9 ms·

I'm a little surprised that Ronnie even engaged in an apparent argument or conversation with the cop. A very good friend of mine who is an attorney and has giv

I'm a little surprised that Ronnie even engaged in an apparent argument or conversation with the cop. A very good friend of mine who is an attorney and has given me the following advice which I give to an officer anytime I'm stopped. It goes like this: Officer, please understand - after I identify myself with my name and date of birth (and proof of insurance if I am driving a motor vehicle) I am refusing to answer any questions until I have a reasonable opportunity to consult with my attorney. I refuse to take any field sobriety tests including: reciting letters and counting numbers, letting you look into my eyes with or without your flashlight, or any other physical tests performed outside my vehicle until I consult with my attorney. I refuse to get out of my car unless you order me to do so. However, I still refuse all field sobriety tests. I will show you my hands at all times so that your safety will not become an issue. I refuse to consent to the search of my vehicle, my person, my belongings, or any premises with which I have an expectation of privacy, including my residence, hotel room or any other rented room without the reasonable opportunity to consult my attorney. If you have probable cause to search you do not need my consent anyway. If I am not under arrest but you are going to issue a traffic citation please do so immediately so that I may go about my business. If I am not under arrest and no citation is going to be issued please tell me if I am free to leave so that I may go about my business without further interference with my liberty. If I am under arrest, please tell me immediately so that I can cooperate by submitting to your authority because I do not wish to resist or obstruct your official duties. If I am under arrest I wish to invoke all my rights under Miranda. I want my attorney. I won't answer any questions, perform any field sobriety tests or consent to any search without a reasonable opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney. Then I shut up!

