Former cop here. The article states "You cannot lie to the police". This is, generally, incorrect. Some jurisdictions may have some specific law, but other than certain exceptions, lying has no general consequence. If it did, there would be a lot more charges against pretty much everyone who has been arrested. In my experience, people will lie about stuff that's not even relevant, or helpful to them.
Exceptions include things like giving a fake ID or name/dob or SSN to avoid certain identifications (e.g. on a traffic stop). Also, lying to a federal agent during their investigation is illegal, to my understanding. In Virginia, if you lie to the police regarding the investigation of a different person than yourself, it is considered obstruction of justice, though I can think of maybe one time that I heard of that law being used that way.
But in general, it's a good article. Assert your rights politely, but firmly. If the cop disregards it, don't try to stop them. If the cop does illegal stuff violating 4th and 5th amendment, there's a chance the case gets tossed (as it should). If you try to physically stop the 4th amendment violation, and you're wrong about it being a violation, you just made your problem worse.
Of the people who've accused me of violating their rights, 0 have been correct, but plenty of people have asserted their rights, and stopped an investigation that I had reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause on, and no further means to reasonably develop PC.
A caveat to lying: even if your particular jurisdiction doesn't criminalize lying to law enforcement, it can result in a truly devastating jury instruction. The judge will literally instruct the jury "It is reasonable to infer that an innocent person does not usually find it necessary to invent or fabricate an explanation or statement..."
My attorney has advised me (over social beers, not while preparing me for a court appearance :-) ) that while I can lie to the police, if I do and the prosecution can prove it, they will beat me like a drum with the fact I lied throughout any prosecution. Basically, there are no direct consequences, but if things get hairy, there can be indirect consequences.
> (1) gives a false report of the commission of a crime or gives false information in the official investigation of the commission of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false;
> ...
> knowing the report or information to be false; commits false informing [0]
I've omitted (for brevity) several other things that also make a person guilty of this particular crime but read (1) again and think about how absolutely vague that sentence really is:
> gives false information in the official investigation of the commission of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false;
(Note that, here, both making a "false identity statement" and "assisting a criminal" are completely separate crimes; the above simply regards any "false information", generally.)
Granted, a prosecutor likely wouldn't bother wasting his time and the government's money to charge you over some inconsequential, petty lie but that might not stop a police officer from arresting you and making you spend a day or two in jail over it -- especially if he's having a bad day or you've done something to piss him off. Is that really a chance you want to take?
Personally, I feel that the best ("smartest") thing one can say when such an "opportunity" arises is absolutely nothing. To paraphrase Proverbs (17:28), "Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise." [1]
Were you a federal, state, or local cop? Lying to a federal officer is a felony. Lying to a local cop can be less of a problem, but the feds can even make that a big deal if the entity being lied to receives federal funding.
You're not the cops I've dealt with but thanks for being good sports when I go hard on you guys when you falsely arrest me and stuff. Eventually the realization dawns that I am rich and will fight back (I don't look it, drive an old car, wear old clothes) and magically the charges go away. Occasionally, I have to prove one of you perjured yourself.
IANAL but my understanding was that lying to the police opens you up to obstruction of justice charges -- or perjury.
For instance, I learned from law professor James Duane's video that Martha Stewart would have completely avoided prison time if she had not lied to investigators.
Good advice, and that "Don't Talk to the Police" video is a classic must-watch for everyone who comes of age in the US.
One other thing which goes along with being polite and courteous, never lie outright to an officer. Use weasel words like, "not that I can think of" or, "I'm not sure why you would think that." That might sound suspicious at first glance, but they'll assume in the moment that just about any direct statement is a lie, anyways.
And even when you are completely confident in your universal innocence, any direct statement can be made to sound like a lie by an officer who wants to keep you off balance. Think like you're dealing with Cardinal Richelieu, who famously said: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
It's really best to avoid any encounter with cops in the US; we do not practice "policing by consent". Obey basic traffic laws and don't speak to officers on the street, even if you think doing so might help someone. Here and now, all it takes is one bad apple to give your life a terrible and irrevocable turn for the worse, assuming that you are lucky enough to leave the encounter with your life.
Don't get me wrong, I've left plenty of interactions thinking about how polite and professional the officer who I had been speaking to was. But I've also experienced plenty of cops who were callous, dishonest, insecure, and predatory, and we do not have any institutional safeguards to remove them from positions of authority. So any interaction with the law in the US is a roll of the dice, with your life/career/family/etc on the line. Are you feeling lucky?
“ One other thing which goes along with being polite and courteous, never lie outright to an officer. Use weasel words like, "not that I can think of" or, "I'm not sure why you would think that." That might sound suspicious at first glance, but they'll assume in the moment that just about any direct statement is a lie, anyways.”
This is really bad advice. You need to re-watch the video you alluded to in your first paragraph.
You do not talk to police. Period. Unless you are asking a.) if you are being detained or b.) asking if you are being placed under arrest. Or to state your legal name.
> One other thing which goes along with being polite and courteous, never lie outright to an officer. Use weasel words like, "not that I can think of" or, "I'm not sure why you would think that." That might sound suspicious at first glance, but they'll assume in the moment that just about any direct statement is a lie, anyways.
