their person, and no one admits to it, then it is considered the driver's property. Yes, even good friends might rat on you in this situation.
b) If the cop is looking to find anything to make an arrest to help them go with a hunch about you then they can start inspecting your tires or placement of a GPS on the window (illegal in many states) and could then drum up a charge of driving dangerous vehicle etc.
c) rental cars - you can never 100% check a rental car and it has been known for innocent people in Las Vegas to get stopped and the police find traces of cocaine powder etc in the ash try or coin holder, etc that belonged to a previous renter
In my case... I drive a sports car and so I keep nothing in the car in order for it to be as light as possible (no junk in the back, no crap on the floor). I have nothing in the car, I've never been in the possession of a controlled substance, I know my car is in top condition, etc... and I still wouldn't let the police search my car.
a) is a good one, b) is something I didn't know about, thanks for that one (currently not visiting the States, possibly never again, but a good warning all the same), c) I've been warned about and I check rental cars thoroughly.
Probably not as thoroughly as a police search but more than good enough to spot the vast majority of items left behind by previous occupants (and I should probably make a listing of that some day, it makes for interesting reading).
The most annoying stop ever was one in Germany in a relatively fancy car, when I was still young. They couldn't quite match the skinny kid in the jeans and the t-shirt with the car unless there were drugs involved and they took they time about it. I think they spent a whole hour and when I drove off they still thought I'd tricked them somehow.
I've never before had my peppermints checked for illegal substances :)
Probably not as thoroughly as a police search but more than good enough to spot the vast majority of items left behind by previous occupants (and I should probably make a listing of that some day, it makes for interesting reading).
The most annoying stop ever was one in Germany in a relatively fancy car, when I was still young. They couldn't quite match the skinny kid in the jeans and the t-shirt with the car unless there were drugs involved and they took they time about it. I think they spent a whole hour and when I drove off they still thought I'd tricked them somehow.
I've never before had my peppermints checked for illegal substances :)
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding his that they must stop the interrogation at the moment you invoke your right to an attorney.
My thought would be that if they continue to press you, politely but firmly tell them that you really don't feel comfortable answering any more questions until your lawyer arrives.
My thought would be that if they continue to press you, politely but firmly tell them that you really don't feel comfortable answering any more questions until your lawyer arrives.
So, you get to visit the station until your lawyer arrives, I guarantee it.
If an officer asks you a simple question and you give them the third degree, they'll respond in kind.
"I don't know" is a valid answer and will work in all those cases where there isn't any hard proof that you do know (or a tip-off).
If you do know and there has been a tip-off (so they know you know) they'll press you pretty hard for information.
I've travelled all over the world in cars with foreign plates and that's a great way to meet the local law enforcement types (Canadian plates in the Southern US states for instance seem to have some magical property that attracts police vehicles), on the whole policemen (rather than 'cops') have a job to do and if you make it harder they'll make your life harder.
If you feel you are being treated unfair simply shut up. Going lawyerly on them is going to backfire on you.
The police can be really annoying in some countries, and any advice in this thread should be adapted to local customs.
Not volunteering any information is a good start and is probably universal.
If an officer asks you a simple question and you give them the third degree, they'll respond in kind.
"I don't know" is a valid answer and will work in all those cases where there isn't any hard proof that you do know (or a tip-off).
If you do know and there has been a tip-off (so they know you know) they'll press you pretty hard for information.
I've travelled all over the world in cars with foreign plates and that's a great way to meet the local law enforcement types (Canadian plates in the Southern US states for instance seem to have some magical property that attracts police vehicles), on the whole policemen (rather than 'cops') have a job to do and if you make it harder they'll make your life harder.
If you feel you are being treated unfair simply shut up. Going lawyerly on them is going to backfire on you.
The police can be really annoying in some countries, and any advice in this thread should be adapted to local customs.
Not volunteering any information is a good start and is probably universal.
I've seen these two videos a long time ago and they are GREAT advice. It's actually scary the kind of stuff the cop says he has done and other cops will do to you during questioning.
In the UK, where I'm originally from, the police are not allowed to lie or ask you to do anything outside of your rights and so it is total wake up call for anyone who is not used to the way the police work here in the US.
This video is also useful, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk
However, a friend who I talked to about this did make a counter perspective... that sometimes it is worth talking to the cops in the right circumstances.
