I think that is not correct re: the map. Yes Colorado is a S&I state, but only if there is RAS of a crime that has been or about to be committed. If a cop just demands you identify yourself “for their report” you do not have to provide it.
But smart. The cop doesn’t want to chat with you, he wants to build a case against you.
Tax Protestors overlap and are similar.
“Am I free to go?” “I want to speak to my/a lawyer”.
I wouldn’t phrase it like that. I think it’s more fair to say that good cops – which I think is most cops especially in these days of universal body cams – just want to do their jobs. I don’t think it’s particularly “smart” to make their jobs harder for no good reason, and potentially antagonizing them and provoking suspicion.
And I’ve seen too many videos of drivers getting themselves arrested by failing to understand the boundaries of where their rights end and the requirement to conform with the lawful orders of police begins – it’s not just sov-cits who make these mistakes, though they tend to be the most stupid and aggressive about it. I think in general the best strategy is to be polite and cooperative with police and make the world a nicer place for everyone, and if you think they overstepped their authority, the place to take that up is in court, not on the roadside.
For a counterexample – and I don’t want to start a debate here about the wisdom of asserting your rights – but watch this incredible asshole driver asserting his “rights”, the way police try to calmly respond to him, and what eventually happens to him (spoiler alert: he gets rather forcibly arrested, and things turn out badly for him because he’s a real jerk with a criminal rap sheet a mile long).
But do they have to say the crime they suspect you of, in order to demand you identify yourself? Otherwise it seems meaningless IMO. After the fact they will always be able to justify their “suspicion”.
Though bringing it back to SovCits you can see why they might think of all of this is just a series of magical invocations, that only work if you know the exact magical words to invoke in the exactly right time and place. And their magic words are just more powerful than the regular ones like “Am I free to go” and “I want to speak to a lawyer”
In my experience the number one indicator of someone not knowing their rights is if they feel the need to announce “I know my rights!” People who actually know their rights don’t need to announce it. One thing that many get wrong is during a motor vehicle stop you have to comply if you are ordered out of the vehicle. This is covered under several Supreme Court cases, the main ones being Pennsylvania v Mimms and Maryland v Wilson.
So true! I see this over and over again in bodycam videos. It’s almost always a red flag that you’re dealing with a jerk, and possibly a full-blown sov-cit. They always seem extremely surprised when they get arrested, especially sov-cits who loudly complain that they never “consented” to being arrested and have “no contract” with the police, which is more standard stuff from the sov-cit playbook.
Pennsylvania v Mimms is so famous that I hear police citing it often to obstinate drivers who feel they don’t have to comply because “they know their rights”. This is the crowd that is likely to get stop sticks discreetly placed in front of their tires and later get their window smashed, and are as likely as not to be sov-cits.
I think it is smart to remain silent and not say something that gets me sent to jail/prison.
I disagree that this involves having a convo with them. It is respectfully saying “I am not answering questions. Am I free to go.”
That video is a strawman. Refusing to answer questions or refusing a search is not the same as being an asshole and verbally abusing the police.
That’s not what the phrase “straw man” means. This is something real that actually happened, and police have to put up with variants of this kind of behaviour all the time. It’s just a particularly obnoxious example of it.
My point being that unless you’re a criminal trying to get away with a crime, regarding the police as “the enemy” is not generally a winning strategy. Police are only human, and in human relationships friendly cooperation elicits cooperation in return, while lack thereof,especially actions that might be perceived as overly defensive or hostile, will elicit like reactions. And in traffic stops, as many of us have seen over and over again in bodycam videos, it’s the police that have the power over uncooperative jerks. That’s why I think fully asserting your rights in normal traffic stops, even if you’re a trained lawyer – which few of us are – is not necessarily the right thing to do, as compared to a friendly conversation.
Why do you think these sov-cit idiots are constantly getting hauled into jail? Granted, they tend to be too stupid to understand the law, but refusal to cooperate can escalate very quickly, especially if you don’t know what you’re doing.
