The Wiki article specifically mentions Arizona as being one of the states that have such laws just for motorists.
Perhaps not but I see no reason to voluntarily surrender my fifth amendment rights. Be polite – they carry a gun, after all – but don’t had them something on a platter.
Sorry, was reading too fast and misunderstood that to mean “I prefer you tell me why you pulled me over before I show you my driver’s license”. Which is less confrontational that the driver in the video, but still wouldn’t get you anywhere with this officer.
But yeah, the “do you know why I pulled you over gambit” is often an attempt to get the driver to incriminate himself, very handy to the prosecution if the driver decides to contest the ticket. It’s also a way to start a conversation and judge the driver’s state of alertness.
Oh, yeah. I’d show my license and insurance without argument, unlike that pogue, and don’t spook them in any way. Once at a night stop I said, “The insurance is in the glove box,” slowly reached over, opened it, and paused while his partner played a flashlight over the interior before reaching in.
I was wondering why the side mirror was blurred then I realized the driver’s face probably showed in it. It’d probably be a zoom and enhance situation but you never know.
When you’re pulled over for 106 in a 30, passing cars on the right through parking spaces, it makes you look like a moron.
“Who did I endanger?” (Sovcits love “No victim, no crime”)
Worse, if you did something obvious like run a red light or speed excessively, then disclaim any knowledge of doing anything wrong, the problem is that it reveals you to be a liar. So anything else you say that might be a mitigating circumstance will be taken as coming from a liar. (Assuming the driver is sober. Otherwise it reveals them to be so drunk they’re not aware of their surroundings. Not a good look, either.)
Does it still qualify as a question a moron would ask if, like 99.99% percent of the people pulled over to get ticketed, you weren’t “pulled over for 106 in a 30, passing cars on the right through parking spaces”? Btw, if you were “pulled over for 106 in a 30, passing cars on the right through parking spaces” do you actually think the cop’s reaction, after they called in to say that there was a high speed pursuit through a parking lot that endangered lives, would be something dumb like “Do you know why I pulled you over?”
And you didn’t address my question. If the cop does that with an ordinary driver, it’s a dick move.
If the person is asking with a normal tone of voice, it’s not unreasonable.
A lot of these YouTube videos show cops come up and start off with “I’m Officer Jones of the Highway Patrol, the reasons I’m pulling you over of because you were doing 75 in a 55 zone”
If the person wants to argue, it’s on them
They don’t. If I’m standing on a sidewalk can a cop ask me for my ID? No, unless there is reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed. Of note, “being suspicious” is not RAS.
SovCits don’t do that exactly. They say it’s not a crime because there is no victim and that cops cannot have their lights on unless it is an emergency and that somehow invalidates the stop.
That’s likely just the policy of a particular police department. I think it’s a good policy, but generally it’s not the law and not a requirement.
This one has to set a new record just for the number of times the heavily tinted driver’s window keeps going up and down!
What we have here is a pretend Chicago gangsta. Pulled over for failing to signal lane changes, he refuses to get out of the car. Eventually arrested, he summons up brilliant defenses like “I been sellin’ dope since I was 15” and “I been in jail a thousand times”! I dunno about the cops., but I, for one, am certainly convinced of his innocence. For added fun, the front-seat passenger, the dude’s father, also gets arrested due to an outstanding warrant.
Another passenger in the car objects to how the car has been boxed in front and back by squad cars. Very illegal, he sez! Why? Because y’all gotta give a brotha’ a chance to run!
Apparently there are some aspects of Chicago-land that are similar to Flori-duh!
In California, cops can’t do that. They have to tell you why you were stopped, not the other way around.
From that article:
By removing the question about why someone was pulled over, the policy aims to minimize potential misunderstandings, reduce subjective judgments, and foster a more transparent and equitable interaction between law enforcement and the public. This adjustment empowers drivers to understand and exercise their rights without feeling compelled to offer potentially self-incriminating information.
IMHO, the logic behind this is 100% bullshit, and may be symptomatic of the kind of attitude that, on a much larger and more generalized scale, has resulted in some of the crime problems that California cities are facing. But apparently the law firm citing it, which is in the business of criminal defense, thinks it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread!