For example, if you are pulled over cos you just ran a stop sign and you have nothing illegal on you/in the car/etc then it is better just to talk to the cop and get the ticket dealt with. If you start playing the 'not going to say anything' and 'no you can't look in the car' then you are opening yourself up for a long painful experience and potentially arrest if they decide to fuck back with you and they can pin some suspicion for something on you (eg you are driving through an area that happens to be associated with drug sale, you have a LeatherMan tool you and the cop can say the knife was being carried for other intent, etc)
Cops are naturally authoritarian and can choose to make your life hell if they think you are trying to be superior or above them.
In the UK, where I'm originally from, the police are not allowed to lie or ask you to do anything outside of your rights and so it is total wake up call for anyone who is not used to the way the police work here in the US.
This video is also useful, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk
However, a friend who I talked to about this did make a counter perspective... that sometimes it is worth talking to the cops in the right circumstances.
For example, if you are pulled over cos you just ran a stop sign and you have nothing illegal on you/in the car/etc then it is better just to talk to the cop and get the ticket dealt with. If you start playing the 'not going to say anything' and 'no you can't look in the car' then you are opening yourself up for a long painful experience and potentially arrest if they decide to fuck back with you and they can pin some suspicion for something on you (eg you are driving through an area that happens to be associated with drug sale, you have a LeatherMan tool you and the cop can say the knife was being carried for other intent, etc)
Cops are naturally authoritarian and can choose to make your life hell if they think you are trying to be superior or above them.
If everyone who is innocent cedes their rights then yeah, asserting your rights will make you look suspicious. So never cede your rights to a cop under any circumstances. That's too important a principle to sacrifice for a more convenient traffic stop.
In a certain way it is already too late. Cops can pin random 'catch all' charges on your because the law allows them, some are vengeful and power hungry, they can legally lie to you, it is seems the system is already stacked up against you.
In other words, if you ran stop sign, do you want to be a "constitutional martyr" and expose yourself to a cop's rage? Do you want to be detained for a day when you have a family and a job to go to, do you want your car towed, do you want random charges that are hard to defend slapped on you? Even if all charges are cleared by a judge, the amount of effort, time and money spent is too much for most people to handle. They'd rather fly under the radar, hopefully, the cops will catch the next guy...
In other words, if you ran stop sign, do you want to be a "constitutional martyr" and expose yourself to a cop's rage? Do you want to be detained for a day when you have a family and a job to go to, do you want your car towed, do you want random charges that are hard to defend slapped on you? Even if all charges are cleared by a judge, the amount of effort, time and money spent is too much for most people to handle. They'd rather fly under the radar, hopefully, the cops will catch the next guy...
I don't see how you could be detained or have your car towed for refusing a search or any requests beyond your name, driver's license, and insurance. Maybe the officer could fabricate a traffic charge, which you could contest. (I'll agree you're likely screwed there - when it comes to traffic infractions you're guilty until proven innocent.) The officer might decide he smells something and force a search which makes you late for an appointment. Unfortunate for sure, and spiteful on the officer's part. But I don't think this reaches the level of martyrdom, and it'd be worth the shot of pride I get from defending my rights (though I understand not everyone would feel that way).
Am I missing something? What else could a cop do that doesn't require documented evidence of wrongdoing? I suppose Chicago-level corruption could wreck your life, and if that's the environment you're in then it's probably best to keep your head down. And take part in local government, or consider moving.
Am I missing something? What else could a cop do that doesn't require documented evidence of wrongdoing? I suppose Chicago-level corruption could wreck your life, and if that's the environment you're in then it's probably best to keep your head down. And take part in local government, or consider moving.
They can fabricate a charge. There are enough catch-all charges : "interfering with official business", "obstruction of justice", "looking suspicious" (my friend got a ticket for "suspicious behavior" in one of the mid-Western states!).
Your tires could seem to be too bold, your windshield could have a crack, your turn light might not work properly. Then the cop start "smelling drugs" that are not there (police camera don't have smell detectors!). He might decide you need to a DUI test. You might be to close to a drug or prostitution area -- so just that lets them arrest you. He thinks your license if fake, so he detains you to take you to the station to establish your identity.
If he detains or arrests you, your car is towed. You don't show up for work, your family is worried about you. Basically, you cannot win. You can only lose after you encounter a cop.
I guess what I am saying is that I am disappointed at the legal system and the disproportional power the police can project. But aside from calling my congressman, I don't know if I'd want to try to be a "constitutional martyr" and get a cop angry at me...
