# More on "Never talk to cops." **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 15, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886 "2014-01-15T17:26:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/121 "2014-01-20T19:46:08Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > What I find hilarious is the viewpoint that we seem to learn as kids when dealing with parents, and based on Judge Judy shows, some adults never un-learn. Just because A did something possibly wrong / illegal does not give B the right to do something equally wrong in return. The classic activity like “He wouldn’t fix my lawnmower he broke, so I took his TV in return.” Some people seem to be fixated on the idea that if the other person started it, there’s nothing wrong with them retaliating… plus they justify themselves this way to the cops or the court and feeling aggrieved when this information is used to punish them. Again I think it’s a fair guess the vast majority of harm done to people by not exercising their rights is by people who _have_ done something illegal. But by the same token a disproportionate percentage of people who get in trouble with the law are stupid (‘lacked educational opportunities’ might be more polite but a lot of them are in that state because they’re stupid, learning is not fun for stupid people). So discussions like this among obviously fairly intelligent people are somewhat artificial. Otherwise smart, innocent people get framed because they violate some questionable absolute rule _NEVER_ to talk to the police even in some apparently innocent or helpful (to the community) context: can happen, and perhaps does once every few years or so nationwide. Stupid guilty people making obvious mistakes like ‘sure you can search’ when they know or have very good reason to suspect they or some associate has left illegal drugs in the car, house, etc. or admitting ‘yeah I hit him because he cussed me out’ etc: happens every minute of every day nationwide. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/122 "2014-01-22T12:48:27Z")
An interesting and relevant incident: [Feds pull Google Glass user from theater for suspected piracy](http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/feds-pull-google-glass-user-theater-suspected-piracy-2D11967844) Summary: Homeland Security questioned a guy who was wearing a Google Glass unit in a movie theatre. He was initially suspected of recording the movie that was being shown, but was ultimately released without incident. If you’re wondering why he was wearing them in a movie theatre…it’s because they were fitted with prescription lenses. Relevant details: > [@MSNBC](#): > > He goes on to say that the agent told him he had “been caught illegally taping the movie,” then ushered him and his wife into separate rooms in the mall’s administrative area. Although the ensuing interview was described as “voluntary,” it was suggested that not cooperating could result in “bad things” happening. So the agent starts by issuing vague, nonspecific threats of “bad things” happening if the guy refuses to cooperate. The suspect ultimately was cowed into cooperating: > [@MSNBC](#): > > Federal agents questioned the man about whom he reported to, how much money he made and other things relating to the alleged piracy. But when they finally brought in a laptop and cable to check the contents of the man’s Glass and phone, they found nothing incriminating and turned him loose. OK so no illegal recording of the movie that was being shown. But what if their search/questioning had revealed something else embarrassing or illegal? Emails about an illicit affair, or maybe a femdom porn collection, or maybe plans to buy a dime bag of weed from a buddy? Why would you want to subject yourself to that kind of unpleasantness? The article continues: > [@MSNBC](#): > > An ICE representative confirmed on the phone to NBC News that the man was not detained, and would have been free to go should he have chosen to do so. In other words, if he had started out the confrontation by saying “I’m not answering your questions, and I’m not giving permission to search my glasses or phone. Am I free to go?”, it would have been over in minutes. The flip side, of course, is that the movie theatre can kick him out and tell him never to come back - though if they were to do that to me and my wife, I’d insist they refund the tickets for us. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/123 "2014-01-22T13:11:43Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > An interesting and relevant incident: > > [Feds pull Google Glass user from theater for suspected piracy](http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/feds-pull-google-glass-user-theater-suspected-piracy-2D11967844) > > Summary: Homeland Security questioned a guy who was wearing a Google Glass unit in a movie theatre. He was initially suspected of recording the movie that was being shown, but was ultimately released without incident. If you’re wondering why he was wearing them in a movie theatre…it’s because they were fitted with prescription lenses. > > Relevant details: > So the agent starts by issuing vague, nonspecific threats of “bad things” happening if the guy refuses to cooperate. The suspect ultimately was cowed into cooperating: > > OK so no illegal recording of the movie that was being shown. But what if their search/questioning