Do you even read my responses? I have said (I think a few times) that identifying yourself when suspected of a crime or about to commit one is an exception to the right to not talk to police in my state. So what’s your point in bringing it up? That because of that one exception the cops can now demand ID as I walk down the street? They can detain me and I am required to answer any question they ask?
According to cops in many states, not answering questions is obstruction. And I have read those laws and they are nebulous enough that I would agree with them as written, except for a pesky thing called rights.
Example Georgia 16-10-24(a)
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer, prison guard, jailer, correctional officer, community supervision officer, county or Department of Juvenile Justice juvenile probation officer, probation officer serving pursuant to Article 6 of Chapter 8 of Title 42, or game warden in the lawful discharge of his or her official duties shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Emphasis added.
FTR: (b) referred here make obstruction with violence a felony.
OK they detain me for their investigation thinking I’m a witness to a crime. Can they (in Colorado) force me to identify myself. Do I have a right to not answer their questions?
Oh even better. I get stopped at a DUI checkpoint and I am detained, not on reasonable suspicion, but by being 5th in line. How much cooperation am I required to give them?
AIUI, you don’t have to have been arrested for the 5th amendment to apply. You have to be “detained by the police in connection with a criminal investigation.”
Yes, I am citing a generic source, not a court case. I am not interested in doing legal research at present.
ETA: Oh, hey, it’s right there in Miranda itself:
The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination
Bolding mine. The question is not “am I under arrest?” it’s “am free to leave?”. If the answer is no, that’s “custodial” for the purpose of determining if it’s a “custodial interrogation” such as would be within the gambit of the 5th amendment.
Your cites refer to custodial interrogation (and, to be fair, being “deprived of freedom in any significant way” - the law interprets that to being akin to an arrest. It’s not just being told you have to wait until police finish their investigation. It’s definitely not when you are merely detained).
First, whether a person is “in custody” during questioning depends on the degree of coercive pressure imposed on him. The Court applies an objective, context-specific test that considers the degree of intimidation that a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes would feel if he were to freely exercise his right against self-incrimination.
< snip >
Second, the Supreme Court has considered whether various restrictions on a person’s freedom of action constitute taking that person into custody for purposes of Miranda. The Court has determined that, for example, an ordinary traffic stop does not to amount to Miranda custody.4 Moreover, interrogating a prison inmate about previous outside conduct does not necessarily amount to custody, even if the inmate is isolated from the general prison population for questioning.5 The fact that a suspect may be present in a police station does not necessarily mean, absent further restrictions, that questioning is custodial.6 By itself, the fact that the suspect is in his home or other familiar surroundings will not ordinarily lead to a conclusion that the inquiry was custodial.7 However, questioning a person upon arrest in his home may be custodial.8 When a person has been subjected to Miranda custody that custody ends when he is free to resume his normal life activities after questioning.9 Nevertheless, a break in custody may not end all Miranda implications for subsequent custodial interrogations.10 - SOURCE
Also, as I cited earlier, Miranda is not the complete protection that many think it is. So says the SCOTUS:
The Supreme Court decided that a violation of Miranda does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. The Court stated that Miranda imposed “a set of prophylactic rules” but did not hold that a violation of those rules necessarily constituted a Fifth Amendment violation. - SOURCE
I’m trying to understand this, and I’m being serious, not with a gotcha or anything.
If I’m stopped by the police for something simple, a brake light out, for example, I obviously have to respond to certain questions and demands: typically drivers license, registration, insurance, sign the ticket. No problem.
I’m also not arrested or in custody, though I’m not free to leave until the ticket has been completed. Again, no problem.
Am I required to answer any other questions? Where am I coming from, where am I going, what am I doing in the area?
(Assume the cop is honest, and has not already decided to take me in for something) Are there any repercussions for politely declining to answer?
Can I be arrested for declining to answer those questions (not the required identification questions), does declining to answer create any probable cause to search my car?
Is the difference that you’ve been arguing about when declining to answer is protected by the fifth amendment, versus when declining to answer is just a choice between a person and a police officer? I’m not being compelled to answer so there is no fifth amendment issue, but also no requirement to answer?