Your tires could seem to be too bold, your windshield could have a crack, your turn light might not work properly. Then the cop start "smelling drugs" that are not there (police camera don't have smell detectors!). He might decide you need to a DUI test. You might be to close to a drug or prostitution area -- so just that lets them arrest you. He thinks your license if fake, so he detains you to take you to the station to establish your identity.
If he detains or arrests you, your car is towed. You don't show up for work, your family is worried about you. Basically, you cannot win. You can only lose after you encounter a cop.
I guess what I am saying is that I am disappointed at the legal system and the disproportional power the police can project. But aside from calling my congressman, I don't know if I'd want to try to be a "constitutional martyr" and get a cop angry at me...
He can claim that his computer check shows that you canceled your car insurance. You are not allowed to drive your car, you are not allowed to park it here so they tow to the impound lot. This happened to me, when someone else checked the next day it seems he mis-read his in car computer -- there is nothing wrong with my insurance and I am free to get my car after paying for towing and storage fee.
The cops can do a lot worse than a $100 fine. That is the sort of thing that "don't talk to the cops" applies to, not minor traffic offenses.
More information in YouTube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FlexYourRights
Learn how to deal with police by asserting your constitutional rights.
Including "10 rules for dealing with police" and other things.
Learn how to deal with police by asserting your constitutional rights.
Including "10 rules for dealing with police" and other things.
My reply to your other US/UK comment in this thread is pertinent here too... I just don't feel like repeating myself:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1371237
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1371237
I agree with your friend; the optimal strategy is more nuanced than "don't say anything".
You have me convinced. 25% of those later exonerated by DNA evidence actually confessed to the crime? crazy.
Can't up-vote that enough. I would guess in a lot of those situations cops invited those people to the station "just to talk".
the founders knew what they were doing.
Excellent 45 minute ACLU documentary on how to interact with police in three situations: traffic stop, in your house, and on foot.
BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
tldr:
-say as little as possible.
-be courteous and don't argue or complain.
-memorize the phrase "I do not consent to any searches."
-do not invite police in your house.
BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
tldr:
-say as little as possible.
-be courteous and don't argue or complain.
-memorize the phrase "I do not consent to any searches."
-do not invite police in your house.
> do not invite police into your house.
Sorry, just made me laugh: can they cross running water? Do they reflect in mirrors?
The TL;DR seems like good advice in general.
Sorry, just made me laugh: can they cross running water? Do they reflect in mirrors?
The TL;DR seems like good advice in general.
I watched these a while ago, and based on what the second guy (the cop) has to say about him going to bat for a particularly nice iraq vet, while lying to and manipulating 'hood rats', I inferred the rule is don't talk to the cops if you're poor/black.
Indeed. I'm a white guy, and I've talked to the police repeatedly, back when I lived in the poor parts of various towns. As far as I know, nothing I've ever said to any police has been used against me. Of course, I assume I've hardly ever been a suspect, so maybe that's part of it, but the difficulty with all of this "don't talk to the police" is that we don't have any statistics on what percentage of people who talk to the police never even get arrested.
It's probably quite true that it will be difficult for the courts to convict you of anything if you don't talk to the police. However, it seems like there'd be a large risk of attracting a lot more attention than you otherwise would have, should you conspicuously refuse to talk to the police. Being arrested and having to endure a trial is, itself, a fairly large imposition on someone's liberty and time, and it's hard to know how many people would have been looked at far more closely had they insisted on saying nothing.
It's probably quite true that it will be difficult for the courts to convict you of anything if you don't talk to the police. However, it seems like there'd be a large risk of attracting a lot more attention than you otherwise would have, should you conspicuously refuse to talk to the police. Being arrested and having to endure a trial is, itself, a fairly large imposition on someone's liberty and time, and it's hard to know how many people would have been looked at far more closely had they insisted on saying nothing.
Very interesting reading on that subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_While_Black
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_While_Black
Like everything else, when and how much to talk to the police is a judgement call.
I am quite possibly the world's least legal driver; I've spent more of my adult license with a suspended license than a legitimate one. Not only that, but I drive around with expired plates. In one case, very, very expired plates. From a different state. And I drive a pretty consistent 10MPH over the limit.
And yet I very rarely get tickets. Because I am (I think) good at not antagonizing cops. For instance, here is a trick that works very reliably for me: when driving on the highway, if I see a cruiser pull out onto the road from a trap or the median, I pull over preemptively --- before the lights come on. They say, "why'd you pull over", I say "I figure you pulled out like that because I did something wrong", and they say "drive slower next time".