Interestingly, I just watched Sovereign.
The true (and heart-breaking) story of father and son sov-cits. Worth a watch.
The movie’s ending is based on bodycam footage. Frightening.
I’ve seen it. Highly recommended, and a great and dramatically powerful example of the mental dysfunction in these delusional people.
A “straw man” is when you argue against a position that nobody else made, in order to prove your point. For example, using a video of a person loudly and verbally asserting their “rights” to their own detriment as a counterexample to the suggestion that a person might be wise to keep their mouth shut when a cop is questioning them.
Your counterexample was just about the opposite of what Saint_Cad was suggesting.
Yes it is . A strawman is mischaracterizing an argument as something else then attacking that argument. My premise is that the smart thing is to not talk to cops at all and you are arguing a position that you shouldn’t be an ahole to cops. That is not my position at all.
And you are wrong. Asserting your rights, especially the right to not answer questions and not to consent to a search is the right thing to do.
When cops are questioning you, they are not your friend.
Because they break the law and assert rights that don’t exist.
Again. Legal refusal to cooperate like not answering questions, refusing permission for a search, refusing to perform a field sobriety test, etc. is not the same as yelling at the police about made up rights, telling them to go fuck themselves, refusing to get out of the car re Mimms, &c.
ETA: but don’t we have a few threads on this topic already. Want to go over there? I feel we are hijacking this thread and I don’t want to be arrested by a mod for obstruction.
At risk of derailing the thread, just one comment on this.
I’ve been driving accident-free for about 50 years, but have had a few run-ins with police in that time, especially in my youth. I think my last traffic ticket was probably about 20 years ago, when a police officer I didn’t see operating a radar unit pointed me to pull over to a side street.
I think some of this questioning stuff might be uniquely American. The only thing I remember him asking me was about my driving record, and it coming up clean, he did give me a ticket, but for a greatly reduced charge. Another time, way back in my youth, I accidentally drove the wrong way on a one-way street. The nice officer seemed reluctant to write a ticket and asked me how I could justify it. I explained it as a mistake and got off without a ticket.
I dunno, maybe the cultural norms of policing are different between the US and Canada, but I’ve always treated police here with respect and been treated that way in return. I don’t recall ever being asked odd questions, even innocent ones like “where are you coming from?” The concept of responding to “sorry, I don’t have to answer questions” seems to me to typify American Constitutional absolutism that isn’t necessary in a generally respectful culture and tends to provoke conflict.
It’s very simple. Laws can only be enacted with the consent of the governed. I do not consent to be governed, therefore laws do not apply to me. But all those other suckers who show up to court and call the judge “judge” or :cringe: “your honor”? The law is exactly what they signed up for.
For those committing crimes, staying silent when stopped by police is probably a reasonable tactic in most situations.
Being uncooperative and doing the amateur lawyer thing on simple traffic stops is bound to (at the least) prolong an unpleasant interaction unnecessarily.
As for the learned academic whose article was summarized by Johanna, verrry interesting.
Having a driver’s license and a registered vehicle, and following rules of the road makes you a tool of the “settler-colonial state”?
Do tell.
Did you ever see the video of the sov cit who prayed to Trump to deliver him?
It’s even dumber than that, it not just “not consenting” it’s knowing the magic passphrases that unlock the secret law code that means they get special treatment. All those other schmucks deserve their oppression because they get because they don’t know those secret passphrases.
Pretty much we are all criminals. That $20 bill you found blowing in the wind? No one reports that- but technically you should (not anything under a dollar, however).
I have done at least 6 and 8. (mind you, if I get a parking ticket, I pay it, so.. and only finger food, but still…)
And yes, answering some reasonable questions can be okay, and certainly be nice about if if you dont want to.
AIUI, if they ask they are admitting that they do not have probable cause to conduct the search.
Only idiots and those that know that what the cops won’t find the K9 will, consent to searches.