So what would you advise someone to do when they’re being asked questions they don’t feel like answering, or when someone is asked to consent to a search, or anything else that’s beyond the pale?
Where do you draw the line when it comes to asserting your rights?
A nitpick (one which I feel is important):
Police officers don’t have any more rights than you or I do. What they do have is authority.
Occasionally, you may hear an elected or appointed official make a statement about their “rights” as a public administrator, suggesting they had greater rights than someone not holding an official position. This is a deeply flawed perspective, created by conflating the concepts of rights and authority, which might contribute to unethical or illegal actions.
It’s situational dependent. And unfortunately, based to a large degree on your perceived social status and your obvious appearance and color.
For myself, I think I could get away with politely refusing to answer questions, and firmly asserting my rights.
For others, I would not blame them if they did not - they have seen first hand what can happen - they can be in the right, but still end up paying a very large price if they run into a person/department/system that decides to screw them over.
It’s like if you are at a crosswalk - you have the right of way, but if a shitty driver decides to keep going, then you are still squashed. You were right to cross, but the consequences of being right are life-changing.
I’m an older white male. Sober 20 years, smoke pot only couple times a year. Haven’t been stopped by a cop in some time. I think I’d be pretty confident not engaging w/ a cop other than asking, “What is the purpose of the stop,” but otherwise declining to engage in chitchat or answering questions. If asked what I was doing, I might say, “Minding my own business” or “Whatever I wish.”
Always tough to predict exactly how you will react in such situations, as the mere appearance of an armed cop can be stressful. I often question courts’ descriptions of suspects’ actions as "consensual given the imbalance of perceived power…
It is hard for me to imagine a situation in which I would consent to a search of my car. I KNOW I have never left contraband in the car, and highly doubt anyone else did. But it just is not entirely in my control. Something coulda been left by a mechanic, or a cop could plant. Unlikely, but I wouldn’t want to take the risk, especially absent cause.
This is key. The whole discussion boils down to - You have the right to do whatever the law says you cnnot do, you must do what the law says you must do.
You must identify yourself if the police have reason to believe you are involved in something that may be a crime.
You must produce driver’s license, registration, proof of insurance if you are the driver of a motor vehicle.
You cannot lie to the police in a material way, particularly when it may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
The ID law goes back to a SCOTUS case affirming its constitutionality - a man and his adult daughter were having serious argument. Someone saw this and called the police. When the police arrived they were calm and (sitting in?) their parked truck. (They may have been outside it.) They refused to identify themselves, despite a suspcion there may have been an assault. He was arrested when he refused to tell the police who he was. SCOTUS says the police are entitled to know for their investigation who the principals involved are. Apparently several states have a law requiring this. It is not unusual or extreme, does not force a person to incriminate themselves.
Hiibel had violated a Nevada statute that requires persons temporarily detained on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity to identify themselves to a police officer.
But the key to anything you do is - if the law does not forbid it or compel something, you are free to choose to do whatever you want.
If I were to take the advice above and say “My nephew is a lawyer and he told me not to answer any questions” then it’s not obstruction that I lied to the police, that my nephew the lawyer never told me that. If I tell the police “the litte girl went that-a-way” and she went the other way, sending the police in the wrong direction, I am obstructing. In the end, it would come down to whether the court can determine if your lie slowed an investigation.
Similarly I can just stand there and it’s OK, but if that effectively blocks a policeman from going around me (I.e. I stand in a doorway (that they have a right to go through) and don’t move when asked) then yes, I am hindering.
One issue in the execution of this is on many videos I saw the police will refuse to tell you what crime they suspect you of so you don’t know if you really have to ID or not. I saw one where the people were arrested for not IDing and I thought it was BS because the cop refused to tell them why they had to ID other than he was telling them to. Ooops, I was wrong because apparently in that jurisdiction, it was illegal to sit in the parking lot of a park if you didn’t have any children with you playing there … and that was the “suspicious behavior” that the cop never elaborated on. If the cop does not tell you the law you are suspected of, I don’t think not IDing should be a crime.
Remember these are poorly paid civil servants. May have a toothache or had a fight with their spouse that day.
Or if you live here he’s over aged, pissed off and of dubious character, anyway.
You argue with Big Steve you’re gonna get locked up. Bottom line.
How we roll in the backwoods of Arkansas.
I suggest going the other way if your toting that wad of cash.
Fortunately this is no longer the case in California, at least for traffic stops. They now must lead with why you were pulled over. So no more, “do you know why I pulled you over?” Instead they must say “your tire touched the center line” or whatever.
My neighbor, a Boston police officer earned over $300k in 2022. I can guarantee he did not actually work an average of 80 hours a week which is what it takes to get there.
There is a gigantic amount of overtime fraud, so much so that “everyone is doing it” is actually used a a defense in criminal cases. Try doing that in your criminal case.
The published starting salaries are a joke.
Conversely a Teacher who adds coaching or curriculum development to their workload gets $5000 a year if they are lucky for an additional 200 hours of work and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that they get paid extra at all. Sign up as an English teacher, and you should throw in running the tennis teams for free, if you’re really dedicated.
The Lil’wrekker is getting her master’s in early education. She’s working as an assistant to a professor right now and will file on $66k. She’s concerned about her pay when she starts classroom work. Understandably.
I’ve only taught in urban schools so my experience is police make much more than teachers in the same community. Is it flipped for small towns? I think I should drop this or the mods will tell me to start my own thread.
Sorry, to keep hijacking, we don’t have a school close. They consolidated all the little schools and the kids attend a county wide school system. I think they raised the teacher pay a bit when they did that. It was state mandated.
Back to the question at hand, you can never tell what an officer is gonna be like. They are just human beings with all their idiosyncrasies and weirdness.
I say you’re best bet is to be documented, legal and polite. And cross your fingers.
Major difference being that civilians can’t arrest people on made up charges then get protected by the blue line and qualified immunity. With great power comes great responsibility.
Jerry Pournelle called it “maiestus”, a Roman crime of failing to show proper deference to the majesty of the state. Basically, if they want to, the police can probably find some simple infraction they can charge or ticket you with, should they feel their authority is being challenged.
Of course, if you think they don’t need to go through the door then that’s your gamble that they just want to go in to get a coffee and donut, they’re not following up a robbery report.
They key point is - in a free society, you can do anything the law does not stop you from doing. So unless there’s an explicit law saying you must answer a question, you can choose not to. Unless there’s an explicit reason under law for a seach, you can refuse to permit it. Unless there’s an explicit law saying you cannot carry $10,000 in cash, you can.
There is unfortunately an explicit law that says if the police feel (???) the circumstances are suspicious, they can take what cash you have and it’s up to you to retrieve it through the courts. There’s also a law that says you cannot physically obstruct a search. (Unless iet’s an illegal search, but then do you want to roll that dice, and spend the time in court arguing that point and the point that you did not use unnecessary force against the officer…?)
There’s also the point that police (and other officials) have qualified immunity if they are just doing their job, and if they thought they had the legal authority to do what they did. (SCOTUS has made that fairly lax). So if they thought they had a right to search and you interfere, then it’s again a dice roll.
.
Yep. City and states soon realized that giving decent pay and great benefits meant a better class of officer and less corruption.
Back before my time, even a honest cop pretty much had to take inoffensive “gifts” like free meals , etc. The pay was crap. Teachers also we paid crap in the 1950’s my Dad was a LA teacher and had to quit to earn enuf to support us
And with Overtime, which is very common in some forces, a officer can make quite a nice bundle.