Similarly: dome light on, car engine off, hands on the wheel, window (mostly) down. "Got any weapons in the car"? That's a question I'm happy to answer.
I think the thing people don't realize is that most people are total assholes to police officers. Just being civil puts you in the top 10th percentile of their clientele. I'd rather be civil (and, for my neighborhood cops, helpful) than self-righteous.
Another thing, after reading the ACLU guides, watching the videos, and reading the books: you have rights, but you have no authority over the police. You usually have a constitutional right to be free from search without probable cause. But that does not mean you can prevent an unreasonable search; it merely means you're likely to win a case that hinges on evidence obtained from that search.
If you're an iota less than civil to a cop who's having a bad day, he'll arrest you. That's pretty much the ballgame. Your day is ruined. Find a friendly, polite, short way to avoid discussing incriminating topics with the police. Say, "sorry, I don't consent to searches" and, if pressed, "I'm really sorry, this is just a thing with me, but I'm not going to consent to a search; is there anything else I can do to help?". But do not say "My life might hang in the balance if I allow you to search me". You're just going to get arrested, and then immediately searched anyways.
Finally: none of these things apply near the border. You have essentially no rights near the border.
I am quite possibly the world's least legal driver; I've spent more of my adult license with a suspended license than a legitimate one. Not only that, but I drive around with expired plates. In one case, very, very expired plates. From a different state. And I drive a pretty consistent 10MPH over the limit.
And yet I very rarely get tickets. Because I am (I think) good at not antagonizing cops. For instance, here is a trick that works very reliably for me: when driving on the highway, if I see a cruiser pull out onto the road from a trap or the median, I pull over preemptively --- before the lights come on. They say, "why'd you pull over", I say "I figure you pulled out like that because I did something wrong", and they say "drive slower next time".
Similarly: dome light on, car engine off, hands on the wheel, window (mostly) down. "Got any weapons in the car"? That's a question I'm happy to answer.
I think the thing people don't realize is that most people are total assholes to police officers. Just being civil puts you in the top 10th percentile of their clientele. I'd rather be civil (and, for my neighborhood cops, helpful) than self-righteous.
Another thing, after reading the ACLU guides, watching the videos, and reading the books: you have rights, but you have no authority over the police. You usually have a constitutional right to be free from search without probable cause. But that does not mean you can prevent an unreasonable search; it merely means you're likely to win a case that hinges on evidence obtained from that search.
If you're an iota less than civil to a cop who's having a bad day, he'll arrest you. That's pretty much the ballgame. Your day is ruined. Find a friendly, polite, short way to avoid discussing incriminating topics with the police. Say, "sorry, I don't consent to searches" and, if pressed, "I'm really sorry, this is just a thing with me, but I'm not going to consent to a search; is there anything else I can do to help?". But do not say "My life might hang in the balance if I allow you to search me". You're just going to get arrested, and then immediately searched anyways.
Finally: none of these things apply near the border. You have essentially no rights near the border.
I work with cops, for an ex-cop and have been arrested a couple of times for "kicks" or through false accusation. So this is my experience...
Generally the idea of not saying anything without a lawyer is sensible and advised. But I think you have to be pragmatic about it.
For example we were stopped entering a country once (by the police not border guards) and asked a few fairly routine questions about drug importation.
I answered them because there seemed little danger and got released with an apology in about 5 minutes (probably even less - they just pulled us to one side into little alcoves). But my friend clammed up and asked for a lawyer, "no comment" etc, had to wait about 40 minutes for one to turn up, got told to just answer the questions and was there answering them for about another 20m. Pointless...
You have to remember that for the most part cops are people (I need to remember that myself sometimes because they can be the most infuriating techno-phobes too :P) and usually aren't out to get us.
I advise - if you're worried, don't answer questions, but stay polite and engage in small talk if you feel safe (i.e. they aren't leading you somewhere with it). If you're confident just answer the questions and be helpful - it saves everyone time.
Generally the idea of not saying anything without a lawyer is sensible and advised. But I think you have to be pragmatic about it.
For example we were stopped entering a country once (by the police not border guards) and asked a few fairly routine questions about drug importation.
I answered them because there seemed little danger and got released with an apology in about 5 minutes (probably even less - they just pulled us to one side into little alcoves). But my friend clammed up and asked for a lawyer, "no comment" etc, had to wait about 40 minutes for one to turn up, got told to just answer the questions and was there answering them for about another 20m. Pointless...
