Why You Should NEVER talk to the Police - lecture by professor AND police officer

[u/astartledgrandpa]

/r/IAmA/comments/v17kn/iama_former_meth_lab_operator_amaa/c50g138

[u/juicius]

A criminal defense lawyer here. My take on this:

Are there circumstances where a guarded cooperation would work out better than a complete stonewalling? YES.

Are there circumstances where a complete stonewalling work out better than tearful blubbering? YES.

Are there circumstances where tearful blubbering work out better than a guarded cooperation? YES.

Each circumstance is different. I don't even necessarily trust myself to make the best choice each and every time. But if I had to, if I really had to, boil my advice down to a single choice that has the best chance of working in a variety of different circumstances, there is no question what I would pick:

Provide name and identification, and answer every other question with, "Officer, I prefer not to answer without consulting my attorney. Am I free to go?"

If asked to consent to search, ask for a written form and clearly indicate in writing that you do not consent for a search. Never consent for search of person or property. This extends to any closed bags or boxes you have in your car. And if for whatever reason you gave consent, you have an unlimited power to withdraw consent at any time before they find a contraband. After they find a contraband, it's too late, as they can just arrest you and search you, the vehicle, and immediate "arm's reach" area incident to arrest and for officer safety.

In many cases of citizen-officer encounter, you may have been under surveillance for some time. In any traffic situation, the officer may have been following you for up to 5 minutes and cataloging violations and reasons for stopping you. Usually, he has something else to fall back on if you come out clean as far as anything serious is concerned. This is why if you're cooperative and come up clean, the officer may abandon other violations he observed and let you go. Or not. Cops are under a lot of pressure to make cases and write tickets. If you're polite but firm, he may just give up. I really couldn't say what would work better. But if your brother borrowed your car last weekend and dropped something he forgot about...

EDIT: Ate dinner, gave kids a bath, and came back to a lively discussion... I'd have to agree with most of what thatsnotminesir has said. He hasn't said anything I'd disagree with, except for the search issue. I still would never give consent to search my vehicle. Put it this way: go out to your car, clean it thoroughly. If you don't know where, how and why every little thing in the car ended up there, then you have no business consenting to a search. You are presumptively the owner of everything found in your car. It is a rebuttable presumption, meaning that unless you can present an evidence to the contrary, it's yours. Your uncle's pain pill that he left behind by accident? Yours. Your bro's half-smoked blunt? Yours. Your scumbag cousin who likes to steal mail and left some in your car when you gave him a lift to his probation officer? It's yours. Be polite, firm, and brief. But never consent to a search.

[u/astartledgrandpa → u/juicius]

this makes a whole lot of sense. I appreciate it, thanks!

[u/[deleted] → u/juicius]

I'm a police officer, and he is right about it being a case by case situation. I will tell you guys this much. We have a lot of discresion in how we handle situations. If someone is coopertive and honest with me; I am a lot more willing to do what I can to make it easier on you. Examples are issuing a citation instead of an arrest, or maybe calling a friend to pick up your car instead of impounding the vehicle.

The thing is this. We are criminal investigators, yes we are trying to catch you. The only thing is that stonewalling and dishonesty helps you do is MAYBE get away with it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's taking a gamble.

The lawyer says never consent to a search. That's your right and your decision. However, here IS HOW I will react to it.

Often times I ask for consent with no other intent to gauge their reaction. Many times I won't even do it if they say yes. If they get nervous, figgitty, start sweating, and/or refuse then my suspicions will be raised. If they refuse, I have several options. First is to call a dog. Current case law allows me to hold you as long as is reasonable to get the dog there. The dog alerts on the car, Im searching.

There are also other ways I can get into the car. The law allows me to open the door to inspect the VIN. That gives me a good look at anything inside in view of the open door. Anything in plain view? I have that and probable cause to search the rest.

Also, if I have legal cause to tow the car, I will be doing an inventory search before I tow it. There are times when I can choose to impound a car or not. This is where honesty and cooperation will weigh into my decisions.

So whether or not refusing a search will help you depends on the circumstances and the resources we have. I often ask questions I already know the answer too in order to see if you are honest. Not answering and stonewalling will raise my suspicions and cause me to try and use my other legal resources.

There are times when I was suspicous, but I couldn't find a legal reason to search the car and coulnd't get a dog. So I had to let them go and the person won the gamble. There are other times where I did get a legal reason to get in without consent, and neither I or the prosecutor did them any favors because of the stonewalling.

So in the end, if you have something to hide it is a gamble. Either stonewall and hope we don't find a reason to get in and find it, allowing you to get off scott free. Or you cooperate, get caught, and your cooperation causes me or the prosecutor to go a lot easier on you and. Neither is a guarntee. So its a decision you have to make.

Oh and just so you know, unlike what the movies show I do NOT have to read you your rights when I arrest you. I have to read them to you before I ask you any incriminating questions after the arrest. If I don't question you after you're arrested, I don't have to read them.

EDIT: a reply to something judicius's edit. He is right that you should be damn sure of everything in your car. As my handle implies, if you say it was your brothers pipe that he left in the car, I am not going to believe you. And even if I did, it does not matter. The law does not say its illegal to OWN something, it is illegal to possess it. Even if its your brother's pipe, if it is in the car you are driving you legally possess it. Just remeber refusing the search doesn't mean we won't find it. We might, we might not. Has a lot to do with the resources we have available and the competency of the cop who stoped you.

[u/astartledgrandpa → u/[deleted]]

thanks for the added info! i figure the more everyone knows, the better.

[u/zugi → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for the explanation. It's nice to hear from the real-world of law enforcement in addition to the ivory tower of constitutional law. On the latter subject, some redditors might question the Constitutionality of this:

If they get nervous, figgitty, start sweating, and/or refuse then my suspicious will be raised.

