No minivan, but yeah, older white guy nice car (except in Hollywood drama’s, I tend to doubt cops actually commonly pull over older non-white people in nice cars all that often either), go the speed limit, and problems with cops on the road are very unlikely.
If for some reason a cop wanted to search my car of course I’d say no. Likewise if there was any plausible way I could be implicated in a crime I wouldn’t answer questions but I think there’s some boundary condition of reasonableness there short of NEVER answer police questions. Yes there are too many laws and it’s too easy to break one without knowing it, and yes the justice system can misfire or be corrupted (though the latter again outside Hollywood drama is pretty rare in most parts of the US), but again there’s some room for common sense in determining a situation where those things are likely enough to worry about. And OTOH you do have some duty other than to yourself, I believe (though I don’t pretend to be any kind of civic hero). And at some point it’s the same as saying NEVER fly on a commercial airliner, they can crash. If the cops ask we which way a suspect who just ran by me fled, I’m going to tell them.
Anyway AFAICT the overwhelming majority of cases of stupidity with the cops are people who are and should (with any basic common sense at least) know they are likely doing something illegal. That doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to their rights. I simply throw it out there as claim to see if anyone disagrees, that the overwhelmingly majority of harm done to people by not exercising their rights is done to people who are in fact doing something illegal.
I hate to offer TV as proof, but ‘Cops’ has been on TV for what 20+ years, and most traffic stops on that show over that whole time have featured people who have illegal drugs (or weapons, etc) in their cars but say ‘sure, OK’ when the cops ask to search the car. Why don’t they just ever say no!?
In group discussions, he often told us that he would never consent to any police requests. If the police asked for his permission to enter or to search, he would say, “No”.
He said that if they have to ask your permission, then it seemed to him you had a choice and if they gave him a choice, he told us he would definitely say “No”.
But one night, the inevitable happened and the police came to our door on a matter related to some other party. They asked if they could enter and this fellow answered, “Yes” without a moments hesitation.
It was a very interesting lesson. I have never understood why he was so adamant about telling us over and over he would say “No”. But when it actually happened, he just folded in an instant.
I could never take him seriously again after that and never paid attention to anything he had to say.
There’s nothing bizarre about it and I think you learned the wrong lesson. The lesson is that no matter how brave or principled we think we are, we cannot predict what we will do when we are under pressure in a real-life situation.
The best reason not to talk with the police is that you have no idea what they are investigating and where their investigation will be going.
While you may not be a suspect in what they are currently investigating, let’s say you accidentally confess to what YOU believe to be a relatively minor offense, like smoking/buying weed or stealing some insignificant object from your job or from your neighborhood. Later on if the police catch someone using information that you provided and you decide not to cooperate, guess what’s going to happen?
You foolishly volunteered information of your involvement in criminal activity and that could be leveraged against you to “compel” you to testify. Or you could simply be arrested and then make the “decision” to do for yourself.
It’s always best to simply not talk with the police. If they stop by your home, unless you aren’t busy doing something else, don’t answer your door. Don’t flip them off from window; simply let them leave a card and decide if you do wish to talk with after discussing the matter with an attorney.
If an officer asks to search your vehicle, ALWAYS refuse. They may indeed search it anyway; but if they do, your clear refusal will be on record. And if they find something (remember, in many places anything from someone else’s prescription bottle, to an empty beer or alcohol bottle to a SINGLE bullet without a firearm can be enough for an officer to detain or arrest you) you need to invoke your right to speak with an attorney and then SHUT UP.
If they stop you in the street, they can search your person for “officer safety reasons” (A Terry search) but they can only search your backpack/purse/briefcase if you give them permission. DON’T and don’t give them a reason why you won’t allow them to do so. Also, whatever they might find, simply don’t bother trying to explain
Basically, any time that the police want you to talk with them, it’s always advisable that you involve an attorney, even if it’s simply to get some advice on how you should proceed.Again, you have no idea where their investigation(s) is going and you have no idea what they are seeking. You could imprison yourself by trying to be “helpful.”
I would tend to agree. Unfortunately, I recall some contrary advice that said you should always allow them to search providing you have nothing to hide. I must admit I am now confused as to what to do if they ask me for permission to search my car.
However, I’d like to tell you a little story about talking with the police. I was only ever arrested once. It was a bogus charge and I was released without ever having to make a plea. However, after I was read my rights, a very lovely female cop came to see me and said she was there to ask me some questions about my personal status in order to make a recommendation for setting bail.
To my eternal shame, first I told her that I wanted to remain silent. But then she said, "Oh. This is nothing related to your case. This is just about some stuff for your bail. Would you have believed that? I can’t believe I did. I then proceeded to answer her questions about my educational background and my employment background and some other stuff.
If I could only have a “do over” I would just have told her that I told the other police that I accepted my right to remain silent and from then on just smile at her politely but never tell her anything more beyond my name, address and date of birth.
Acsenray made a good point above. I knew that the only course of action was to accept my right to remain silent and never tell them anything more than my name, address and date of birth. But you really cannot predict what you will do in a real-life situation under pressure.