RealGeek 11y ago
> Then I shut up! What if the cop feel threat to his life by your long speech and verbal resistance?
- emcrazyone 11y ago
  I don't recite that. I have it printed on a piece of card stock about the size of a business card and I hand it to them along with my driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration. I simply tell the officer I am exercising my right to remain silent as I hand him/her these items - then I shut up. I've only used it once and it seem to work. So I guess I can say I have one data point where it was used. My attorney friend has this printed on his business card and this is the advice he gave me - to do the same.
  - fernly 11y ago
    "printed on ... a business card" -- at what point size? That's a lot of text!
    - barsonme 11y ago
      Well, s/he forgot the part where you hand the officer a magnifying glass as well.
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    You can refuse a breathalyzer if you want in the state where I live, but by doing that your license is automatically suspended for a year.
    - DugFin 11y ago
      He's only declining FIELD sobriety tests. I know of no state that automatically pulls licenses for refusal to play along with a FIELD sobriety test.
cryoshon 11y ago
Cue people who will say that you're "being an asshole" or that you should expect bad treatment because of the formal way that you have chosen to address the cop. Cops will hate hearing what you've written here, and it'll probably single you out for additional scrutiny and rights-violations. It's pretty bad that things have come to this.
- emcrazyone 11y ago
  agreed but what other option do you have?
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  It sets the tone, when it doesn't have to be that way. Suppose the officer pulled you over to tell you your tail light is out. (Has happened to me). Friendly enough. Then you roll down your window and recite a two minute speech about your lawyer and Miranda. You have just communicated to the officer exactly what you think of him, how you have zero faith in him, and how uncooperative you plan to be. How would that NOT sour the interaction? You assume every time you are pulled over, the officer is salivating at the thought of cuffing you.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > Then you roll down your window and recite a two minute speech about your lawyer and Miranda. As the OP said (45 minutes before you made your comment) [0] this "speech" is printed on a card, which he hands to the officer, while informing the officer that he is exercising his right to remain silent. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10943296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10943296
  - itchyouch 11y ago
    Anecdotally, the area has some bearing on cop behavior, but as always YMMY. Typically, I've seen major city cops & speed trap cops are generally efficient. They will issue a citation, or provide a verbal warning and send the individual on their way. Cops in rural areas with very little to do and very little oversight from say fellow state troopers tend to sour and abuse their power in ways the uneducated would have no idea that their rights were being trampled on. Even when people know, if there's no consequence (e.g. got illegally searched, but nothing was found), people tend to not bother with obtaining justice against these behaviors as the time and money involved to complain, sue, etc brings very little reward for the effort involved. So we have a feedback loop where cops can abuse their power and nothing of consequence ever really comes about. If the power abuse yields are juicy find such as alcohol, drugs or any illegal product, people will tend to be more preoccupied with getting charged, that they also have little wherewithal to attempt to seek justice for the given officer's actions. Thus we have another feedback loop that positively reinforces abusive behavior. Trample on someone's right and make them a felon, then get a pat on the back for taking said felon off the streets.
hayd 11y ago
How many times have you been pulled over and recited that? ...and how's it work out for you?
- nullrouted 11y ago
  He'll try it once....refusing to comply with a sobriety test means the loss of a license for a year in most states.
sparky_z 11y ago
I've heard other lawyers give this advice. It may or may not be good advice, depending on circumstances, but I'm a little suspicious of the lawyer's motive. It sounds designed to ensure that every single traffic stop, no matter how benign, results in billable hours.
- viraptor 11y ago
  It does on both sides though. So with enough volume that's a win. (== current approach is not possible to continue)
- abricot 11y ago
  It's his own homebrewn field sobriety test. I guess that would work for the cop too :) "Dui person kept mumbling incoherrently about searching his dog and his hotel room, and calling up his lawyer. Talked a hell of a lot, while invoking the right to keep quiet"
  - chii 11y ago
    this is why i think having a dashcam recording with live upload is a good idea. Or better yet, a wide angle lense at the top of the vehicle, so the cops can't get out of view.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Yeah, I'm suspicious too. The more I read about life in the US, the more I think the law system there is ripe for disruption. Lawyers are the middlemen, introducing huge inefficiencies and taking enormous rents out. Somebody needs to cut them out.
  - kabdib 11y ago
    People have been saying that for centuries, and long before the US was a thing.