You have to remember that for the most part cops are people (I need to remember that myself sometimes because they can be the most infuriating techno-phobes too :P) and usually aren't out to get us.
I advise - if you're worried, don't answer questions, but stay polite and engage in small talk if you feel safe (i.e. they aren't leading you somewhere with it). If you're confident just answer the questions and be helpful - it saves everyone time.
It's something you should share with your children (grown or not). I have a particular interest in this subject because of "zero tolerance" policies in schools. Too often, children defer to authority -- as they've been taught by ...uh... the authorities -- and when the principal says "Write out what happened and sign it," that resulting confession is often given to the police. Cops certainly can't demand that a suspect write a confession without first advising the suspect of their rights ("You have the right to remain silent..."), but school officials -- typically government agents in their own right -- don't seem to have a problem obtaining confessions for use against their own students, even without bringing in their parents first (let alone a lawyer). Kids (and adults!) often don't understand that they are sealing their own fate when they comply with such outrageous demands.
The kids don't have a choice in this situation, do they? From what I remember, the Supreme Court has ruled that students in public schools don't have constitutional rights. If the school wants to expel the student for not talking, they can do so.
The kids don't have a choice in this situation, do they? From what I remember, the Supreme Court has ruled that students in public schools don't have constitutional rights. If the school wants to expel the student for not talking, they can do so.
Actually, the SCOTUS has ruled the opposite. In the case Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court ruled that the students who were wearing arm-bands as a protest against the Vietnam War enjoyed first-amendment protection and discipline from the school was illegal. The court has been much more lenient on searches -- see New Jersey v T. L. O. However, you still need at least some reasonable ground for a search to be legal.
As for interrogations, the supreme court has yet to rule on it. There is, however, a case brewing: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0405/Supreme-Court.... The fact that it's written in such a fashion as to be assumed that students have Fifth Amendment rights and the court cases are arguing over a technicality of pre-trial processing would seem to imply that students don't shed that right, either. Specifically: "A juvenile court judge determined that Paul did not understand that he had a right to remain silent and a right to have a lawyer and his parents present for the entire interrogation. The judge ruled that police coerced Paul’s confession."
As for interrogations, the supreme court has yet to rule on it. There is, however, a case brewing: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0405/Supreme-Court.... The fact that it's written in such a fashion as to be assumed that students have Fifth Amendment rights and the court cases are arguing over a technicality of pre-trial processing would seem to imply that students don't shed that right, either. Specifically: "A juvenile court judge determined that Paul did not understand that he had a right to remain silent and a right to have a lawyer and his parents present for the entire interrogation. The judge ruled that police coerced Paul’s confession."
Public school students don't have full first amendment rights. If the speech interferes with the school's ability to conduct classes, the administration can stop it. I don't know the case name, but this was established in a case with a high school principal censoring the school newspaper.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.
"Instead of "teach[ing] children to respect the diversity of ideas that is fundamental to the American system," and "that our Constitution is a living reality, not parchment preserved under glass," the Court today "teach[es] youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." The young men and women of Hazelwood East expected a civics lesson, but not the one the Court teaches them today." --Justice William J. Brennan, in dissent on said case
"Instead of "teach[ing] children to respect the diversity of ideas that is fundamental to the American system," and "that our Constitution is a living reality, not parchment preserved under glass," the Court today "teach[es] youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." The young men and women of Hazelwood East expected a civics lesson, but not the one the Court teaches them today." --Justice William J. Brennan, in dissent on said case
Expulsion is another issue altogether, outside the law. The point is, students shouldn't talk to police officers just like they shouldn't talk to strangers.
My high school vice principal loved to remind me that he didn't need 'probable cause' to search students persons or possessions, only 'reasonable doubt'.
I see the tide shifting from an unrelenting awe of law enforcement authority to a far more astute and cautious state that regards police with a guarded circumspection.
This is actually a healthy thing for those interested in American liberty.
All children should also be trained exactly opposite of what law enforcement teaches in the public schools. My kids talk to me first- NOT the cops.
Also, something not touched on in very many places is how close to get to law enforcement when they are out of uniform. My suggestion: arms length always, unless they are a close family member or you are as boring as a bag of green beans.
This is actually a healthy thing for those interested in American liberty.
All children should also be trained exactly opposite of what law enforcement teaches in the public schools. My kids talk to me first- NOT the cops.