If you're thinking about clever hacks to use when you're talking to the police you're doing it wrong.
The thing is, you shouldn't be getting to the stage when you say "not that I can think of" because you shouldn't ever talk to an officer other than to answer basic questions about your name, etc.
Every time something like this comes up I'm reminded of one time I was stopped by a police officer walking down the street. I felt a tap on my shoulder, turned around and was greeted by an officer in uniform, I wracked my brain trying to remember what I'd read on the internet about talking to the police and was just about to blurt out "Am I under arrest or am I free to go officer?" When he told me: "You dropped your wallet a ways back son, here you go" and handed it to me. "Thank you officer." I said sheepishly, and went on my way.
Not to say that this isn't great advice that people should follow in general.
My rule of thumb is to treat cops the way I'd like to be treated if I was in their shoes. Which is to say, with a pleasant but firm demeanor. I don't consent to searches and I don't volunteer much of any information, but I treat them as respectfully as I'd treat any other stranger I encountered. Pleasant smiles, "have a nice day", etc. The same as I'd treat a retail worker.
My brother pulled the "AM I BEING DETAINED" routine with a cop during a traffic stop when he was 17 and it didn't go very well for him. Knowing your rights and being firm about it is important, but on the other hand you don't want to sound like a cop-hating sovereign citizen, since those of people make cops afraid and fear is not an emotion you want to encourage during interactions with the police.
You're pretty lucky, I was held at gunpoint for a bit because I was in the vicinity of some reported gunshots many years ago.
>we were just smoking weed and drinking tho and lucked out with 1/2 the cops
> "I'm going to remain silent. I'd like to see a lawyer."
On TV shows, the guy would then call his lawyer, who is under a retainer or something. The lawyer has all the context on exactly what's going on, and tells him exactly what to do, and he gets off free.
But as someone who doesn't have a lawyer, what exactly happens if and when the cop agrees to this?
Are they obligated to provide me with a lawyer? Or do I need to know one, or know how to find one? Do I need to do this while detained or do I have some time to do it?
> what exactly happens if and when the cop agrees to this?
I don't believe they are obligated to provide you with a lawyer. A court is obligated to do this; the police aren't.
The point of this advice is to make sure that you don't say anything to the police, or -- if you do -- to get it thrown out of court. Because of some bad precedent, you need to make the statement that you do not wish to answer their questions as explicit as possible. You actually don't need to request a lawyer, but doing so has some beneficial effects.
What happens?
The police may ignore your expressed desire to remain silent and continue questioning you. If you are resistant to social pressure, this doesn't matter. If you aren't, you may keep answering them. Your answers should be inadmissible in court. They may not be, based on some potential arguments by the police:
- We didn't understand that he wanted to remain silent. His wording was too confusing. (This is why the advice here tells you to use the words "remain silent".)
- We stopped the interview, but then we started another one and he spoke to us willingly.
That second point is much harder for them to argue if you expressed that you did not wish to speak to them without benefit of counsel. There is no clear line to draw between the end of one interview and the beginning of a second interview after the interviewee has had a change of heart. but it is in fact obvious to the police, even in the eyes of the court, that once you've said "I will not speak to you without the advice of a lawyer", a second interview begun before you've had the opportunity to speak to a lawyer is illegitimate.
> Once you say that you want to talk to a lawyer, officers should stop asking you questions. If they continue to ask questions, you still have the right to remain silent. If you do not have a lawyer, you may still tell the officer you want to speak to one before answering questions. If you do have a lawyer, keep his or her business card with you.
In many countries the police would provide you with contact information for publicly-funded duty lawyers who can help in this emergency (assuming you are under arrest, and not just free to walk away). Sounds like in the US, it would be wise to do a bit of research and check if there are any emergency services like that in your area.
Unless you have a background in law and understand your exact rights, ask for a lawyer. Some people think this makes you look guilty. It doesn't. It makes you smart. If you don't have one, wait. Usually, you're allowed a call. Have someone in mind whom you trust to get you legal counsel.
If you, um, have something to hide, you probably want to explicitly state you're invoking your fifth amendment rights.
Y'all wait until you can find one. I don't know how that works if you can't afford one, as they're usually court ordered ie. after being charged. You don't talk and wait to be charged I guess
Title should be if you get stopped in the US by the police. The US until today is not the world. In my country have been stopped by police a lot. Most of the time they are civilized. Some cases they can come over as dicks but as long as you don't escalate the situation and stay friendly nothing will happen.
Main problem with this advice is, I can either assert my rights on principle, be detained, possibly held in lockup, deal with the lawyers and courts...
Or I can just let them look in my empty trunk.
I say this with full awareness of how fucked up it is, but your bet is to be white and polite.
There is a significant chance that if you assert your rights you will shortly be let go and if you let them search it will be a lengthy process. There is a non-zero chance that evidence is planted during a search. If you or any of your passengers (present or past) are drug users there is a non-zero chance that legitimate drug residue is in your vehicle. If you purchased your vehicle used there is a non-zero chance the previous owner left drug residue in it.