Usually, when cops try to engage you in conversation, the specific answers aren’t as important as the fact that they are trying to smell your breath (any odor of alcohol) or see if you make suspicious statements that might give them a basis to investigate further.
Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are moving targets. A cop may stop you for a traffic infraction, with no reason to suspect that you may have committed a crime, and then develop suspicion based on how you act or what you say (I.e. you seem to be trying to hide what’s in your hand, or maybe you give a completely implausible explanation for where you came from).
So when they are speaking to you, consider that they may have enough to detain you but may also be looking for reason to expand the scope of their investigation, or to take you into custody or arrest you.
I think this is it. Just because you don’t have a 5th amendment right against self incrimination doesn’t mean you have to answer every question.
My suggestion? If you are asked something you don’t want to respond to, say “I have nothing to say about that.”
I’ve never practiced in Georgia, and I’m not familiar with their law, but I doubt that would hold up. Not answering a question isn’t hindering an investigation the way that term is usually used in the law. By contrast, lying when answering a question would be.
Earlier, you asked where the right to not answer questions derives. The 1st amendment not only protects speech, it protects a person‘a desire to not speak. Now, obviously, there are huge exceptions to that statement, but I doubt that a person could be prosecuted criminally for not answering a question, presuming no other legal obligation to do so (such as being a “mandatory reporter”).
And if you are truly worried about being held to account for “hindering” an investigation, just answer “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember”. You didn’t avoid answering the question; you just didn’t provide any useful information.
I don’t see how, under the Georgia statute, politely informing the officer that you decline to answer any questions (as stated, aside from those necessary to establish your identity) could be considered hindering. I’d be shocked if there were a case where charges were brought much less a conviction secured under those circumstances. Doesn’t mean a cop won’t think it is, but cops are wrong about the law all the time.
I disagree with this – saying you don’t know or don’t remember sets you up to potentially be contradicted should other evidence indicate that you DID know the answer or that a reasonable person would remember. You’d probably be fine, but why take the chance when you have absolute refuge in respectfully declining to answer the question.
Correct. When i was on the Civil Grand Jury, the various County Officers had to answer our questions.
I suppose if our questions were leading to possible criminal charges, then that would be a different kettle of fish, but even then the GJ can do stuff.
But other than IDing yourself- and various requirements when operating a motor vehicle- you do not have to answer a Police officers questions that may lead to possible charges.
SCOTUS has said that if the Police have some reasonable cause, they can demand your name, and perhaps your address. Not your ID card- unless driving of course.
Yes, some form of Identifying yourself. I dunno about the second- it depend heavily on what is the brunt of the question. If you are being asked as a suspect in the child abduction, I am pretty sure you do not have to answer any questions.
Q: Do I have to answer questions asked by law enforcement officers?
A: No. You have the constitutional right to remain silent. In general, you do not have to talk to law enforcement officers (or anyone else), even if you do not feel free to walk away from the officer, you are arrested, or you are in jail. You cannot be pun- ished for refusing to answer a question. It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer before agreeing to answer questions. In general, only a judge can order you to answer questions. (Non-citizens should see Section IV for more information on this topic.)
## Q: Are there any exceptions to the general rule that I do not have to answer questions?
A: Yes, there are two limited exceptions. First, in some states, you must provide your name to law enforcement officers if you are stopped and told to identify yourself. But even if you give your name, you are not required to answer other questions. Second, if you are driving and you are pulled over for a traffic violation, the officer can require you to show your license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance (but you do not have to answer questions). (Non-citizens should see Section IV for more information on this topic.)
So, yes, in Colorado and some other states, if a cop ask you who you are, you must tell the LEO your name, and possibly address. You never have to show your SSN to any non Federal officers, and even that is limited. You have to show your drivers licence if you are operating a car.
They are wrong.
You must give them your name, and maybe your address. You do not have to show them any ID card. That might be easier, however, and usually it is best.
Yeah. They can and will interrogate you about how you got that money, and seize it on the spot, claiming it has to be ill-gotten gains that you’re not accounting for. It’s called civil asset forfeiture, Stinks, doesn’t it?
While you are no doubt correct, what can also then happen is that you go to jail, get lost in the system, or possibly get put in with a violent offender who injures you. Unpleasant things can happen to you in there. Then eventually, they let you go. And your file is lost.