Oh Man! Every time I think back to that incident I just feel so stupid!
Instead of providing a link to that single video, I am instead providing the Google search term I used to find it because the result of the search has that video at the top of the page. But it also has several other very useful looking videos.
See what you think. But after watching that video, it seems to me there is a good chance that professor (Mr. James Duane) may have taken some kind of stimulant.
He was talking a mile a minute and seemed to be very excited. Of course, I could be wrong. But it just seemed kind of strange to me.
But there are some exceptions to this - mostly based on common sense.
If there is some crazed gunman running loose in your neighborhood shooting people and the police come to you and want your help to stop him, I can’t imagine refusing to help them.
Since there is a great deal of urgency to that situation I would def co-operate with them fully whether a lawyer was present or not.
But in most cases, I have to agree with you and applaud you. Just be careful if they try and trick you into talking with them like they did to me. You can see that post just above here.
The police know all kinds of tricks and they often use them. For example, if they ever arrest you, they will hand you a pen and paper and tell you that you need to sign it. They tell you that, “it is just an acknowledgement that you are present in this police station.” Well, what could be wrong with that?
What’s wrong is that it’s really a trick to find out if you are right-handed or left-handed. But the cop that arrested me was so stupid that after I signed it (I know that I was just as stupid for having signed it) grinned and told all the other cops in the room, “He’s left-handed!”.
That was stupid because I would pass that trick on to everyone whenever the topic of police dirty tricks and getting arrested ever came up. I just wish there was some way I could make these tricks known to everyone. So when they get arrested, at least they will know of these tricks and have some kind of defense to them.
It’s also stated in the agreement to use JSTOR (which probably everyone including guests have to click on) that you not use any automatic means like a script or something else to download documents.
But some people have surprisingly different views on this issue. TSGB posted that if his wife were kidnapped and the police wanted to ask him questions as part of their investigation, he’d refuse to answer questions until he had a lawyer.
That’s not the way I would react. If somebody I loved had disappeared, my priority would be giving the police all the information I could rather than looking to protect myself.
I fully agree. But do you see the contradiction there? He said “his wife”. But you said “somebody I loved”. That is not always necessarily the same thing.
In fact, one spouse who hated the other and would love to see them gone just might do everything they could (within the law) to discourage the return of that spouse. It’s almost a legal way for someone to do away with their spouse. Please be sure to notice I say “almost legal” because anyone who did this might very well think they were immune since they were doing nothing illegal. But the authorities might not see it that way. Funny thing about authorities. You just never know how they will see things. Maybe it would depend on whether it was an election year? I’m fairly certain the family of their spouse would not see it that way.
But I’d wager this situation has occurred many times and it would be fascinating to examine what happened. I think there just might be some really excellent stories to be told … books to be written and movies to be made. It could make for some excellent stories.
My gosh, do you really think it’s common to be arrested for admitting you stole a pen from the office? If we’re going to talk about crazy hypotheticals that might, in some alternate universe, happen what about the time you don’t help the cops catch a thug who then later kills the uncle who raised you?
Which would be stupid since you would be a prime suspect even before the police show up. And that’s the point that Loach is always discounting. When he shows up at your door to get information, he may know if you are a suspect or not but you certainly do not.
I’m not discounting that. I’m saying it’s not like it is on TV. In real life we have to worry about suppression hearings. It’s not enough that I get information. It has to be information that will stand up in court. Otherwise what’s the point? Legally (especially in my state) there is a big difference between those who I might be suspicious about and suspects. If you are a suspect and I don’t follow very specific procedures it will all get thrown out anyway. If you are a suspect it will be pretty clear.
If someone kidnapped my girlfriend (hell even my exwife) I would do anything I could to help. Caring about what happened to me would be far down on my priorities. But that’s just me.
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.
IMO this shows a basic differences in outlook and world view, not just difference in knowledge or perception of how the police and justice system operate.
If you have feel you always have zero obligation to anyone beyond yourself, then you might have a different view of various hypothetical cases of helping the police, in order to help a loved one or the broader community, than if you do feel any such obligation.
So for example as I said earlier I would tell the police which way a suspect ran, not because I think there’s absolutely zero chance of that causing a problem for me personally, but because I think there are some cases where you should subordinate your own interests to a greater good, though as I also said I don’t consider myself any hero, and if there was apparently imminent serious danger (as from the suspect) in helping the police I might chicken out and not do it. But if the welfare of a loved one were directly at stake I guess I’d be more likely still to subordinate my own immediate self interest. And say in the case of the police looking at me as suspect in the disappearance of a family member that’s pretty clear cut. Once they are looking at you, there’s no possible justification of not cooperating because the investigation of you is wasting time they should be spending looking elsewhere: if you don’t cooperate they’ll spend even more time looking at you. The only reason not to cooperate in that case is a working philosophy of ‘I look out for No.1 first last and always, and everyone else including my family can go f*ck themselves if they get in the way of that’.