In my opinion having a police officer search a vehicle is more risky than asserting your rights.
Until you realize your friend left his gym bag with weed in it in your trunk. That looks bad man, and comes back on you. My best seizures came from consent searches. I've also had cars that I've stopped where I was darn sure they were moving something in it, but I didnt have PC, and I didn't have a dog nearby that I could get in reasonable time. I asked for consent, and got told "No" in no uncertain terms. They left on their merry way, and I still wonder sometimes if a compartment full of stolen guns was in that dang car.
Sometimes we have a reason to be suspicious, sometimes were just guessing. Just to account for confirmation bias, I'd ask for consent to search completely randomly. Sometimes I got it, spent 10 seconds searching, and was done. Sometimes I didn't and said have a nice day. Sometimes I got the consent and a stolen gun and some hard narcotics
There have been a few cases where we had enough PC to search a residence, and asked for consent. Each time it was an unusual circumstance (e.g. the roomate was selling drugs or wanted or something). Each time we were in and out in 10 minutes. If we had been told to get a warrant, we would've had to detain the home owner (which in this case means hang out with him in our car or in his yard, casually talking and killing time) while we go to get a warrant.
This means driving to the magistrates office 45 minutes away, writing the affidavit, waiting in line, doing the hearing, then driving back, maybe 2-3 hours total. If during that time the homeowner goes "Hey, screw this, just search it", we won't, as we don't want it to seem like coercion. Once consent is denied, we aren't going forward without a warrant.
So again, general rule, "Dont talk to the police, assert your rights". Except when maybe you should. If you come home and your spouse is missing and blood is everywhere, you are a suspect. Heck, at the beginning, you are probably THE suspect, but you may want to talk to the cops to help them figure out where your wife went. If the cops want to look in your house for a stolen gun that your shady roommate allegedly stole, it may be BS to just search your house, or they may just want to check that 1 room, get that stolen gun, and go.
The problem is if you have bird poop on the hood, donut crumbs on the floor, your passenger was recently drywalling, or you have vitamins, breath mints, or powdered milk on you then you might end up spending the night in jail. Those are all real items that really got people arrested.
Ha, many years ago while I was playing in a punk band at a house party that was broken up by the police. Our equipment was in the house and we wanted to get it and leave, but the police weren’t letting anyone back in the house. So the rest of the band members volunteered me (the white guy) to ask the officer if we could get our equipment from the house. Well, apparently the officer was not in a good mood and told me to step the f back as he hit me with his baton across my chest. Of course the other band members laughed at me when I came back with his answer. Taught me a lesson.
Unfortunately, where I live (Japan), asserting your rights and refusing a search is seen as probable cause. "If you were innocent you would just consent to the search" is how the thinking goes.
Yup, these recommendations have practical issues that are rarely seriously discussed. If you assert your rights, the cops will also be the biggest jerks possible.
I get what you're saying and I'm sympathetic to it— a lot of the HN user base is outside the USA. I think there should be more differentiation of USA-specific content in titles and such.
But I think the assumption of YCombinator and HN is that since so much of what is under discussion here is SV related, then readers should assume it's USA-specific unless stated otherwise.
James Duane recently updated his advice, incorrectly restated in the article and in many places in this thread, in a book entitled You Have the Right to Remain Innocent. There is a long and short of it, but I'd rather see you buy the book, so I'll just mention a few things. First, "I'd like to see a lawyer," is not nearly succinct nor strong enough, as per recent case law and Supreme Court rulings. Second, the Supreme Court has ruled that invoking the 5th Amendment can be admitted as evidence of guilt, especially if you say it wrong, as is simply remaining silent. Finally, the people in here saying to, for example, just assent to a search in order to be on their ways are hopelessly naive about the frequency of evidence planting, the potential to be misheard, misremembered, or deliberately misquoted by cops looking to get a tidy resolution to whatever messy situation confronts them. Not all of them, but enough of them and often enough that I cringe at most of the advice in this thread, much of which you (Yes, you!) personally think is great.
Buy the book. It's cheap, and an engaging quick read. Good luck to you all!
If you're not an attorney (or as well versed in law as the attorney in the video), your best bet is usually to be friendly and comply. You comply because they're allowed to lie to you, they're allowed to search you with very little reason, and they're allowed to arrest you using circumstances and behaviors that they knowingly and purposefully antagonize out of you.
I don't think that's accurate, although I've previously said it myself before on social media.
I, do, think that too many citizens and lawmakers always assume police can do no wrong and are willing to give them whatever tools they ask for, no matter the cost to freedom. I think we have too many laws on the books, far too many for any person (even for a judge or attorney) to be able to read, let alone memorize, interpret, or internalize. I think the only thing that saves every last one of us from being convicted is a scarcity of police time, but technology is likely to change part of that (digital footprints on phones, GPS devices, WiFi / bluetooth devices, SaaS security systems like Ring, cars with dashcams) and the increasing changes to grade schools (campus police officers, "zero tolerance" policies) that increase the impact of normal childish outbursts.
I have lots of problems with police tools and tactics and I will continue to use my citizen voice and vote to trim those back, but I think that we aren't a police state right now.
