# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/61 "2014-01-22T16:48:42Z")
“ENOUGH means probable cause, period, no PC, no legal hold.” Not so. I may not I have enough to arrest you and you may still not be free to leave. Let’s say I get a report of an armed robbery and the suspect is reported to look very similar to you. I encounter you in the immediate area minutes later. I can detain you without arresting you. This is an investigative detention. This detention has to be reasonable in duration and is circumstance dependent. I don’t have probable cause but I do have a reasonable suspicion. You may exercise your right to remain silent but that doesn’t mean I’m letting you go. As a matter of fact, that’s going to make me more suspicious. But sooner or later I will have PC (you’re under arrest) or not (you’re free to go). Investigative detentions happen all the time. No PC is necessary. ---
**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 22, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/62 "2014-01-22T17:57:42Z")
That’s why the key question is “Am I free to go?” and not “Am I under arrest?”. Once you are detained, there must be specific and articulable facts to support the detention. If there are not then the detention may be in violation of the 4th amendment. If the answer to the first question is no, then you communicate that you will not be answering any questions, perhaps by giving them a [tear away business card](http://www.calgunlawyers.com/tear-away-business-card/) that say so. Always have your audio recording device ready to document the encounter. ---
**Author:** ![Krav\_Manga](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/krav_manga/32/3153_2.png) [@Krav\_Manga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Krav_Manga)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/63 "2014-01-23T05:56:45Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Just make all your responses in the form of a question. AKA the “Czarcasm Gambit”. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/64 "2014-01-23T15:05:48Z")
> [@Krav\_Manga](#): > > AKA the “Czarcasm Gambit”. **Moderator Note** Let’s not make cracks about other posters here. No warning issued, but stick to the topic. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/65 "2014-01-23T15:38:47Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > Not so. I may not I have enough to arrest you and you may still not be free to leave. Let’s say I get a report of an armed robbery and the suspect is reported to look very similar to you. I encounter you in the immediate area minutes later. I can detain you without arresting you. This is an investigative detention. This detention has to be reasonable in duration and is circumstance dependent. I don’t have probable cause but I do have a reasonable suspicion. You may exercise your right to remain silent but that doesn’t mean I’m letting you go. As a matter of fact, that’s going to make me more suspicious. But sooner or later I will have PC (you’re under arrest) or not (you’re free to go). > > Investigative detentions happen all the time. No PC is necessary. I was referring to, in answer to, concerning jailhouse investigative detention, not Terry Holds. ---
**Author:** ![Dorjan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dorjan/32/12440_2.png) [@Dorjan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorjan)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/66 "2014-01-23T15:44:06Z")
Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4511.191 Cause: A driver is stopped for drunk driving and refuses to take the sobriety test requested by the law enforcement agency. The officer can take your driver license on the spot and the suspension begins immediately. [http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/als\_refusal\_test.stm](http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/als_refusal_test.stm) There is nothing in that statute about being in the clear if you are not actually impaired. Refuse the test, and the Officer can suspend your license immediately. remember, driving is a privilege, not a legal right, and your license is the property of the State. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/67 "2014-01-23T15:52:01Z")
> [@Dorjan](#): > > Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4511.191 > > Cause: > A driver is stopped for drunk driving and refuses to take the sobriety test requested by the law enforcement agency. The officer can take your driver license on the spot and the suspension begins immediately. > > [http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/als\_refusal\_test.stm](http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/als_refusal_test.stm) > > There is nothing in that statute about being in the clear if you are not actually impaired. Refuse the test, and the Officer can suspend your license immediately. remember, driving is a privilege, not a legal right, and your license is the property of the State. The law MUST be read in context to the exact meaning of the author, and an arrest in needed 1st; Simply refusing when asked is not grounds to take a license. 1. Any person who operates a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley upon a highway or any public or private property used by the public for vehicular travel or parking within this state or who is in physical control of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley shall be deemed to have given consent to a chemical test or tests of the person’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine to determine the alcohol, drug of abuse, controlled substance, metabolite of a controlled substance, or combination content of the person’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine **if arrested** for a violation of division (A) or (B) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code, section 4511.194 of the Revised Code or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance, or a municipal OVI ordinance. ---
**Author:** ![Dorjan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dorjan/32/12440_2.png) [@Dorjan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorjan)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/68 "2014-01-23T16:13:32Z")
Upon a closer look, you are correct. The automatic suspension occurs if you refuse to take the test after an arrest. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/69 "2014-01-23T16:23:11Z")
> [@Dorjan](#): > > Upon a closer look, you are correct. The automatic suspension occurs if you refuse to take the test after an arrest. Thanks, there is not state which permits an immediate confiscation for a refusal when no arrest and or PC does not exists, that violates DP. There is always a condition in the law for such, not a BLANKET confiscation. ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/70 "2014-01-23T18:54:10Z")
lawbuff said, “I was referring to, in answer to, concerning jailhouse investigative detention, not Terry Holds.” Correct, you are. My bad for not getting the context. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/71 "2014-01-25T19:43:31Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > lawbuff said, “I was referring to, in answer to, concerning jailhouse investigative detention, not Terry Holds.” > > Correct, you are. My bad for not getting the context. Message boards are fast, I’ve misread myself, no problem. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/72 "2014-01-26T04:49:50Z")
