Yes, since the Atwater case from SCOTUS on Texas law it does not offend the 4th AM if a person is subjected to a full custodial arrest for an offense punishable by a money fine only.
In my state, Ohio, this violates our Constitution. A person can only be arrested for a Minor Misdemeanor, traffic offense or even a criminal law, if the person refused to sign the citation, can not or will not ID himself, etc.
Here is BROWN, and it cites Atwater. At par. 23, the research also stated Montana has a similar constitutional protection as Ohio does.
I don’t talk to cops because they are allowed to lie in any manner they please. So I never know if they are asking real questions or trying to get me to say a magic word that will get me arrested.
Not paranoia, realism. I work with the police every day, and even I know to STFU as soon as they start treating you more like a suspect than a witness.
That is not paranoia. The name rank and serial number shtick of some is. The never talk to police even if you are a witness that can help attitude is. Police talk to many people everyday. They don’t think everyone is a suspect. for instance:
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.
I was going to link to that video too - it is very persuasive and well-informed. And I don’t think anyone who’s watched it would think it’s about not giving your name to the cops or never talking to them at all ever, just about when you’re questioned as a suspect. It’s not saying ‘if a cop knocks on your door and asks if you saw anything the night your neighbour was burgled, call a lawyer.’
If they start asking where you were and then add more probing questions, that’s the point at which the advice in the video kicks in.
I would pull Emily Post into this. While speaking to an officer of the law I would be polite and civil, the same way you are with the stranger standing next to you in a slow moving line. But as soon as the questions become intrusive, asking things you might not even discuss with your SIL, stop talking other than to request a lawyer. It’s in your best interests.
Can you still invoke your right to silence if you’ve already been speaking with them? At what point do you “cross the line” where you’ve implicitly waived your right?
I’m genuinely curious - it can’t be that if you respond to “good morning” with “likewise” that by doing so, you’ve given up your right to silence. So does the officer have to tell you you’re “officially” a suspect, and from that point on if you keep talking you’ve given up you rights?
I recall seeing on “Cops” when they Miranda-ize someone, the cop often says something like “…and you may stop talking to me at any time”. Is that true? Some posts above seem to imply that once you’ve given up your right to silence, either explcitly or implicitly, you can’t get it back.
You can always STFU and stop talking (some odd circumstances with Grand Juries, limited immunities testimony and such notwithstanding). It’s just that you can’t take back what you’ve already said. But again, as soon as they read you your rights, detain you. or start treating you as a suspect, STFU right then & there, saying ONLY “I want to speak to my attorney/ Am I free to go?” (I am assuming here that you have already given basic ID info).
The law is sketchy at times, at times there may be a “fine constitutional line” where a detention will actually turn into an arrest. The US SC has stated if an investigative detention is delayed past an acceptable point where business should have been concluded, the person is actually deemed under arrest then.
A motor vehicle stop is more in line with a so called “Terry Stop”, as only a reasonable suspicion an offense is, was, or will committed is enough to seize (pull over) a car.
The federal constitutional law also states that the roadside questioning of a detained motorist is NOT custodial in nature for purposes of Miranda, so anything they say can be used against them anyway.
A detainee can shut up anytime. The posts indicate that wether the person consented to talk then revoked that consent made no difference as far as Miranda, not that once they talk, they must continue under penalty of law, this is not the case. Besides, as I mentioned, it makes no difference, as the detainment is not custodial.