> And this is how freedom dies.
If we live in a police state, then freedom is already dead.
It's not clear to me if police + legislatures are taking our freedoms faster than corporate land-grabs for my digital information and psychological profiling.
Given what you just said, why would you comply? Seems better to heed the Miranda warning "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" and just say "I'd like to talk to an attorney first". Whether you did what you're suspected of or not, given how the deck is stacked against you, compliance seems like the wrong choice and you may very well end up making things worse for yourself.
The cop is already pretty sure you did it (or he wouldn't have brought you in), so seems like there's little you can say that will change his mind.
Letting the search happens only makes it worse. Force them to have probable cause or violate your rights. Know your basic rights and assert them. Not doing so only helps the police state.
And don't forget, in the USA, complying with requests given by a person carrying a gun and a license to kill you, is considered freely given consent that waives your rights.
"Don't Talk to the Police", the video by James Duane linked in the article, is essential viewing. It's so succinct and cogent, I end up rewatching it usually on a yearly basis because I have it saved locally.
In many countries, the answers get really complicated, really quickly, and can vary based on location and other factors.
For instance in NSW Australia, you may be cautioned by police that “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you. It may harm your defence if you fail to mention something now which you later rely on in court.” [1][2]
The impact of this is incredibly complicated, and it'll take a lawyer to fully explain it. Which, if you don't have one on hand when you're questioned - can be a major issue.
A crash course on whether to offer a bribe, how much is customary, and the manner in which such an offering is made really ought to be included with the SkyMall magazine.
Russia: ianal and giving advices is a “bear’s service” (making it only worse for you), but I can share my knowledge on interacting with the police.
First thing is we here don’t have many guns and the status quo it’s not a crime to touch or bad manner the policeman (while not recommended, they can turn it against you easily at will). Second thing is you usually want to know what the case really is, and what they know and think in general, so “remaining silent” may play against you. How it works: you get a sudden call, “hey wruza it’s you? Uhm maybe not, who’s asking? It’s detective Borisov, can you please meet me at my office here I have questions”. That’s it. You don’t get more info over the phone and if you ignore, you may get in a unknown trouble, even if they decide to not force you later in their office (it is not a crime to not go there, but they can give you a free mandatory ride if necessary). If you ignore or “remain silent” from the doorstep, you’re simply playing a blind hand against something serious. You’re innocent until guilty, so you better collect/ensure your own evidence, since it tends to decay with time.
Fighting and resisting (injuring even slightly) the police is a crime, but chances to get shot are minuscle compared to US. Gun rules are strict for them too, and even in a dangerous situation they don’t shoot an entire fucking clip into you, as youtube usually shows for US. YT search for “Полиция застрелила” (graphic content warning). It is usually few minutes of open and/or armed aggression against a cop before he decides to pull a gun. Each shot is a hard paperwork and a risk of losing their job or freedom.
Another big difference is that documents and witnessing is everything, words are nothing. You have to be damn sure that the protocol contains your words as you said it and as they asked, not rephrased or manipulated. Having a bad memory doesn’t count as a lie or justice/investigation obstruction, but a judge may find it strange that you recall everything except that one day or event.
something is wrong with the system if you need to be so paranoid with the policeman. it seems people are living under fear and police force in the U.S. can easily abuse their power and walk free.
Does anyone still remember the tragedy of Debian founder Ian Murdock suicided in San Francisco?
in EU or Asia, policeforce seems more approachable.
We live in a police state. We've also greatly expanded what we consider criminal, and drastically upped the punishment. The USA has some serious soul searching to do regarding morality/punishment, and basically nothing is happening on that front.
The police in Australia are far from perfect but they seem like saints compared to American police. I have interacted with them a few times and it has always been very reasonable.
#1 - After you pull over, place your car in park, and turn it off, put your hands (both!) on the steering wheel and do not move them until the officer asks for your license.
According to lawyers I’ve spoken to in the U.K., your refusal to talk to the police is admissible as ... it’s somehow admissible in court. The prosecutor is allowed to tell a jury that it’s suspect you didn’t want to talk to the cops without a lawyer. Or something.
Can someone with know how elaborate on what exactly this means, in practical terms? What should someone do in the U.K.? Still remain silent?
Your best bet is to remain silent unless your solicitor tells you overwise. If you are arrested in the UK you have a right to legal advice from the "duty solicitor".
Your refusal to speak to police can't be the only evidence against you. Silence is not a confession. It merely means that when you're in court the prosecution may make something of the fact that you didn't say anything to the police. They may claim that your testimony is less credible than it would have been. But it's up to the jury whether or not they agree with that. It is much more important what you say in court.
On the other hand, if you do speak to the police that may well be used against you as well, indeed it may be the main evidence if you unintentionally admit to a crime that you didn't know you committed, or you may provide crucial evidence for one aspect of a crime (such as intention) that would otherwise be difficult for them to prove.