  - gamblor956 11y ago
    Lawyers are not middlemen between people and the law. Lawyers are the experts who know the law and make interactions with the law more efficient. Context-relevant example: a person dealing with a DUI stop might spend months of their own time fighting the DUI in court without a lawyer--days wasted just trying to figure out what to do. But with a lawyer, most DUI cases are wrapped up in about a day or two! If your time is truly worthless, go ahead and try to play at the law yourself. But if your time, and your freedom, has any value, pay the expert to do it for you.
djKianoosh 11y ago
has any person of color ever tried this? I always find advice like this dubious. Is this for real?
- LordKano 11y ago
  When police officers ask me where I'm going, I say "I'm on my way to obey the law, officer." Occasionally, I'll say "I'm going to decline to answer that question, officer."
rdtsc 11y ago
> Then I shut up! And most likely lose your license for a year in many cases and be charged with a civil offense. Maybe the officer can still "smell" it on your or see you drive erratically and so have enough "evidence" to pile on criminal charges as well. In some states they could charge you with the driving under DUI as well. It think refusal case is called "Implied Consent" -- you consented to it already by getting into the car and driving on public roads. Not saying I agree with it or endorse that, just presenting it how it may work in some states.
- ccvannorman 11y ago
  Smelling (weed) is no longer probable cause to search a vehicle, Supreme Court said so. [1] [1] http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/07/court-rules-odor-is-not-sufficient-for-cops-to-have-probable-cause/ http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/07/court-rules-odor-is-no...
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    Jesus christ. Thanks for a link with browser-takeover, ad-spam crap. Loaded the page, and the window's taken over by a popover from MacKeeper or whatever the hell it is. Click the dismiss button, and it opens a fucking new page to their site to download shit. Close that window. Think maybe I mis-clicked. Do it again--because it's still taking up the whole damn screen--same result. How do you read such a shitty site with such user-hostile practices? And even if you can, why would you post such a link to HN? Gah. Time to get an adblocker, I guess. Anyway, SCOTUS hasn't ruled on smelling marijuana and probable cause as far as I can tell. That was, to my knowledge, the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
    - Kliment 11y ago
      Very likely the person who posted it was unaware due to using an ad blocker or script blocker.
      - bobwaycott 11y ago
marshray 11y ago
In some states you do not have the right to refuse a sobriety test. http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/implied-consent-laws.html http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/implied-consent-laws.html
- matheweis 11y ago
  ... and in others, although you may refuse, they will immediately get a court ordered search warrant for a blood draw.
  - seanp2k2 11y ago
    Yup. In most cases, as awful as it is, it's simply much less legal trouble to submit to the test if you haven't had anything to drink / smoke.
GrinningFool 11y ago
So do you read all that off of a card? I say this having never been searched nor asked to take a field sobriety test, but I've always found that a modicum of respect and politeness keeps things quite civil and ensures no trouble.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  I hate to bring it up, but are you white? I suspect that race, and where you live changes these things a lot. Don't get me wrong, I agree that being respectful, polite, and not being a pain in the ass helps. I'm white, and have been pulled over a couple of times, with no real issue. The one time I was riding with a black family member (who had done nothing ticket-able, or suspicious) was one of the longest and most troublesome police incidents I've ever seen. Anecdotal? yes, but it mirrors statistics that I've seen.
  - GrinningFool 11y ago
    I am and that's certainly a factor - though I lose points in the 'respectable citizen' department for long hair, occasional beard, and tattoos. My wife is not, though, and her experiences have mirrored mine. But anecdotes, etc. I'm not saying that it's always going to work out, nor that there's never a time and place that OP's method is appropriate - only that starting a dialog that way is unnecessarily antagonistic.
- dalke 11y ago
  How is that text not respectful? It's well-aligned with what I've read about what the courts say is needed in order to fully express that you wish to exercise all your rights, and not give any of them up voluntarily.
  - GrinningFool 11y ago
    The text itself is respectful enough. The problem is more the subtext: "You are the enemy, and are not be trusted. Therefore it is only possible for us to interact under these precise terms."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
taneq 11y ago
If you can recite all of that first go then you're almost certainly clean and sober. :P
pdkl95 11y ago
> Then I shut up! This is always important. Use your right to remain silent and never talk to police! Anybody that questions this should see this[1] attorney's very good explanation. > I want my attorney. I won't answer any questions Note that it's a good idea to explicitly invoke both of these (your right to an attorney and your right to not self incriminate). Law comic has a very rigorous flowchart[2] for handling being questioned by the police (or other government agent). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [2] http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897