had revealed something else embarrassing or illegal? Emails about an illicit affair, or maybe a femdom porn collection, or maybe plans to buy a dime bag of weed from a buddy? Why would you want to subject yourself to that kind of unpleasantness? > > The article continues: > In other words, if he had started out the confrontation by saying “I’m not answering your questions, and I’m not giving permission to search my glasses or phone. Am I free to go?”, it would have been over in minutes. > > The flip side, of course, is that the movie theatre can kick him out and tell him never to come back - though if they were to do that to me and my wife, I’d insist they refund the tickets for us. There is definitely more to that story than is reported. As usual. DHS agents don’t hang out at random Ohio movie theaters at 10pm. Its hard to comment on the story when you only have half of it at best. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/124 "2014-01-22T13:30:55Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > There is definitely more to that story than is reported. As usual. DHS agents don’t hang out at random Ohio movie theaters at 10pm. Its hard to comment on the story when you only have half of it at best. [They took a few hours to show up](http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls-fbi-to-arrest-a-google-glass-user/) after the movie started. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/125 "2014-01-22T13:43:27Z")
Wearing a Google glass is tantamount to surrendering any privacy rights you have to a private company that can do what it wants and anyone else who gets access to the data. It’s kind of ironic that someone wearing a Google glass will somehow then get worried about asserting those rights against the cops. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/126 "2014-01-22T13:51:02Z")
The statement by authorities simply mentioned that a man was “briefly detained”. 4 hours. The role of DHS was explained that they are chiefly concerned about copyright and trademark violations (“piracy” without Somali motorboats). They typically look for things like unlicensed sports trademarked merchandise, illegally produced DVDs, etc. - not just imports but apparently internal to the USA too. The MPAA has paid congress so that the government will do the work of chasing down people camcording new film releases in theatres. (I’ve seen one or two of those. Why anyone would waste their time watching them, I don’t know.) So I imagine at this new release movie (“Jack Ryan”) they had spotters looking for cameras, someone or some tech decided this was a camera and called the local DHS office. This is a good example the point where you can and should be wary. What you might think as prank level activity (sneaking photos in a theatre) might technically be enough to get you an arrest record and possibly as much jail time as someone convicted or manslaughter… Some laws have lost all sense of proportion and the public should exercise serious caution about feeding enthusiastic law enforcement any additional data. (Sexting is another good example - laws that meant to stop predator adults from exploiting young children is instead turning typical teen behaviour into criminal activity with a serious jail term and a life-long sex offender label that destroys their life; and would be perfectly legal if they do it a few years later… but do the politicians want to fix the law? No.) ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/127 "2014-01-22T14:09:09Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > This is a good example the point where you can and should be wary. Indeed. If you read [the blog entry,](http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls-fbi-to-arrest-a-google-glass-user/) the suspect was insisting that the agent search his glasses/phone to satisfy himself that that he (the suspect) had not been recording the movie. But what if he had made a mistake? What if the glasses had accidentally been recording the movie, or taking periodic snapshots, and the user was not aware of it? Best option is to refuse to allow a search, and refuse to answer any questions. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/128 "2014-01-22T17:34:37Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > Summary: Homeland Security questioned a guy who was wearing a Google Glass unit in a movie theatre. He was initially suspected of recording the movie that was being shown, but was ultimately released without incident. If you’re wondering why he was wearing them in a movie theatre…it’s because they were fitted with prescription lenses. In California, the police (one of them at least) now giving tickets to drivers wearing Google Glass, on the assumption that they’re watching movies or something (distracted driving). In searching just now for an article I could cite here, I found [this follow-up article](http://news.yahoo.com/california-motorist-cleared-google-glass-case-000122987.html): The judge dismissed the case. Seems that the law puts a burden of proof on the arresting officer to prove something (imagine that!) which was absent here. And then there was also this 😃 > [@](#): > > Officer Keith Odle, a 10-year veteran of the CHP, testified Thursday that the “hardware for this device was blocking her peripheral vision on her right side,” and that’s why she sped by his patrol car at 85 mph in her Toyota Prius. > > Blair rejected that as speculation, noting that Odle had never worn the device. He also threw out Odle’s documentation of her speed and found Abadie not guilty of that count. > > The commissioner also asked Odle to turn off his cellphone after it rang twice interrupting the proceedings. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/129 "2014-01-22T17:51:19Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > MIT made the documents available to the MIT community - not quite what I’d call “tech-illiterate”. The purpose though, was to find the document you wanted, download and use it, not just download the thousands of documents. So the taking all the candy analogy is pretty accurate. > > MIT also offered free guest wifi access to anyone physically on campus. So Swartz, instead of downloading the documents at Harvard where he worked, but where the download would be tied to his account, headed to MIT and signed up for guest wifi, and started running the scripts to get the documents. At this point, I’d agree he probably hadn’t committed a crime, even though he was batch downloading the documents. > > MIT IT noticed this however, and disabled his wifi account. I think he tried a few more times with different laptops, but they kept blocking him. Then, he went into a server closet (which may or may not have been locked - accounts differ) and set up a laptop on a hard connection to continue downloading the docs. That where the crime occurred - if the candy bowl that was previously outside your house and said “Help Yourself” was now inside the house, it **would** be a crime for you to walk in the front door uninvited and take all the candy. yet here’s Yale, another bastion of clever thinking > **[Yale Student Creates Unblockable Replacement For Useful Course Catalog Site...](https://www.techdirt.com/2014/01/21/yale-student-creates-unblockable-replacement-useful-course-catalog-site-yale-blocked-yale-reconsiders-initial-block/)** > > I’ll never understand what makes some people and organizations freak out when users of their systems make better versions. A decade ago we wrote about two examples of this: when a genealogist… Blocks a website because it makes it easier for students to take publicly available course evaluation data (put out by Yale) and put it side by side for comparison. one uy in a day or two whips up something that does the same thing and does not violate their objections. Book smarts and thinking do not always go hand in hand. So the question is - does plugging into an ethenet port (i.e. bypassing the need for a wi-fi connection, to the same network) constitute a felony breach of computer systems? (“See that wall socket? 35 years hard labour…”) Technically, anyone who plugs into a wall power outlet is stealing, but somewhere a sense of proportion has to prevail. I suspect the initial blocking had nothing to do with what he was doing, but that MIT discovered he was flooding their Wifi and link to Harvard with his traffic. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/130 "2014-01-22T20:20:09Z")
What do actual cops on this board think of this? Does it bother you that there are a lot of people out there and on this board that basically thinks you’re untrustworthy and make your job more difficult on purpose? My assumption is always that cops are trying to do a good job and catch the actual bad guy. Therefore, give them all the information they need to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/131 "2014-01-22T20:27:44Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > [They took a few hours to show up](http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls-fbi-to-arrest-a-google-glass-user/) after the movie started. Thats not how it reads to me. He was there almost 4 hours but the agents were already there. Reading between the lines I would guess that there had been a problem there before and they did not show up randomly. Another article states that the MPAA were already there investigating and called in the DHS (someone with law enforcement powers would have to be there to effect an arrest if it got that far). And although it was officially under the overall control of DHS I would also guess that most if not all of those that he talked to were “agents” from the MPAA. That explains why they identified themselves in “federal service” without being specific. The MPAA acts as a quasi law enforcement agency but it doesn’t have all of the same regulations because they are not law enforcement. I have a huge problem with how they are allowed to operate in this country. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/132 "2014-01-22T20:45:43Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > (Sexting is another good example - laws that meant to stop predator adults from exploiting young children is instead turning typical teen behaviour into criminal activity with a serious jail term and a life-long sex offender label that destroys their life; and would be perfectly legal if they do it a few years later… but do the politicians want to fix the law? No.) Or on the other hand, your assumptions could just be [wrong](http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/teen-sexting-new-jersey.htm). It is far from universal but more and more states are enacting laws which differentiate between adults taking pictures of juveniles and juveniles sexting. Even before the law went into effect we were diverting juveniles away from harsher penalties. With juveniles we have a lot more leeway. But your statement that politicians don’t want to fix the law is false. In many cases they do. Its just taking time for the law to catch up to the technology. ---