If you do say something to police, a transcript will be made and it probably will be available to the jury. They will compare what you said to the police to what you said in court. Your court date may be a long time from your police interview. So you'd better be sure you can reproduce your answers months into the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an... elaborates on the special rules you've alluded to, which apply in certain situations in England and Wales. Unfortunately, the answer to "what should someone do if questioned by police" is still "it depends."
Don’t let them in without a warrant, but perhaps don’t even open the door. A friend of mine had a noise complaint called in on him. They just didn’t open the door when the cop showed up. He eventually went away. Not sure how often it works, but I found it hilarious.
These tips does not work in Hong Kong. Police can do whatever they want without any accountability. One officer even drove into a crowd of people, was put on paid leave and back at work a month after. Horrible!
Stating the obvious, I hope, but advice should vary by jurisdiction so here's the Canadian flavour of asserting rights around arrest, talking, search, etc.:
Wherever you live, please consider supporting your national or local Civil Liberties Association if you have time or money and want to keep the future as free as possible.
* Act like a normal, sensible person. Don't try to provoke them, and don't give them any reason to escalate the encounter.
* Don't allow police in your home without a warrant.
* Affirmatively deny consent for searches. This includes your home, car, and personal belongings.
* Assert your right to remain silent.
Unless you're reporting a crime where you're the victim (and, sometimes, even then), you should only talk to police with a lawyer representing you present.
How much of that is it reasonable to do as an immigrant?
Aren't police allowed too search all sorts of things with easy excuse? My refusal is a form of escalation especially since they can arrest me on whatever, then let me go, and that alone could jeopardize my immigration status (all those visa questionnaires starting with "have you ever been arrested").
I may have erred in commiserating with the young officer attempting to extricate one neighbor's cat from another neighbor's tree? (The neighbor with the tree is a lawyer, but he's not my lawyer and he wasn't home at the time.)
This article is a great damage control policy. You should be able to avoid getting screwed by following its advice.
That said, this is a complex topic and an article of that length can only cover so much. There's a lot of nuance in these kinds of things (human interaction is complex) and by behaving as the situation demands an not coming off as one of those sovereign citizen types you can turn a lot of $50 "contempt of cop while having a tail light out" tickets into warnings without giving up your rights.
My observation from past 10 years is that 10 years ago 1/2 cops were nice and 1/2 cops were harsh, but professional. These days 1/2 cops are nice and 1/2 cops seem to actively create troubles out of thin air. Each interaction with a mean cop was saved by what I'd call status illegibility: the cop wasn't sure whether I'm a rich connected trouble-maker or just look like one. Short conversations with some cops reminded me typical conversations with professional corporate sociopaths when you aren't sure whether the person you're talking to is a skillful sociopath who tries to get something on you or just a chatty dude. Long time ago, when I was young and naive, I got pulled over by a seemingly friendly cop who felt very chatty. I gave him way too much information because I didn't understand what was going on and gave a wrong answer to a request to search my car. What probably saved me that time was his next question about where I work. After my answer he promptly returned my DL and let me go.
Pray. Being stopped by American police can be a death sentence for anyone. I knew a programmer who was murdered by the same police he called to help him. His crime? Schizophrenia.
CodeAndCuffs|6 years ago
Exceptions include things like giving a fake ID or name/dob or SSN to avoid certain identifications (e.g. on a traffic stop). Also, lying to a federal agent during their investigation is illegal, to my understanding. In Virginia, if you lie to the police regarding the investigation of a different person than yourself, it is considered obstruction of justice, though I can think of maybe one time that I heard of that law being used that way.
But in general, it's a good article. Assert your rights politely, but firmly. If the cop disregards it, don't try to stop them. If the cop does illegal stuff violating 4th and 5th amendment, there's a chance the case gets tossed (as it should). If you try to physically stop the 4th amendment violation, and you're wrong about it being a violation, you just made your problem worse.
Of the people who've accused me of violating their rights, 0 have been correct, but plenty of people have asserted their rights, and stopped an investigation that I had reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause on, and no further means to reasonably develop PC.
torstenvl|6 years ago
https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/sites/ca3/files/2013%20Chapter%...
kjs3|6 years ago
jlgaddis|6 years ago
> A person who:
> (1) gives a false report of the commission of a crime or gives false information in the official investigation of the commission of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false;
> ...
> knowing the report or information to be false; commits false informing [0]
I've omitted (for brevity) several other things that also make a person guilty of this particular crime but read (1) again and think about how absolutely vague that sentence really is:
> gives false information in the official investigation of the commission of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false;
(Note that, here, both making a "false identity statement" and "assisting a criminal" are completely separate crimes; the above simply regards any "false information", generally.)
Granted, a prosecutor likely wouldn't bother wasting his time and the government's money to charge you over some inconsequential, petty lie but that might not stop a police officer from arresting you and making you spend a day or two in jail over it -- especially if he's having a bad day or you've done something to piss him off. Is that really a chance you want to take?