- V-2 11y ago
  I've seen this lecture before ([1]). It's pure gold :) The follow-up from a police officer was interesting, too - funny how the tricks he mentioned were the same as depicted in "The Wire" (which I watched later). The show got it quite right!
- jrs235 11y ago
  The important thing here is to explicitly state that you refuse to answer any questions without legal counsel present. Then, shut up. Remaining silent and not telling them you will not answer their questions can be used against you in court. See Salinas vs. Texas. "So, again, the government can't offer negative comments on the choice not to testify and may not offer negative comments on a person's choice to remain silent after an arrest. Salinas brought the question, what about silence before an arrest?"[0] "Basically, if you're ever in any trouble with police (no, we don't condone breaking laws) and want to keep your mouth shut, you will need to announce that you're invoking your Fifth Amendment right instead of, you know, just keeping your mouth shut." [1] "if he wanted to rely on his right to remain silent, he had to say something that clearly asserted his right." [2] [0] http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/supreme-court-silence-can-be-used-against-you/ http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/supreme-court-silence-can-... [1] http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-salinas-v-texas-ruling-explained/66309/ http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-salina... [2] http://volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have-a-right-to-remain-silent-thoughts-on-the-sleeper-criminal-procedure-case-of-the-term-salinas-v-texas/ http://volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have-a-right-to-remain-s... http://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/silence-isnt-always-golden-in-government-investigations-bracing-for-the-impact-of-the-supreme-courts-decision-in-salinas-v-texas-7-8-2013/ http://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/silence-isnt-always-golden-in...
bbcbasic 11y ago
And perhaps get these bad boys tattooed to your arms, just in case. http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897
Laaw 11y ago
It's a crime in the state of Virginia to refuse a sobriety test when pulled over, due to implied consent. http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-268.2/ http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-268.2/ I realize it says "under arrest", but I think case law has established that also means when detained/pulled over, as well. I really want someone to prove me wrong about that, though. I never know what to say/not say when pulled over. Edit: http://boonebeale.com/implied-consent-refusing-a-breath-test-and-the-consequences-of-a-dui-in-chesterfield-va/ http://boonebeale.com/implied-consent-refusing-a-breath-test... Some research does say it's okay to refuse preliminary tests if you're not under arrest, but once you're arrested you must consent. I guess the good news is they can't arrest you if they can't provide probable cause, which they might have trouble establishing if you refuse preliminary testing.
- vacri 11y ago
  > but once you're arrested you must consent Surely that's better phrased as "once you're arrested, they do not require your consent"? Consent isn't consent if you have no option.
  - corin_ 11y ago
    They won't neccesarily physically force a test on you if you don't consent, so it's not that you can't consent it's that not consenting could be a legal offense that's as bad as consenting and getting a bad result.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    The law still treats forced consent as consent when it is in the laws favor.
- tonyarkles 11y ago
  I realize this is Canada and not the US, but up here there's a few ways to get burned: - You can be charged with driving while impaired without failing any kind of field sobriety test/breathalyzer (Criminal Code 253.1) - Refusing a breathalyzer test or field sobriety test is also a criminal offence (254.5) And I don't have a cite for this off the top of my head, but I recall that there was a Charter challenge for mass road-side check-stops (we frequently have those during holiday weekends), and the Supreme Court used clause 1 (below) to say that while road-side check-stops do in fact violate your Charter rights, they're justifiable in a free and democratic society. Clause 1: "...guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Edit: at least they do document what the standardized field sobriety test can consist of: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2008-196/latest/sor-2008-196.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQANc29icmlldHkgdGVzdAAAAAAB&resultIndex=3 http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2008-196/latest/so...
ideonexus 11y ago
Bruce Shneier linked to two talks, one from a Regent University Law Professor (a third-tier Christian law school, but it is a good talk) and a Virginia Beach Police Department Officer who both argue that you should never talk to the police under any circumstances. The purpose of a law enforcement officer is to charge someone, anyone with a crime, and they will use any innocuous thing you say against you for that purpose: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/why_you_should.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/why_you_shoul...