**Author:** ![leadfoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@leadfoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leadfoot)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/133 "2014-01-23T06:04:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The important point is that it works on getting a confession from a guilty person. If you’re questioning an innocent person it doesn’t work. > > The basic principle is that rather than trying to get the person to simply admit they committed the crime in question, you offer them an opportunity to explain why they committed the crime. A guilty person committed the crime and presumably had a reason for doing so. They will often take the opportunity to offer their explanation without realizing this is also an admission of guilt - explaining why you killed somebody necessarily includes admitting you killed them. > > An innocent person is relatively immune to this process. They didn’t commit the crime and they didn’t have a reason for committing the crime. So they’re not going to see the need to confess to the crime or explain their reason for doing it. They’ll simply deny both the crime and having a reason. Sorry, but I take this to mean you think that false confessions just don’t happen, a proposition that is demonstrably false. Further, there is clearly a significant number of experts who think the Reid method, in particular, is coercive and unreliable. [http://www.npr.org/2013/12/05/248968150/beyond-good-cop-bad-cop-a-look-at-real-life-interrogations](http://www.npr.org/2013/12/05/248968150/beyond-good-cop-bad-cop-a-look-at-real-life-interrogations) ---
**Author:** ![leadfoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@leadfoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leadfoot)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/134 "2014-01-23T06:07:10Z")
> [@Sterling\_Archer](#): > > I’ve always wondered what are legitimate reasons for an officer to search my car? Could he just claim “The guy seemed like he was nervous.” Or “It looked like he was hiding something.” ? > > If they ask me, “Do you mind if I take a look in your trunk?” And I say, “Yes, I would mind, you do not have permission.” And then they say, “If you had nothing to hide, why wouldn’t you let me take a look?” And then can they claim I started looking nervous and he felt justified in searching the vehicle? Is it just his word against mine? As was noted above, an officer needs probable cause or consent in order to (lawfully) search your car. So, no, a generalized observation that you look nervous is not sufficient. And no, refusal to give consent cannot serve as a basis for a probable cause determination. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/135 "2014-01-23T12:54:41Z")
So here’s a question - if a police officer decides he has probable cause to search my car, searches it without my consent and finds evidence of a crime, I can go to court to challenge his probable cause, and if the court holds that he was just fishing, all that evidence is deemed inadmissable. But what if he searches without my consent and finds nothing - do I have any remedy? Is there anything I can do to prove his probable cause was invalid, and make the state or police department reimburse me for lost time & wages, paying daycare extra, etc? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/136 "2014-01-23T13:13:30Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > So here’s a question - if a police officer decides he has probable cause to search my car, searches it without my consent and finds evidence of a crime, I can go to court to challenge his probable cause, and if the court holds that he was just fishing, all that evidence is deemed inadmissable. But what if he searches without my consent and finds nothing - do I have any remedy? Is there anything I can do to prove his probable cause was invalid, and make the state or police department reimburse me for lost time & wages, paying daycare extra, etc? Very unlikely. All the cop has to show is that he was acting within the scope of his job and there’s no liability. You’d have to show that he was going beyond his job, engaging in some kind of personal project to waste your time. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/137 "2014-01-23T16:22:18Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > But I hope you know that multiple studies have shown that the percentage of rape allegations that are false is extremely low. To my knowledge there are no such studies, though I’ve seen a lot of cites to such purported studies. What there _are_ are studies which show that the percentage of rape allegations which end in the accused being proved to be innocent – generally by the accuser recanting the accusation, IIRC – are low. But there are quite a lot of charges which end up as he-said-she-said situations, many of which are likely false accusations but which are not counted as such in these studies. (It would be very difficult if not impossible for any study to determine how many accusations are genuinely false.) > [@](#): > > There is no