Personally, I feel that the best ("smartest") thing one can say when such an "opportunity" arises is absolutely nothing. To paraphrase Proverbs (17:28), "Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise." [1]
[0]: Indiana Code, Title 35, Article 44.1, Chapter 2, Section 3
bsanr2|6 years ago
dreamcompiler|6 years ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements
cheez|6 years ago
cassbot|6 years ago
For instance, I learned from law professor James Duane's video that Martha Stewart would have completely avoided prison time if she had not lied to investigators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&feature=emb_titl...
gjs278|6 years ago
[deleted]
quaquaqua1|6 years ago
[deleted]
leggomylibro|6 years ago
One other thing which goes along with being polite and courteous, never lie outright to an officer. Use weasel words like, "not that I can think of" or, "I'm not sure why you would think that." That might sound suspicious at first glance, but they'll assume in the moment that just about any direct statement is a lie, anyways.
And even when you are completely confident in your universal innocence, any direct statement can be made to sound like a lie by an officer who wants to keep you off balance. Think like you're dealing with Cardinal Richelieu, who famously said: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
It's really best to avoid any encounter with cops in the US; we do not practice "policing by consent". Obey basic traffic laws and don't speak to officers on the street, even if you think doing so might help someone. Here and now, all it takes is one bad apple to give your life a terrible and irrevocable turn for the worse, assuming that you are lucky enough to leave the encounter with your life.
Don't get me wrong, I've left plenty of interactions thinking about how polite and professional the officer who I had been speaking to was. But I've also experienced plenty of cops who were callous, dishonest, insecure, and predatory, and we do not have any institutional safeguards to remove them from positions of authority. So any interaction with the law in the US is a roll of the dice, with your life/career/family/etc on the line. Are you feeling lucky?
jdkee|6 years ago
This is really bad advice. You need to re-watch the video you alluded to in your first paragraph.
You do not talk to police. Period. Unless you are asking a.) if you are being detained or b.) asking if you are being placed under arrest. Or to state your legal name.
iudqnolq|6 years ago
If you're thinking about clever hacks to use when you're talking to the police you're doing it wrong.
(Unless you're AL, IANAL etc.)
fortran77|6 years ago
jdoliner|6 years ago
Not to say that this isn't great advice that people should follow in general.
catalogia|6 years ago
My brother pulled the "AM I BEING DETAINED" routine with a cop during a traffic stop when he was 17 and it didn't go very well for him. Knowing your rights and being firm about it is important, but on the other hand you don't want to sound like a cop-hating sovereign citizen, since those of people make cops afraid and fear is not an emotion you want to encourage during interactions with the police.
gus_massa|6 years ago
> Good {morning, evening}. How are you officer?
wavefunction|6 years ago
quicklime|6 years ago
On TV shows, the guy would then call his lawyer, who is under a retainer or something. The lawyer has all the context on exactly what's going on, and tells him exactly what to do, and he gets off free.
But as someone who doesn't have a lawyer, what exactly happens if and when the cop agrees to this?
Are they obligated to provide me with a lawyer? Or do I need to know one, or know how to find one? Do I need to do this while detained or do I have some time to do it?
thaumasiotes|6 years ago
I don't believe they are obligated to provide you with a lawyer. A court is obligated to do this; the police aren't.
The point of this advice is to make sure that you don't say anything to the police, or -- if you do -- to get it thrown out of court. Because of some bad precedent, you need to make the statement that you do not wish to answer their questions as explicit as possible. You actually don't need to request a lawyer, but doing so has some beneficial effects.
What happens?
The police may ignore your expressed desire to remain silent and continue questioning you. If you are resistant to social pressure, this doesn't matter. If you aren't, you may keep answering them. Your answers should be inadmissible in court. They may not be, based on some potential arguments by the police:
- We didn't understand that he wanted to remain silent. His wording was too confusing. (This is why the advice here tells you to use the words "remain silent".)
- We stopped the interview, but then we started another one and he spoke to us willingly.
That second point is much harder for them to argue if you expressed that you did not wish to speak to them without benefit of counsel. There is no clear line to draw between the end of one interview and the beginning of a second interview after the interviewee has had a change of heart. but it is in fact obvious to the police, even in the eyes of the court, that once you've said "I will not speak to you without the advice of a lawyer", a second interview begun before you've had the opportunity to speak to a lawyer is illegitimate.
sjy|6 years ago
> Once you say that you want to talk to a lawyer, officers should stop asking you questions. If they continue to ask questions, you still have the right to remain silent. If you do not have a lawyer, you may still tell the officer you want to speak to one before answering questions. If you do have a lawyer, keep his or her business card with you.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter...
In many countries the police would provide you with contact information for publicly-funded duty lawyers who can help in this emergency (assuming you are under arrest, and not just free to walk away). Sounds like in the US, it would be wise to do a bit of research and check if there are any emergency services like that in your area.
throwaway55554|6 years ago
If you, um, have something to hide, you probably want to explicitly state you're invoking your fifth amendment rights.
P_I_Staker|6 years ago
simple_phrases|6 years ago
toadi|6 years ago
knocte|6 years ago
dmalvarado|6 years ago
Or I can just let them look in my empty trunk.
I say this with full awareness of how fucked up it is, but your bet is to be white and polite.
tim58|6 years ago
There is a significant chance that if you assert your rights you will shortly be let go and if you let them search it will be a lengthy process. There is a non-zero chance that evidence is planted during a search. If you or any of your passengers (present or past) are drug users there is a non-zero chance that legitimate drug residue is in your vehicle. If you purchased your vehicle used there is a non-zero chance the previous owner left drug residue in it.