RealGeek 11y ago

> Then I shut up! What if the cop feel threat to his life by your long speech and verbal resistance?

emcrazyone 11y ago
I don't recite that. I have it printed on a piece of card stock about the size of a business card and I hand it to them along with my driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration. I simply tell the officer I am exercising my right to remain silent as I hand him/her these items - then I shut up. I've only used it once and it seem to work. So I guess I can say I have one data point where it was used. My attorney friend has this printed on his business card and this is the advice he gave me - to do the same.
- fernly 11y ago
  "printed on ... a business card" -- at what point size? That's a lot of text!
  - barsonme 11y ago
    Well, s/he forgot the part where you hand the officer a magnifying glass as well.
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  You can refuse a breathalyzer if you want in the state where I live, but by doing that your license is automatically suspended for a year.
  - DugFin 11y ago
    He's only declining FIELD sobriety tests. I know of no state that automatically pulls licenses for refusal to play along with a FIELD sobriety test.

cryoshon 11y ago

Cue people who will say that you're "being an asshole" or that you should expect bad treatment because of the formal way that you have chosen to address the cop. Cops will hate hearing what you've written here, and it'll probably single you out for additional scrutiny and rights-violations. It's pretty bad that things have come to this.

emcrazyone 11y ago
agreed but what other option do you have?
sliverstorm 11y ago
It sets the tone, when it doesn't have to be that way. Suppose the officer pulled you over to tell you your tail light is out. (Has happened to me). Friendly enough. Then you roll down your window and recite a two minute speech about your lawyer and Miranda. You have just communicated to the officer exactly what you think of him, how you have zero faith in him, and how uncooperative you plan to be. How would that NOT sour the interaction? You assume every time you are pulled over, the officer is salivating at the thought of cuffing you.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > Then you roll down your window and recite a two minute speech about your lawyer and Miranda. As the OP said (45 minutes before you made your comment) [0] this "speech" is printed on a card, which he hands to the officer, while informing the officer that he is exercising his right to remain silent. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10943296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10943296
- itchyouch 11y ago
  Anecdotally, the area has some bearing on cop behavior, but as always YMMY. Typically, I've seen major city cops & speed trap cops are generally efficient. They will issue a citation, or provide a verbal warning and send the individual on their way. Cops in rural areas with very little to do and very little oversight from say fellow state troopers tend to sour and abuse their power in ways the uneducated would have no idea that their rights were being trampled on. Even when people know, if there's no consequence (e.g. got illegally searched, but nothing was found), people tend to not bother with obtaining justice against these behaviors as the time and money involved to complain, sue, etc brings very little reward for the effort involved. So we have a feedback loop where cops can abuse their power and nothing of consequence ever really comes about. If the power abuse yields are juicy find such as alcohol, drugs or any illegal product, people will tend to be more preoccupied with getting charged, that they also have little wherewithal to attempt to seek justice for the given officer's actions. Thus we have another feedback loop that positively reinforces abusive behavior. Trample on someone's right and make them a felon, then get a pat on the back for taking said felon off the streets.

hayd 11y ago

How many times have you been pulled over and recited that? ...and how's it work out for you?

nullrouted 11y ago
He'll try it once....refusing to comply with a sobriety test means the loss of a license for a year in most states.

sparky_z 11y ago

I've heard other lawyers give this advice. It may or may not be good advice, depending on circumstances, but I'm a little suspicious of the lawyer's motive. It sounds designed to ensure that every single traffic stop, no matter how benign, results in billable hours.

viraptor 11y ago
It does on both sides though. So with enough volume that's a win. (== current approach is not possible to continue)
abricot 11y ago
It's his own homebrewn field sobriety test. I guess that would work for the cop too :) "Dui person kept mumbling incoherrently about searching his dog and his hotel room, and calling up his lawyer. Talked a hell of a lot, while invoking the right to keep quiet"
- chii 11y ago
  this is why i think having a dashcam recording with live upload is a good idea. Or better yet, a wide angle lense at the top of the vehicle, so the cops can't get out of view.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Yeah, I'm suspicious too. The more I read about life in the US, the more I think the law system there is ripe for disruption. Lawyers are the middlemen, introducing huge inefficiencies and taking enormous rents out. Somebody needs to cut them out.
- kabdib 11y ago
  People have been saying that for centuries, and long before the US was a thing.
- gamblor956 11y ago
  Lawyers are not middlemen between people and the law. Lawyers are the experts who know the law and make interactions with the law more efficient. Context-relevant example: a person dealing with a DUI stop might spend months of their own time fighting the DUI in court without a lawyer--days wasted just trying to figure out what to do. But with a lawyer, most DUI cases are wrapped up in about a day or two! If your time is truly worthless, go ahead and try to play at the law yourself. But if your time, and your freedom, has any value, pay the expert to do it for you.

djKianoosh 11y ago

has any person of color ever tried this? I always find advice like this dubious. Is this for real?

