# Annoying police by remaining silent **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 17, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076 "2014-01-17T17:29:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/41 "2014-01-21T17:04:14Z")
The OP has a logical flaw. If you invoke your right to remain silent there will be no “only after several hours of questioning”. Once you invoke, the questioning stops. Whether or not they have enough to hold for investigative detention would determine your fate in the (very) short term. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/42 "2014-01-21T17:13:35Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > To be clear on my part, it was the blood, breath jive refusal for a license suspension, not FST. No IC law I have read from any state mandates a suspension for refusal when the law to do so is not followed, as you linked. Only if you are driving at the time, AFAICT. > [@](#): > > Perhaps the best known—and most often litigated—application of implied consent involves laws prohibiting driving while intoxicated. Most states have legislation that subjects motorists suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs to blood, breath, or urine tests. These chemical tests can confirm the existence and the level of drugs or alcohol in a driver’s body, and can be used as evidence against the driver. Pursuant to these state statutes, known as implied consent laws, anyone who drives on public roads or highways has, by that action, impliedly consented to such tests. Once stopped or arrested for suspicion of driving while impaired, a person must submit to a test or face revocation or suspension of his or her driver’s license. [Cite](http://law.jrank.org/pages/7507/Implied-Consent.html#ixzz2r3PEohTE). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/43 "2014-01-21T17:23:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Some of you guys have a strange idea of how the police work. I think you’ve been watching too many movies. That or you’ve been hanging out with too many criminals who’ve been complaining about how “unfairly” they were convicted for crimes they were genuinely guilty of. > > The reality is either the police follow the rules or they don’t. If they don’t follow the rules, then don’t worry about remaining silent. . Yes, well _you_ claimed that if I am innocent but invoked my right to a attorney and refused to answer questions that \*your \*police would arrest me for “obstruction”. of course, you have failed to come up with a cite that would back up that ridiculous assertion. So, since \*your \*police aren’t following ‘the rules” perhaps it’s more common than you may think. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/44 "2014-01-21T17:24:57Z")
Refusing to answer a cop’s questions is not obstruction of justice, no matter what the cops on _Law and Order_ say. A cop might TELL you that you’re obligated to answer questions, but cops are allowed to lie to you. A cop who tells you that if you don’t consent to a search he’ll arrest you and then search you is lying. If he has probable cause to arrest you, he doesn’t need your consent, and refusal to consent to a search is not probable cause. He’s trying to get you to consent because that makes his job easier, he doesn’t have to come up with probable cause for arrest during your trial. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4bbf92/32.png) [@Charlie\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/45 "2014-01-21T17:31:24Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Refusing to answer a cop’s questions is not obstruction of justice, no matter what the cops on _Law and Order_ say. > > A cop might TELL you that you’re obligated to answer questions, but cops are allowed to lie to you. > > A cop who tells you that if you don’t consent to a search he’ll arrest you and then search you is lying. If he has probable cause to arrest you, he doesn’t need your consent, and refusal to consent to a search is not probable cause. He’s trying to get you to consent because that makes his job easier, he doesn’t have to come up with probable cause for arrest during your trial. Yes indeed! Check this out here: https://www.youtube.com/embed/i8z7NC5sgik?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/46 "2014-01-21T17:34:46Z")
> **[Obstruction of Justice](https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/obstruction-of-justice.html)** > > Obstruction of justice is interfering with the administration and due process of the law, including any criminal proceeding or investigation. Read more. \*What are Common Examples of Obstruction of Justice? The definition of obstruction is very broad and includes any interference with the application of the law, so there are many offenses that can be considered obstruction of justice. Some examples include: Lying to police during questioning; Falsifying or destroying documents sought by the police during an investigation; Attempting to influence a jury or witness. The right of individuals to remain silent only allows them to refuse to answer police questions. If they answer and lie, this is not protected and is obstruction. \* [http://www.malawforum.com/content/obstruction-justice](http://www.malawforum.com/content/obstruction-justice) \*When the police or the FBI wish to question you about a crime, you absolutely have the right to refuse. When you refuse to answer questions, you are invoking your right to remain silent. That is never a crime. The bottom line is: If the police think you are a suspect, you are not going to talk your way out of it. Contact a criminal defense attorney. \* ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/47 "2014-01-21T17:47:00Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > The Whether or not they have enough to hold for investigative detention would determine your fate in the (very) short term. ENOUGH means probable cause, period, no PC, no legal hold. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/48 "2014-01-21T17:50:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > When the police or the FBI wish to question you about a crime, you absolutely have the right to refuse. When you refuse to answer questions, you are invoking your right to remain silent. That is never a crime. It may be per Hiibel, depends. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/49 "2014-01-21T17:58:36Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > It may be per Hiibel, depends. Cite? All Hiibel sez is that you need to tell them your name. Not give them your alibi. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/50 "2014-01-21T18:03:24Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Cite? All Hiibel sez is that you need to tell them your name. Right, that is still answering a question. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/51 "2014-01-21T18:10:49Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > Right, that is still answering a question. The OP _" As a result you just deny involvement in the crime but otherwise choose to remain silent and answer no questions regarding your activities at the time of the crime or any connection they think you may have with the victim. At no point in time do you lie to the police."_ Little Nemo said "Some state obstruction laws prohibit “hindering” a police officer in the performance of his duties and I think _what the OP described would qualify."_ (Italics mine) Hiible in no way requires you to give your alibi. Just your name. But if you have a cite where someone was convicted of Obstruction of Justice for refusing to give your alibi and lawyering up, please let us know. My cites say otherwise. > **[Know Your Rights | Stopped by Police | ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police)** > > Being stopped by police is a stressful experience that can go bad quickly. Here we describe what the law requires and also offer strategies for handling police encounters. We want to be clear: The burden of de-escalation does not fall on private... _You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself._ ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/52 "2014-01-21T18:22:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But if you have a cite where someone was convicted of Obstruction of Justice for refusing to give your alibi and lawyering up, please let us know. Does not exist, my post was directed at answering a question, not an alibi, sorry for the confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/53 "2014-01-21T18:24:25Z")
