Are you talking about a moral obligation, a patriotic obligation or a legal obligation?
I live in Ohio also, and that is our version of the “stop and identify” law, and you are correct, and that is the crux of Hiibel, the detainee MUST be “under investigation” to trigger case law afforded in Hiibel.
Is North Carolina v. Butler the one you were thinking of?
No, that was not it, it was Doyle, an Ohio case. I just looked for it. I typed too fast though, it is the reverse, post arrest/miranda silence can NOT be used to impeach a defendant, my error.
I knew the case was in my head, should have looked 1st for the exact details.
Do people walk around joined at the hip to their lawyers? Of course not.
So I choose to remain silent, just to be on the safe side.
If you’re constitutionally empowered to so, so be it.
And where did I make that claim?
I hear they have things called “phones” these days.
i don’t have all that much trouble believing that cops do messed up stuff, but this anecdote just screams “more to the story”.
anyways, it’s pretty much been said but it’s worth a repeat: if you’re arrested, the only words out of your mouth should be “i would like an attorney, please”.
i’ll say it again. ask for an attorney. the cop is not your buddy, the cop is not your therapist, the cop is not your mommy. their job is to gather evidence against you to build a case. do yourself a favor and don’t help them out. they’ll imply that it will be easier for you if you talk, they’ll make a note that you cooperated. the judge doesn’t give a fuck if you cooperated or not.
ask. for. a. lawyer.
You are also misinformed about Canadian law. Here is a recent newspaper article by a Canadian criminal defense lawyer which addresses the subject:
You are correct on the revoking part, I miss read that, I was under the impression that you could not revoke during detainment unless it was in a home etc. I thought that applied only under interrogation and or after arrest, the effect is similar though as any statement follows the case no matter what and it would probably be your own incriminating statements which would be the probable cause.
Cops go fishing a lot.
You may want to look at “Implied Waiver” of Miranda Rights though, if it is reasonable to believe that you understand your rights after having them explained things may be admissible.
As I said, my main personal experience was on a grand jury, we didn’t need to worry about pesky things like the 4th, 5th or exclusionary rules…or defense lawyers.
It may be the case that there was never a time when the main philosophy of law enforecement was to protect and serve. This may just be a myth and a wierd sense of nostalgia that I have for a time when things seemed kinder.
It is certainly the case now that law enforcement has become pretty militarized and that they seem a lot more concerned with keeping the population in line than they do with protecting us.
I guess that what I am saying is that the police have absolutly no business interacting with me. I am, after all, a law abiding citizen. I say this in the same spirit as the agument that if I have nothing to hide I have nothing to be afraid of.
Look, the bottom line is that the cops are not on our side. They do not see us as people, but rather as suspects, potential suspects or “persons of interest”. The smart thing to do if an officer of the law decides to interact with you is to assume that this is a potential threat to your freedom.
They’ll be “on your side” when you need them. Or are you one of those Sovereign Citizen types?
Maybe, maybe not. If you’re Kevin Fox, the father of a little girl killed in Illinois a few years back, police will overlook evidence pointing to a random intruder and instead browbeat the dad into confessing just so he could get out of custody. He was led to believe that his entire family had been told what “really” happened and had disowned him and gotten lawyers (lies by the police), and this desperate dad just wanted to talk to his family. Exhausted and beaten-down after being screamed at and shown photos of his daughter, sexually assaulted and killed, he just wanted out. And he signed a confession, then recanted right after, but was kept for 8 months in jail until DNA testing finally came back and excluded him.
He was innocent. A grieving father who just wanted to help the police. What harm could have come from him helping? Plenty.
I am not really sure what you mean here.
What is a “Sovereign Citizen” type, and why do you seem to hold them in contempt?
The refusal to voluntarily incriminate ones self, in a way consistent with the advice of LEO and almost any attorney worth their salt, is not indicative of a disdain for law enforcement.
I would argue it is the most prudent action of a well informed citizenry.
Your idea that the only way to be a good citizen is by discarding our rights is the one that is abhorrent in a free society.
Rights are not there for the convenience of the state.
Enough Canadians have been convicted of crimes they haven’t committed that I would suggest you be very careful in what you’re willing to tell a police officer.
ESPECIALLY if the police officer has even a scent of suspicion about you (e.g. he isn’t interviewing you as a witness to someone unrelated to you, like you saw a car addicent) you shouldn’t say anything beyond who you are without the help of an attorney.
I certainly admire police officers and the job they do and have no problem with them. All interactions I’ve had with the police were quite positive. But I won’t tell them a damned thing about me. They can have my name, and if it’sd a traffic stop, my driving documents. That’s just me protecting myself and my family. Its good legal smarts, just like I wouldn’t sign a contract without reading it all.
I have a friend who is a US Marshall. I still talk to him but I just avoid admitting to any federal crimes while he’s around.