LordKano 11y ago
When police officers ask me where I'm going, I say "I'm on my way to obey the law, officer." Occasionally, I'll say "I'm going to decline to answer that question, officer."

rdtsc 11y ago

> Then I shut up! And most likely lose your license for a year in many cases and be charged with a civil offense. Maybe the officer can still "smell" it on your or see you drive erratically and so have enough "evidence" to pile on criminal charges as well. In some states they could charge you with the driving under DUI as well. It think refusal case is called "Implied Consent" -- you consented to it already by getting into the car and driving on public roads. Not saying I agree with it or endorse that, just presenting it how it may work in some states.

ccvannorman 11y ago
Smelling (weed) is no longer probable cause to search a vehicle, Supreme Court said so. [1] [1] http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/07/court-rules-odor-is-not-sufficient-for-cops-to-have-probable-cause/ http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/07/court-rules-odor-is-no...
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  Jesus christ. Thanks for a link with browser-takeover, ad-spam crap. Loaded the page, and the window's taken over by a popover from MacKeeper or whatever the hell it is. Click the dismiss button, and it opens a fucking new page to their site to download shit. Close that window. Think maybe I mis-clicked. Do it again--because it's still taking up the whole damn screen--same result. How do you read such a shitty site with such user-hostile practices? And even if you can, why would you post such a link to HN? Gah. Time to get an adblocker, I guess. Anyway, SCOTUS hasn't ruled on smelling marijuana and probable cause as far as I can tell. That was, to my knowledge, the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
  - Kliment 11y ago
    Very likely the person who posted it was unaware due to using an ad blocker or script blocker.
    - bobwaycott 11y ago

marshray 11y ago

In some states you do not have the right to refuse a sobriety test. http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/implied-consent-laws.html http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/implied-consent-laws.html

matheweis 11y ago
... and in others, although you may refuse, they will immediately get a court ordered search warrant for a blood draw.
- seanp2k2 11y ago
  Yup. In most cases, as awful as it is, it's simply much less legal trouble to submit to the test if you haven't had anything to drink / smoke.

GrinningFool 11y ago

So do you read all that off of a card? I say this having never been searched nor asked to take a field sobriety test, but I've always found that a modicum of respect and politeness keeps things quite civil and ensures no trouble.

CaptSpify 11y ago
I hate to bring it up, but are you white? I suspect that race, and where you live changes these things a lot. Don't get me wrong, I agree that being respectful, polite, and not being a pain in the ass helps. I'm white, and have been pulled over a couple of times, with no real issue. The one time I was riding with a black family member (who had done nothing ticket-able, or suspicious) was one of the longest and most troublesome police incidents I've ever seen. Anecdotal? yes, but it mirrors statistics that I've seen.
- GrinningFool 11y ago
  I am and that's certainly a factor - though I lose points in the 'respectable citizen' department for long hair, occasional beard, and tattoos. My wife is not, though, and her experiences have mirrored mine. But anecdotes, etc. I'm not saying that it's always going to work out, nor that there's never a time and place that OP's method is appropriate - only that starting a dialog that way is unnecessarily antagonistic.
dalke 11y ago
How is that text not respectful? It's well-aligned with what I've read about what the courts say is needed in order to fully express that you wish to exercise all your rights, and not give any of them up voluntarily.
- GrinningFool 11y ago
  The text itself is respectful enough. The problem is more the subtext: "You are the enemy, and are not be trusted. Therefore it is only possible for us to interact under these precise terms."

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

taneq 11y ago

If you can recite all of that first go then you're almost certainly clean and sober. :P

pdkl95 11y ago

> Then I shut up! This is always important. Use your right to remain silent and never talk to police! Anybody that questions this should see this[1] attorney's very good explanation. > I want my attorney. I won't answer any questions Note that it's a good idea to explicitly invoke both of these (your right to an attorney and your right to not self incriminate). Law comic has a very rigorous flowchart[2] for handling being questioned by the police (or other government agent). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [2] http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897