Also, something not touched on in very many places is how close to get to law enforcement when they are out of uniform. My suggestion: arms length always, unless they are a close family member or you are as boring as a bag of green beans.
I think that is not uncorrelated with the fact that now more people have access to non-traditional media like youtube, web forums, other online communities, where police brutality videos, stories about abuse of power,and injustice can spread.
Americans traditional media will not turn against cops and will "appropriately" filter stories to make the system of government look good.
In other words, I think cops have always acted this way, it is just that the general public have been mis-informed.
Americans traditional media will not turn against cops and will "appropriately" filter stories to make the system of government look good.
In other words, I think cops have always acted this way, it is just that the general public have been mis-informed.
The first guy is by far the most skilled and rehearsed public speaker I have ever seen in my entire life.
[deleted]
This really gets driven home when you watch a show like "The First 48" and realize that a lot of murder cases are basically strong circumstantial evidence and a confession. Take out the confession and getting a conviction is really, really hard. With it though, the chances are very good.
Yes, on a episode I watched a couple of days ago the cop first tells the camera "we have no proper evidence to take this suspect to court. None whatsoever". He than talks to tge suspect and says "some people told me I should talk to you about this. Tell me what happened.." And the guy confesses everything. It went to a case in which they had no openings at all to a case-closed conviction...
Curious—am I allowed to video/audiotape a conversation with law enforcement?
I was recently the passenger in a car pulled over by the police. My iPhone rang with a text message and the cop abruptly asked "are you recording me!?" I wasn't ... but so what if I was? If cops want to talk to me, can I record the conversation?
I was recently the passenger in a car pulled over by the police. My iPhone rang with a text message and the cop abruptly asked "are you recording me!?" I wasn't ... but so what if I was? If cops want to talk to me, can I record the conversation?
Be very, very careful. In several states, like my home state Illinois, two-party consent statutes allow you to be charged with a felony for recording on-duty officers; in others, recording on-duty officers is an overt and specific felony.
Some journalism student just got pegged with a felony charge, and failed in his attempt to get the charged dismissed, because he surruptitiously recorded an on-duty cop here. Not worth it.
Some journalism student just got pegged with a felony charge, and failed in his attempt to get the charged dismissed, because he surruptitiously recorded an on-duty cop here. Not worth it.
As I understand it that is usually (I don't know specifically about IL) about surreptitious recording. If the other party (the cop) is informed and continues the interaction, you are covered. As I have written before, the 2-party consent rules are specifically for the benefit of low-lifes. Nothing prevents one party reporting what transpired in a conversation, all the anti-recording laws do is to allow liars to get away with it by not preserving an objective record.
"Hey, sir, I just need to tell you that I'm recording this for my rec---"
"Turn it off. Now."
"But---"
"TURN IT OFF AND STEP OUT OF THE CAR."
You're right, but not in a relevant way.
(I have a very little bit of experience with this, though not with municipal police; a friend got assaulted because of this, too).
"Turn it off. Now."
"But---"
"TURN IT OFF AND STEP OUT OF THE CAR."
You're right, but not in a relevant way.
(I have a very little bit of experience with this, though not with municipal police; a friend got assaulted because of this, too).
But you can still ask to record it right? And if for some reason the cop OKs it, then it should be all good?
In Illinois, I think you're OK if the cop consents (this is kind of an academic point, since they won't consent). But there are other states where, if I understand the statute correctly, consent isn't relevant.
Generally no.
The thing with this kind of advice is while it's important to realize that nothing good can come from talking to a cop, the circumstances of the situation has to be factored in. Case in point, a police officer approaches you about a murder investigation, then yes this is great advice. If you are pulled over for rolling through a 4 way stop, yeah clamming up just isn't warranted and likely to cause you more trouble than it's worth.
At traffic stops, behaving very friendly and polite and sober and knowing exactly where your license, registration, and proof of insurance are goes a long way, even if you play dumb about why you were pulled over. Sometimes there is no reason. They might ask you what you're out for, but that's just to make conversation so they can size you up and it won't lead to anything (unless you say something stupid like "buying some weed").
Also highly recommended, since at times there's more to all this than just not talking when you don't have to: http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-A...
I wonder if the "never talk to a cop" people will feel the same way if one of their kids is missing, and all the people who saw the abduction refuse to speak without getting lawyers?
My route standard response to law enforcement queries:
"I'm sorry Mr./Mrs/Sargent/Lt X, but I don't talk to police on material matters without counsel present."