To Little Nemo. Maybe I don’t understand your point but are you saying that it is possible that not answering an officer’s questions could be illegal (obstruction)? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/54 "2014-01-21T18:28:08Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > [Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.1932.html) > > Here’s Florida’s implied consent law. I’m not seeing the mandatory field sobriety test. It talks of breath, blood, and urine tests after a lawful arrest. > > Pretty much the same law here. I’m curious of any jurisdiction that requires me to stand on one foot or else lose my license. I take it all back. I have been laboring under a misconception. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/55 "2014-01-21T18:45:58Z")
In CA you may refuse the FST without penalty, however once you are lawfully arrested then you must submit to the chemical test. The FST is used to establish probable cause to arrest, and generally it is in your best interest to decline to take it since it can’t really help you. It is essentially answering an officer’s question voluntarily. The chemical test (blood, breath, urine) is compelled upon arrest. Refusal to submit to the chemical test has its own set of penalties, which are generally lower than the DUI conviction. Of course, refusal to take the test does not guarantee you wont also be convicted of the DUI regardless of the absence of the test. Any vehicular stop by a police officer can be limited to providing license, registration, proof of insurance, and a response to any and all questions with “I decline to answer any questions”. They can cite you for whatever violation you may have committed, but you need not volunteer anything further. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/56 "2014-01-21T18:51:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Any vehicular stop by a police officer can be limited to providing license, registration, proof of insurance… . If you do not have your registration or refuse to provide it, can they search for it in your car without a warrant? I already know the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/57 "2014-01-21T19:42:13Z")
I haven’t found anything that says simply failing to provide registration is grounds for warrantless search. If the vehicle is actually registered and you don’t have that available, it can be verified roadside. The penalty for driving an unregistered vehicle in CA varies by county, but the base penalty is monetary. Generally this is a fix it ticket, but if there are other circumstances the car could get towed and would of course be searched at that point. [CA Vehicle Code:](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40610.htm) > [@](#): > > 1. (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), if, after an arrest, accident investigation, or other law enforcement action, it appears that a violation has occurred involving a registration, license, all-terrain vehicle safety certificate, or mechanical requirement of this code, and none of the disqualifying conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist and the investigating officer decides to take enforcement action, the officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall sign, a written notice containing the violator’s promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver proof of correction of the violation to the issuing agency. > > (2) If any person is arrested for a violation of Section 4454, and none of the disqualifying conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the arresting officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall sign, a written notice containing the violator’s promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver proof of correction of the violation to the issuing agency. In lieu of issuing a notice to correct violation pursuant to this section, the officer may issue a notice to appear, as specified in Section 40522. > > (b) Pursuant to subdivision (a), a notice to correct violation shall be issued as provided in this section or a notice to appear shall be issued as provided in Section 40522, unless the officer finds any of the following: > > (1) Evidence of fraud or persistent neglect. > > (2) The violation presents an immediate safety hazard. > > (3) The violator does not agree to, or cannot, promptly correct the violation. > > (c) If any of the conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the procedures specified in this section or Section 40522 are inapplicable, and the officer may take other appropriate enforcement action. This is only for lack of registration. Lack of driver’s license or proof of insurance may be treated differently. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/58 "2014-01-21T20:05:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I haven’t found anything that says simply failing to provide registration is grounds for warrantless search. I had this CA case in my head already, you will find it very interesting, good reading! …We conclude that in these circumstances the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, permits limited warrantless searches of areas within a vehicle where such documentation reasonably may be expected to be found… > **[In re Arturo D. (2002)](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/27/60.html)** > > In re Arturo D. (2002), Supreme Court of California ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/59 "2014-01-21T20:35:09Z")
That’s interesting, and shitty too I guess. Although it seems reasonable to establish ownership of the vehicle, and in all cases described the vehicles in question were not registered to the driver. I personally have failed to present registration a couple times. Once because I recently renewed and left it at home and another time because I paid but never received the sticker or paperwork. Both times the officer told me to get it corrected with no citation or fix it ticket issued. I was the registered owner of the vehicle and was able to present proof of insurance and my drivers license, so no need to conduct warrantless searches! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2014, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/60 "2014-01-21T20:43:36Z")
It’s important to remember that the 4th Amendment (as interpreted by SCOTUS) provides very limited protection for vehicles because of the highly regulated nature of the roadways. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076.md?page=4)