In my opinion having a police officer search a vehicle is more risky than asserting your rights.
CodeAndCuffs|6 years ago
Until you realize your friend left his gym bag with weed in it in your trunk. That looks bad man, and comes back on you. My best seizures came from consent searches. I've also had cars that I've stopped where I was darn sure they were moving something in it, but I didnt have PC, and I didn't have a dog nearby that I could get in reasonable time. I asked for consent, and got told "No" in no uncertain terms. They left on their merry way, and I still wonder sometimes if a compartment full of stolen guns was in that dang car.
Sometimes we have a reason to be suspicious, sometimes were just guessing. Just to account for confirmation bias, I'd ask for consent to search completely randomly. Sometimes I got it, spent 10 seconds searching, and was done. Sometimes I didn't and said have a nice day. Sometimes I got the consent and a stolen gun and some hard narcotics
There have been a few cases where we had enough PC to search a residence, and asked for consent. Each time it was an unusual circumstance (e.g. the roomate was selling drugs or wanted or something). Each time we were in and out in 10 minutes. If we had been told to get a warrant, we would've had to detain the home owner (which in this case means hang out with him in our car or in his yard, casually talking and killing time) while we go to get a warrant.
This means driving to the magistrates office 45 minutes away, writing the affidavit, waiting in line, doing the hearing, then driving back, maybe 2-3 hours total. If during that time the homeowner goes "Hey, screw this, just search it", we won't, as we don't want it to seem like coercion. Once consent is denied, we aren't going forward without a warrant.
So again, general rule, "Dont talk to the police, assert your rights". Except when maybe you should. If you come home and your spouse is missing and blood is everywhere, you are a suspect. Heck, at the beginning, you are probably THE suspect, but you may want to talk to the cops to help them figure out where your wife went. If the cops want to look in your house for a stolen gun that your shady roommate allegedly stole, it may be BS to just search your house, or they may just want to check that 1 room, get that stolen gun, and go.
astura|6 years ago
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evj89n/this-dollar2-test-...
vondur|6 years ago
simple_phrases|6 years ago
And they proceed to literally tear apart your car with a knife, or if you're really unlucky, they plant evidence there.
laurieg|6 years ago
dredmorbius|6 years ago
The ability for police to detain you on no evidence is slight. And your opportunities for damages increase rapidly.
P_I_Staker|6 years ago
chadcmulligan|6 years ago
Colleges are closing because they're to expensive
What to do if you're stopped by police
The Top 10 books include 1984 and Fahrenheit 451
all we need is something about medical insurance sending people broke and the ever present incarceration rate.
You guys should really fix this (not an American), its not that hard.
masonic|6 years ago
Fixing one's reading comprehension (or intellectual honesty) isn't that hard, either.
wyclif|6 years ago
But I think the assumption of YCombinator and HN is that since so much of what is under discussion here is SV related, then readers should assume it's USA-specific unless stated otherwise.
Hydraulix989|6 years ago
theothermkn|6 years ago
Buy the book. It's cheap, and an engaging quick read. Good luck to you all!
slumdev|6 years ago
If you're not an attorney (or as well versed in law as the attorney in the video), your best bet is usually to be friendly and comply. You comply because they're allowed to lie to you, they're allowed to search you with very little reason, and they're allowed to arrest you using circumstances and behaviors that they knowingly and purposefully antagonize out of you.
And this is how freedom dies.
thephyber|6 years ago
I don't think that's accurate, although I've previously said it myself before on social media.
I, do, think that too many citizens and lawmakers always assume police can do no wrong and are willing to give them whatever tools they ask for, no matter the cost to freedom. I think we have too many laws on the books, far too many for any person (even for a judge or attorney) to be able to read, let alone memorize, interpret, or internalize. I think the only thing that saves every last one of us from being convicted is a scarcity of police time, but technology is likely to change part of that (digital footprints on phones, GPS devices, WiFi / bluetooth devices, SaaS security systems like Ring, cars with dashcams) and the increasing changes to grade schools (campus police officers, "zero tolerance" policies) that increase the impact of normal childish outbursts.
I have lots of problems with police tools and tactics and I will continue to use my citizen voice and vote to trim those back, but I think that we aren't a police state right now.
> And this is how freedom dies.
If we live in a police state, then freedom is already dead.
It's not clear to me if police + legislatures are taking our freedoms faster than corporate land-grabs for my digital information and psychological profiling.
Johnny555|6 years ago
The cop is already pretty sure you did it (or he wouldn't have brought you in), so seems like there's little you can say that will change his mind.
bitexploder|6 years ago
newguy1234|6 years ago
lonelappde|6 years ago
MattyRad|6 years ago
amishadowbanned|6 years ago
[deleted]
VitoVan|6 years ago
paranoidrobot|6 years ago
For instance in NSW Australia, you may be cautioned by police that “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you. It may harm your defence if you fail to mention something now which you later rely on in court.” [1][2]
The impact of this is incredibly complicated, and it'll take a lawyer to fully explain it. Which, if you don't have one on hand when you're questioned - can be a major issue.