"I'm sorry Mr./Mrs/Sargent/Lt X, but I don't talk to police on material matters without counsel present."
A related question: apart from a subpoena in court, are you required to talk to police about anything even with counsel present?
You may have to say your name if asked. Anything else, nope.
You might have to testify against yourself in court, without Fifth Amendment protection, if you're given immunity for whatever you are about to testify to. (This is interesting, because federal courts can use the testimony from state proceedings against you, but the state can't give you federal immunity. Double jeopardy does not apply because the state and federal courts are different. Pretty sure that's not what the framers meant when they were writing the Tenth Amendment...)
You might have to testify against yourself in court, without Fifth Amendment protection, if you're given immunity for whatever you are about to testify to. (This is interesting, because federal courts can use the testimony from state proceedings against you, but the state can't give you federal immunity. Double jeopardy does not apply because the state and federal courts are different. Pretty sure that's not what the framers meant when they were writing the Tenth Amendment...)
I would argue from an information theory perspective that ever speaking about anything may be self incriminating for any crime you have ever commuted. Also, I am fairly positive federal immunity does not protect you vs the hague. So you could still be convicted of say war crimes based on testimony even if you had immunity.
Unfortunately, the law does not agree with me.
Unfortunately, the law does not agree with me.
Yeah. If you've killed two million children, or something, you might want to just take the contempt sentence. Though there is probably other evidence of your guilt...
Depending on the state and whether or not the inquiry comes from local or federal officials, you MAY be required to give your full legal name and full address of your legal primary residence. That's it.
Ever since the Hiibel ruling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distri..., the states have adopted a hodgepodge of differing identity query standards.
Ever since the Hiibel ruling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distri..., the states have adopted a hodgepodge of differing identity query standards.
I'd love to see the same kind of advice for other countries.
My advice for the UK is to generally be cooperative with the police because unlike the US are not allowed to lie nor ask you to do anything outside of your rights.
EG, if they start searching your car when they pull you over, and they don't have a warrant or you are not under arrest then the evidence collected is not admissible in court.
However the UK doesn't quite have a total "right to remain silent" law anymore, the current miranda warning is
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defense if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."
and as such taking the tact of not saying anything at all can actually get an innocent person into some legal difficulties if simply giving reasonable facts about your innocence would have helped the situation at the time of quesitoning.
EG, if they start searching your car when they pull you over, and they don't have a warrant or you are not under arrest then the evidence collected is not admissible in court.
However the UK doesn't quite have a total "right to remain silent" law anymore, the current miranda warning is
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defense if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."
and as such taking the tact of not saying anything at all can actually get an innocent person into some legal difficulties if simply giving reasonable facts about your innocence would have helped the situation at the time of quesitoning.
You seem to imply that cops in the US _are_ allowed to lie, and search your private property without cause.
If a cop in the US lies to you, or searches your car without cause, or otherwise 'tricks' you, it's no more admissible that it would be in the UK. The issue (in both countries) is proving the cop lied to you, tricked you, etc. Which is the whole point of have legal consul present in the first place.
One of the comments on the article mentions that the 'UK version of the "Miranda rights" includes the sentence "It may harm your defense if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."' The most common tactic I've heard cops employ in the US is "if you're innocent, it's in your best interest to talk to us." It would appear the UK has that trick built right in to the process from the start.
If a cop in the US lies to you, or searches your car without cause, or otherwise 'tricks' you, it's no more admissible that it would be in the UK. The issue (in both countries) is proving the cop lied to you, tricked you, etc. Which is the whole point of have legal consul present in the first place.
One of the comments on the article mentions that the 'UK version of the "Miranda rights" includes the sentence "It may harm your defense if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."' The most common tactic I've heard cops employ in the US is "if you're innocent, it's in your best interest to talk to us." It would appear the UK has that trick built right in to the process from the start.
"If a cop in the US lies to you, or searches your car without cause, or otherwise 'tricks' you, it's no more admissible that it would be in the UK. The issue (in both countries) is proving the cop lied to you, tricked you"
Well, my understanding is different. Here is an example:
Suspect is in the police station being questioned and the police officer says "we know you did it, your friend who we arrested in the car with you said you did it. he just gave a statement. Why don't you just sign this confession now and we'll sort out a deal".
(The police officer lied, the other person hadn't said anything let alone made a statement)
In the US that would be admissible in court because it doesn't matter how the confession was reached, even lies (short of beating the suspect/etc). In the UK that would not be admissible because it would obtained through lying to the suspect.