> [@Lazlo Hapsburg](#): > > I must admit to being ignorant of jurisdictions where you can get your license suspended for refusing to take a field sobriety tests and I must apologize for assuming that all jurisdictions were like mine. I assumed that if you refuse to take a field sobriety test, they can take you into custody and give you a breathalyser test. But they would only suspend your license if you are found to be over the legal limit… I’m wondering if you are in the US? I wouldn’t be surprised if your municipality could suspend your license for such refusal, and you are either unaware, or have forgotten it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/73 "2014-01-26T15:26:29Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > 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… > > [http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal4th/27/60.html](http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal4th/27/60.html) Arizona v. Gant has restricted these type of searches: > **[Arizona v. Gant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant)** > > Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law-enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested a... If I was defense counsel representing someone whose car was searched because of failure to provide registration, I would argue that such information was readily available to the officer on his computer and would have been verified on such computer anyways making a search unnecessary. Further if the officer’s argument was that he had PC to believe that the client was driving without valid registration, then he won’t find evidence of this in the car because, by definition, the client wouldn’t have such registration. I think that Gant would cause the search to be tossed. ETA: Gant dealt with search incident to arrest, so NM. 🙂 But I would like to know the evidence which would be lost if not for the search for a registration card. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/74 "2014-01-27T15:37:44Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Arizona v. Gant has restricted these type of searches: > > [Arizona v. Gant - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant) I know about Gant, that restricted a search POST arrest while the detainee was secured. “Search incident to arrest” was the key, Arturo was not about such. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/75 "2014-01-27T17:09:39Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > I know about Gant, that restricted a search POST arrest while the detainee was secured. “Search incident to arrest” was the key, Arturo was not about such. Correct. However the basic test for a search of a car is if there is probable cause that the officer might find evidence of a crime inside the car. If we take the hypo of the motorist who says that he doesn’t have his registration card, absent more, what evidence of crime is the police officer expecting to find by searching the vehicle? ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/76 "2014-01-28T17:44:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Correct. However the basic test for a search of a car is if there is probable cause that the officer might find evidence of a crime inside the car. > > If we take the hypo of the motorist who says that he doesn’t have his registration card, absent more, what evidence of crime is the police officer expecting to find by searching the vehicle? Read Arturo and decide yourself. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/77 "2014-01-29T22:20:37Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > Read Arturo and decide yourself. But Arturo didn’t have a license or registration, therefore the cops can reasonably (read: make up bullshit) believe that they might find a registration card in order to prove his identity. The hypo was that the driver only did not have a registration card, but presumably showed a valid driver’s license which established his identity. The Class case that the Arturo court cited should have led them to reach the opposite result, even in its own case. Class noted the limited search for a VIN on the dashboard as opposed to “rooting around in the car.” Searching for a registration, especially when the court says that it could be anywhere in the vehicle, is nothing less than “rooting around in the car” especially when the police can simply run the tags to see if the vehicle is stolen. ---
**Author:** ![runningdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@runningdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runningdude)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/78 "2014-01-30T00:19:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Some confusion here. > > You don’t get read your Miranda rights just because you’re being questioned. You only get your Miranda rights if you’re being questioned while you’re in custody. > … Well, not quite. You only get your Miranda rights read when they expect to use you answers against you in a court of law. ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/79 "2014-01-30T01:14:00Z")
Your best bet is to refuse to go to the station unless they arrest you. In most municipalities, the police will request that you come down the station. I will always refuse and make them arrest me if they want me to come down with **BEFORE** I have had a chance to talk with an attorney. I’m not going to be loud and aggressive; I’ll just state that they need to place me under arrest if they want me to accompany them to a police station before I spoken with legal counsel. The majority of the time, the police won’t arrest you in these types of situations as you have just prevented what they wanted to happen from occurring (getting you to the station and then questioning you without counsel being present.) They may continue to ask; but more likely than not, they’ll leave you a card and request that you come to the station with your attorney. I have always looked at things like this: If they have enough to arrest me, then nothing I can say will prevent it, so I need to speak with a lawyer ASAP. If they don’t have enough to arrest me, then we have nothing to talk about and I’m not going to the station. Sorry if that makes their investigation “harder” but I have seen enough BS to know that the police are not concerned with protecting my rights. So I’ll give my name and provide some ID. After that, any more questions will require that I first speak with an attorney. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076/80 "2014-01-30T20:14:01Z")
> [@runningdude](#): > > Well, not quite. You only get your Miranda rights read when they expect to use you answers against you in a court of law. I don’t know where you got this but it’s incorrect. Custody + Interrogation is indeed the test for whether or not Miranda applies. Cops will quite frequently ask you questions in settings other than described above… And they expect to use your answers against you in a court of law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-police-by-remaining-silent/679076.md?page=5)