As I said just a few posts back, when a police officer asks this question, it may indeed prompt a driver to admit guilt, and it also helps the officer assess the driver’s state of mind. Both of those are good things. I absolutely and vehemently reject the idea that it’s problematic to get someone who’s committed a crime to admit to committing the crime. In fact, the gentleman in the traffic stop I mentioned above who was the only one not arrested articulated this concept quite well:
Another passenger in the car objects to how the car has been boxed in front and back by squad cars. Very illegal, he sez! Why? Because y’all gotta give a brotha’ a chance to run!
i just happen to strongly disagree with that philosophy of “justice”!
When I was living in Pennsylvania there was a news story about a patron who came out of a bar, backed his car into a snow bank and got stuck, put it in drive and commenced driving to nowhere. One tire was spinning on pavement and heated to the point of catching fire.
It was called in, a fire truck came screaming up, and a fire fighter jumped off to yank the driver’s door open. “What are you doing here? I’m driving fifty miles an hour.”
My first thought was how lucky we were he got stuck.
The fifth amendment is such an impediment; how dare some police actually respect it.
Up to and including arresting them for obstruction when they don’t talk to police? Because that has happened.
If I am being detained, the officer at that time should be able to clearly tell me exactly what I am being detained for with reasonable articulable suspicion. Detainment should not be a fishing expedition to try to find something to arrest or cite me for. Also, there are countless videos where police badger a person to answer questions yet they themselve refuse to answer the most reasonable of questions such as:
Am I being detained? Am I free to go?
Why are you detaining me?
What is your RAS for detaining me or demanding ID?
So you’re OK with police using their difference in power dynamic to get people to give up their constitutional rights? You’re OK with cop being able to stop people for any reason whatsoever like walking down a street in a suspicious manner OR because there was an anonymous caller saying a guy was near their neighborhood making them nervous and refusing to provide any reason for the stop or even confirming/denying if they can go?
I am no constitutional scholar, but it’s pretty clear that the Fifth Amendment only applies in specifically designation situations. The explicit wording of the original formulation is intended to protect the accused from being compelled to testify against themselves in a criminal trial, and enumerates other rights such as the right to due process. By extension, due to Supreme Court rulings, it also protects an individual from being compelled to answer questions when in police custody.
But a traffic stop is specifically not a custodial situation. The mistake of believing that the Fifth Amendment applies to any and all interactions with police leads to comical behaviours like the SovCit driver in one of the videos who, during a traffic stop, replies to all the officer’s questions with “I don’t answer questions”. That has exactly the same legal weight as other lunatic SovCit incantations like “I’m not driving, I’m traveling” and “I do not consent to arrest”.
I am not OK with any of this litany of imaginary straw man examples and never said I was.
You calling this a strawman clearly shows that you have never seen the plethora of Youtube videos showing exactly this.
Whether it is the 5th or 1st or anything else, SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that you do not have to answer any police questions whether a voluntary questioning, being detained or arrested. You do have to show a driver’s license, registration and insurance if stopped while driving and you do have to ID in some states if there is RAS that you committed, are committing or will committ a crime. Other than that you have the right to remain mute whatever the source.
You are just absolutely wrong here. You do not have to answer any questions from the police except as noted above.
That doesn’t seem to be what Berkemer v. McCarty (1980) concluded. In particular, the following (emphasis mine):
The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute “custodial interrogation” for the purposes of the Miranda rule. Although an ordinary traffic stop curtails the “freedom of action” of the detained motorist and imposes some pressures on the detainee to answer questions, such pressures do not sufficiently impair the detainee’s exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights. A traffic stop is usually brief, and the motorist expects that, while he may be given a citation, in the end he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way… However, if a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him “in custody” for practical purposes, he is entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda.
Your cite confirms @Saint_Cad’s statement that the detained motorist does not have their privilege against self-incrimination impaired. That is, you do not have to answer any questions from the police.
What your cite does say is that an ordinary traffic stop does not require police to inform the motorist of their rights. Because it’s not enough pressure to impair them. Police are free to ask questions and the motorists may choose to answer, but it is not required.
There are innumerable examples of crimes being thwarted or criminals apprehended because experience/instinct showed there was something “off” about a person’s behavior.
In an example in NYC I just read about, a detective was about to enter a building when he saw a guy leaving. Something seemed wrong about him. He was asked where he was coming from. The guy said “third floor” (it was a two-story building). It turned out that he’d just robbed, beaten up and raped an elderly woman living there.
Saint_Cad: You’re OK with cop being able to stop people…walking down a street in a suspicious manner…
Yes.