You are right though, no matter where you are in the world, by the time you are being questioned in the police station it is time to make sure you have legal counsel... and not the one provided to you by the state but a lawyer you already know. For this reason everyone should have a connection with an appropriate lawyer and have their information to hand in case of arrest.
Well, my understanding is different. Here is an example:
Suspect is in the police station being questioned and the police officer says "we know you did it, your friend who we arrested in the car with you said you did it. he just gave a statement. Why don't you just sign this confession now and we'll sort out a deal".
(The police officer lied, the other person hadn't said anything let alone made a statement)
In the US that would be admissible in court because it doesn't matter how the confession was reached, even lies (short of beating the suspect/etc). In the UK that would not be admissible because it would obtained through lying to the suspect.
You are right though, no matter where you are in the world, by the time you are being questioned in the police station it is time to make sure you have legal counsel... and not the one provided to you by the state but a lawyer you already know. For this reason everyone should have a connection with an appropriate lawyer and have their information to hand in case of arrest.
They're allowed to search your private property with your consent. Silent acquiescence is considered consent. If they knock on the door, you open the door, and they step inside, and they start poking around, and you haven't said anything? You consented to that search.
I recently finished reading Homicide by David Simon. It is a mind-blowingly good book. From that book I learned, yes, cops can lie to you. And when they're interrogating a suspect, they lie all the time.
Isn’t that also the case in the US? Evidence attained illegally is admissible in court in Germany, I don’t think it is in the US.
I don’t know how that changes whether you should talk or not, though.
I don’t know how that changes whether you should talk or not, though.
The difference is this...
A suspect is stopped by the police while driving his car. During the discusion with the suspect the police officer says "I'm just going to take a look in the vehicle if that is ok?" and with the suspect saying nothing (ie not stopping him) the police officer finds something illegal in the car.
In the US this would be admissible in court because the suspect waived his rights, in the UK I believe it would not be admissible because you cannot waiver your rights.
A suspect is stopped by the police while driving his car. During the discusion with the suspect the police officer says "I'm just going to take a look in the vehicle if that is ok?" and with the suspect saying nothing (ie not stopping him) the police officer finds something illegal in the car.
In the US this would be admissible in court because the suspect waived his rights, in the UK I believe it would not be admissible because you cannot waiver your rights.
The reasons for not talking mentioned in the linked article and video don’t really even touch on what you are mentioning here.
In the U.S., the police are allowed to lie to suspects in order to get a confession. They are not allowed to search you or your property without probable cause or a search warrant. If they do so, the evidence obtained (and all evidence stemming from the original evidence -- fruit of the poisonous tree) is not admissible.
I have heard German lawyers recommending the same thing. I suspect this might be true for any country in which you have the right to remain silent.
And you'd have to differentiate further for:
- visitor from another country
- visitor from out-of-state
- skin colour other than default for that locality
- male / female / other
The variations are endless, and I think that for each of those the rules are subtly different.
- visitor from another country
- visitor from out-of-state
- skin colour other than default for that locality
- male / female / other
The variations are endless, and I think that for each of those the rules are subtly different.
This looks strangely familiar to the memes I saw on Reddit. You know, the stuff I was kinda delighted to see Hacker New was missing.
I had the cops come by my apartment once. Apparently some kids were shooting airsoft guns into the neighbor's yard and endangering their kids, and they thought I knew something about it. I didn't, but the cops spent the whole time acting like they had a witness who saw me talking to the kids--and singled me out by my t-shirt and car--and were convinced I knew who they were.
They even played good cop bad cop--one of them acted friendly and sympathetic, "I know you don't want to rat out your friends", complimenting me on my music (I had Iron Maiden playing on my Pandora at the time) while the other one was a total dick and kept saying "We know you're lying". They were expert at turning around everything I tried to say--I'd say "I'm sorry, I can't help you", and they'd say, "Why can't you help us? Why can't you just tell us what you know?"
Then, of course, since they were rather intimidating they kept commenting that I was acting "avoidant" and implying that meant I knew something, when actually I was just intimidated by them. It didn't help that at the beginning they told me to keep my hands out of my pockets, which is an obvious security measure but also a power game.
To this day, I still don't know if they got a tip on me from someone who saw me and misinterpreted the situation, or if they were sweeping the whole complex and bluffing their way into making everyone think they had a specific tip on them. Or maybe they were just practicing their interrogation skills. Nothing ever came of it, but I should have known from the outset to say nothing.