incentive to bring losing cases to trial. For the prosecutor anyway. Its very lucrative for defense attorneys. A prosecutor who wastes the time and money of the court and the county soon find themselves out of a job. I disagree. Prosecutors who fail to prosecute cases that the public wants prosecuted will find themselves out of a job even sooner. There is a lot of political pressure to prosecute sex crimes cases, and a prosecutor who fails to prosecute such cases runs a serious risk of finding a newspaper article or media campaign alleging that he or she refused to prosecute this heinous crime against this poor poor victim due to his or her callous and/or sexist attitude. Especially if the accused later goes on to commit further crimes. Taking the risk of losing a Valiant Fight for Justice can be the smaller risk. And even in a weak case it’s only a risk. What you do as a prosecutor in such cases is pile on the charges and go for the max and try to get the guy to settle for some lesser charge. Then you can declare victory and move on. There have been any number of very weak high profile cases brought up in the past few years, and while it’s probably worse in these high profile cases, when the political pressure is worse, there’s no reason to think the same dynamic is not in play in other situations, albeit on a smaller scale. > [@](#): > > When it comes to child abuse and sexual assault there were a lot of changes brought about be the hysteria of the 80s. When there is an allegation especially of sexual assault any interview of a child victim can only be done by someone trained in forensic interview techniques. The interviews must be on tape. The methods (which I have often witnessed but I am not trained in) are very specific and must be done precisely. That is to ensure that no memories are implanted or testimony tainted. Here we have what is called a [Michaels Hearing](http://www.bolegal.com/Articles/Criminal-Law-Articles/Pre-Trail-Taint-Hearing-in-Sexual-Assault-Cases.shtml) or Pre-Trial Taint Hearing in which a judge determines if the police and prosecutors acted properly and did not taint the testimony of the child. No one wants their hard work to be wasted or worse, a guilty party go free, because they screwed up the interview. It sounds like you’re talking about what the police have to do after they begin their investigation. It’s my understanding that a lot of the testimony and evidence in such cases would come from others who were involved earlier, e.g. the kid’s psychologist or pediatrician. It’s also apparent from the Sandusky case that “recovered memories” are still admissible in witness testimony. I would consider that an abuse of justice, as the average juror is probably not aware of how shaky these are. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/138 "2014-01-23T16:26:14Z")
> [@Incubus](#): > > Regarding accusations of molestation/sexual assault of minors, significant strides have been made over the last several decades in interviewing minors as young as 1 years old without giving leading questions. 😕 How in the world do you interview a 1 year old and get any kind of meaningful information? Sometimes I ask my questions to my very bright 2.5 year old about past events (and by past I mean like yesterday), and I get all kinds of wacky answers. If they don’t know or don’t remember, they just make stuff up. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/139 "2014-01-23T17:35:21Z")
The bottom line will always come down to this: The Cop is the only witness. His version of the conversation is presumed to be the truth, absent any other evidence to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/140 "2014-01-23T18:16:33Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > So here’s a question - if a police officer decides he has probable cause to search my car, searches it without my consent and finds evidence of a crime, I can go to court to challenge his probable cause, and if the court holds that he was just fishing, all that evidence is deemed inadmissable. But what if he searches without my consent and finds nothing - do I have any remedy? Is there anything I can do to prove his probable cause was invalid, and make the state or police department reimburse me for lost time & wages, paying daycare extra, etc? This is a serious problem with police procedures, where civil rights violations may occur. Police have the physical ability to commit nearly unlimited harassment and other rights violations, and sufficient authority to do so, in real time, without much effective hindrance. Should they engage in such violations, any remedies can only happen after the fact. And what are those after-the-fact remedies? Typically, if actual evidence of guilt is found, it becomes inadmissable. So actually-guilty perps may walk. OTOH, if the citizen-victim is actually innocent of anything, there is no case to be dismissed, and no other remedy (e.g., monetary damages). So actually-innocent citizens have little remedy. So our handling of such behaviors, as it seems to have evolved in the courts, is pathologically defective, backfiring in both scenarios. Only in the most egregious cases does it seem that the actually-innocent citizen has any meaningful recourse in suing the police or the city/state/government, and even then it’s very spotty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886.md?page=8)