[1] http://theconversation.com/when-you-say-nothing-at-all-nsw-a... [2] https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/oppn-slammed-...
thrower123|6 years ago
wruza|6 years ago
First thing is we here don’t have many guns and the status quo it’s not a crime to touch or bad manner the policeman (while not recommended, they can turn it against you easily at will). Second thing is you usually want to know what the case really is, and what they know and think in general, so “remaining silent” may play against you. How it works: you get a sudden call, “hey wruza it’s you? Uhm maybe not, who’s asking? It’s detective Borisov, can you please meet me at my office here I have questions”. That’s it. You don’t get more info over the phone and if you ignore, you may get in a unknown trouble, even if they decide to not force you later in their office (it is not a crime to not go there, but they can give you a free mandatory ride if necessary). If you ignore or “remain silent” from the doorstep, you’re simply playing a blind hand against something serious. You’re innocent until guilty, so you better collect/ensure your own evidence, since it tends to decay with time.
Fighting and resisting (injuring even slightly) the police is a crime, but chances to get shot are minuscle compared to US. Gun rules are strict for them too, and even in a dangerous situation they don’t shoot an entire fucking clip into you, as youtube usually shows for US. YT search for “Полиция застрелила” (graphic content warning). It is usually few minutes of open and/or armed aggression against a cop before he decides to pull a gun. Each shot is a hard paperwork and a risk of losing their job or freedom.
Another big difference is that documents and witnessing is everything, words are nothing. You have to be damn sure that the protocol contains your words as you said it and as they asked, not rephrased or manipulated. Having a bad memory doesn’t count as a lie or justice/investigation obstruction, but a judge may find it strange that you recall everything except that one day or event.
masonic|6 years ago
https://www.pbs.org/video/la-graduacion-pzk2mf/
tjpnz|6 years ago
throwaway55554|6 years ago
thatiscool|6 years ago
Does anyone still remember the tragedy of Debian founder Ian Murdock suicided in San Francisco?
in EU or Asia, policeforce seems more approachable.
P_I_Staker|6 years ago
Polylactic_acid|6 years ago
throwaway55554|6 years ago
nothrabannosir|6 years ago
Can someone with know how elaborate on what exactly this means, in practical terms? What should someone do in the U.K.? Still remain silent?
mantap|6 years ago
Your refusal to speak to police can't be the only evidence against you. Silence is not a confession. It merely means that when you're in court the prosecution may make something of the fact that you didn't say anything to the police. They may claim that your testimony is less credible than it would have been. But it's up to the jury whether or not they agree with that. It is much more important what you say in court.
On the other hand, if you do speak to the police that may well be used against you as well, indeed it may be the main evidence if you unintentionally admit to a crime that you didn't know you committed, or you may provide crucial evidence for one aspect of a crime (such as intention) that would otherwise be difficult for them to prove.
If you do say something to police, a transcript will be made and it probably will be available to the jury. They will compare what you said to the police to what you said in court. Your court date may be a long time from your police interview. So you'd better be sure you can reproduce your answers months into the future.
sjy|6 years ago
indymike|6 years ago
lancefisher|6 years ago
logotype|6 years ago
emptybits|6 years ago
Stating the obvious, I hope, but advice should vary by jurisdiction so here's the Canadian flavour of asserting rights around arrest, talking, search, etc.:
https://bccla.org/our_work/the-arrest-handbook-a-guide-to-yo...
Wherever you live, please consider supporting your national or local Civil Liberties Association if you have time or money and want to keep the future as free as possible.
pmiller2|6 years ago
* Act like a normal, sensible person. Don't try to provoke them, and don't give them any reason to escalate the encounter.
* Don't allow police in your home without a warrant.
* Affirmatively deny consent for searches. This includes your home, car, and personal belongings.
* Assert your right to remain silent.
Unless you're reporting a crime where you're the victim (and, sometimes, even then), you should only talk to police with a lawyer representing you present.
d1zzy|6 years ago
Aren't police allowed too search all sorts of things with easy excuse? My refusal is a form of escalation especially since they can arrest me on whatever, then let me go, and that alone could jeopardize my immigration status (all those visa questionnaires starting with "have you ever been arrested").
rtkwe|6 years ago
The problem is asserting your rights and not acting like a docile thankful citizen can get treated as escalation in and of itself.
Merrill|6 years ago
vijaybritto|6 years ago
dsfyu404ed|6 years ago
That said, this is a complex topic and an article of that length can only cover so much. There's a lot of nuance in these kinds of things (human interaction is complex) and by behaving as the situation demands an not coming off as one of those sovereign citizen types you can turn a lot of $50 "contempt of cop while having a tail light out" tickets into warnings without giving up your rights.
luxuryballs|6 years ago
Double_a_92|6 years ago
fg6hr|6 years ago
xivzgrev|6 years ago
muddyb0y|6 years ago
turkthrower123|6 years ago
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/09/09/38582.php
LyndsySimon|6 years ago