V-2 11y ago
I've seen this lecture before ([1]). It's pure gold :) The follow-up from a police officer was interesting, too - funny how the tricks he mentioned were the same as depicted in "The Wire" (which I watched later). The show got it quite right!
jrs235 11y ago
The important thing here is to explicitly state that you refuse to answer any questions without legal counsel present. Then, shut up. Remaining silent and not telling them you will not answer their questions can be used against you in court. See Salinas vs. Texas. "So, again, the government can't offer negative comments on the choice not to testify and may not offer negative comments on a person's choice to remain silent after an arrest. Salinas brought the question, what about silence before an arrest?"[0] "Basically, if you're ever in any trouble with police (no, we don't condone breaking laws) and want to keep your mouth shut, you will need to announce that you're invoking your Fifth Amendment right instead of, you know, just keeping your mouth shut." [1] "if he wanted to rely on his right to remain silent, he had to say something that clearly asserted his right." [2] [0] http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/supreme-court-silence-can-be-used-against-you/ http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/supreme-court-silence-can-... [1] http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-salinas-v-texas-ruling-explained/66309/ http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-salina... [2] http://volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have-a-right-to-remain-silent-thoughts-on-the-sleeper-criminal-procedure-case-of-the-term-salinas-v-texas/ http://volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have-a-right-to-remain-s... http://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/silence-isnt-always-golden-in-government-investigations-bracing-for-the-impact-of-the-supreme-courts-decision-in-salinas-v-texas-7-8-2013/ http://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/silence-isnt-always-golden-in...

bbcbasic 11y ago

And perhaps get these bad boys tattooed to your arms, just in case. http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897

Laaw 11y ago

It's a crime in the state of Virginia to refuse a sobriety test when pulled over, due to implied consent. http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-268.2/ http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-268.2/ I realize it says "under arrest", but I think case law has established that also means when detained/pulled over, as well. I really want someone to prove me wrong about that, though. I never know what to say/not say when pulled over. Edit: http://boonebeale.com/implied-consent-refusing-a-breath-test-and-the-consequences-of-a-dui-in-chesterfield-va/ http://boonebeale.com/implied-consent-refusing-a-breath-test... Some research does say it's okay to refuse preliminary tests if you're not under arrest, but once you're arrested you must consent. I guess the good news is they can't arrest you if they can't provide probable cause, which they might have trouble establishing if you refuse preliminary testing.

vacri 11y ago
> but once you're arrested you must consent Surely that's better phrased as "once you're arrested, they do not require your consent"? Consent isn't consent if you have no option.
- corin_ 11y ago
  They won't neccesarily physically force a test on you if you don't consent, so it's not that you can't consent it's that not consenting could be a legal offense that's as bad as consenting and getting a bad result.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  The law still treats forced consent as consent when it is in the laws favor.
tonyarkles 11y ago
I realize this is Canada and not the US, but up here there's a few ways to get burned: - You can be charged with driving while impaired without failing any kind of field sobriety test/breathalyzer (Criminal Code 253.1) - Refusing a breathalyzer test or field sobriety test is also a criminal offence (254.5) And I don't have a cite for this off the top of my head, but I recall that there was a Charter challenge for mass road-side check-stops (we frequently have those during holiday weekends), and the Supreme Court used clause 1 (below) to say that while road-side check-stops do in fact violate your Charter rights, they're justifiable in a free and democratic society. Clause 1: "...guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Edit: at least they do document what the standardized field sobriety test can consist of: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2008-196/latest/sor-2008-196.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQANc29icmlldHkgdGVzdAAAAAAB&resultIndex=3 http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2008-196/latest/so...

ideonexus 11y ago

Bruce Shneier linked to two talks, one from a Regent University Law Professor (a third-tier Christian law school, but it is a good talk) and a Virginia Beach Police Department Officer who both argue that you should never talk to the police under any circumstances. The purpose of a law enforcement officer is to charge someone, anyone with a crime, and they will use any innocuous thing you say against you for that purpose: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/why_you_should.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/why_you_shoul...