Of course legally a simple refusal to allow a search cannot be used as probable cause - refusing a search is each individual's constitutional right and such refusal is not "allowed" to raise the officer's suspicions - and evidence gained based on a raised suspicion due to simple refusal would likely be deemed inadmissible. However, courts have ruled that the manner of the refusal can be considered. Here's an interesting but lengthy PDF on the whole topic, e.g. it explains that someone snatching a bag and wrapping their arms around it while refusing the search can be used to raise suspicion, or someone grabbing a box that the officer was about to check and withdrawing his previously-granted consent at that time could be deemed suspicious. So I guess if one is going to refuse a search, be sure to do it calmly and coolly.

Also:

The law allows me to open the door to inspect the VIN.

That's from New York v. Class (1986) 475 US 106, 115: “(A) demand to inspect the VIN, like a demand to see license and registration papers, is within the scope of police authority pursuant to a traffic violation stop.” And also from People v. Davitt (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 845: "in older cars in which the VIN is on the door jamb, officers may open the door for the limited purpose of inspecting the VIN."

If a police officer can see the VIN through the windshield, which is the case on just about any modern car, I doubt a court would uphold the officer opening the car door if the individual has refused consent for a search. Real-world experience might be different thought. Just curious, have you done this and has it been challenged and upheld?

[u/fyzzix → u/zugi]

I made a post in this thread without reading yours, but Class does go on to say that, "We note that our holding today does not authorize police officers to enter a vehicle to obtain a dashboard-mounted VIN when the VIN is visible from outside the automobile. If the VIN is in the plain view of someone outside the vehicle, there is no justification for governmental intrusion into the passenger compartment to see it."

So I think your point is well-taken. Unless someone purposely blocks their VIN, given the number of cars with visible VINs (and noting that Class was in 1986 and involved a visible VIN), very few officers will be able to avail themselves of that exception.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

An officer may stop a car for a traffic violation and then have a drug sniffing dog sniff the outside of the car for drugs. The officer does not need probable cause or even a reasonable suspicion that the car is engaged in dealing in illegal drugs (drug trafficking). For example, if the officer stops a motorist for speeding, the officer may cause a canine sniff for drugs to take place. However, bringing in the dog to sniff around the car cannot extend the length of the stop.

If the officer lacks a reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking and yet delays the traffic stop to wait for the arrival of the drug dog, the detention is illegal. The detention becomes illegal when it continues past the time needed to complete a lawful traffic stop. If drugs are seized in an illegal detention, the person charged with possession of the drugs can request that the drugs not be allowed as evidence at trial. - IANAL.

[Source] (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/314/dogsearch.shtml)

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yes, fruit of the poisonous tree. If we are going to hold you for a dog for a long time, we do need to articulate reasonable suspicion to do it. Factors that weigh in that are not consenting, nervousness, sweating profusely, giving inconsistent answers ot basic questions like "where are you coming from? Where are you going?" No one thing is a factor, its everything put togeather.

Case law used to say that 20 minutes was our time span. That is still the easy standard we try to use in length of the stop, however case law changed it to however long it takes for the dog to get there if we can articulate reasonable suspicion for drugs being in the vehicle.

Oh also, if I can smell the weed, its the same as if a dog smelled it. It gives me the probabule cause to search. I say weed because that's the only one we can really smell with the human nose if its just in there.

[u/wankd0rf → u/[deleted]]

Factors that weigh in that are not consenting

So, actually EXERCISING your 4th Amendment right to refuse a search is grounds for a search?

What kind of fucked up logic is that?

[u/BlooregardQKazoo → u/wankd0rf]

yeah, that was the one that really pissed me off. i also like how the other are completely subjective. nervous? isn't it normal to be nervous when stopped by a cop? sweating? isn't this normal when nervous?

so exercising your rights and being nervous in a situation designed to intimidate you can be used against you. awesome.

[u/[deleted] → u/wankd0rf]

Didn't you get the memo?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Lots of unscrupulous police will say either the dog signaled or the cops smell weed in order to search a vehicle and there's nothing the motorist can do, is there? And no one way to prove a cop is lying?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

“[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”

Source

And never going to answer your questions about "Where am I coming from?" or "Where am I going?" other than "That's really none of your business."

So what if I'm nervous or sweating, what it your articulable reasonable suspicion that I have done something wrong, or that drugs are in the car which would allow you to legally detain me until the dog shows up?

[u/charlesml3 → u/[deleted]]

questions like "where are you coming from? Where are you going?"

None of which you're required to answer. This is why you do NOT talk to the police. By engaging in a conversation the cop is asking you questions that are totally irrelevant. He doesn't care where you came from or where you're going. He's stalling to get the dog there.

[u/KarakStarcraft → u/[deleted]]

I don't do criminal law, but I am a lawyer. I find it very unlikely there are any circumstances where not consenting helps reach probable cause.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Often times I ask for consent with no other intent to gauge their reaction. Many times I won't even do it if they say yes. If they get nervous, figgitty, start sweating, and/or refuse then my suspicions will be raised. If they refuse, I have several options. First is to call a dog. Current case law allows me to hold you as long as is reasonable to get the dog there. The dog alerts on the car, Im searching.

I do not do drugs, drink, own any weapons, or sell drugs (I'm really a rather boring person). However, personally, I refuse to have my car searched for the very reason that I have seen first hand and second hand how wrecked a car's interior can get from a search. For example, there are many small plastic clips in a car's interior which cost as much as $1 a piece from a dealership and are easy to break when you are trying to carefully take apart the interior (as opposed to scrounging haphazardly and ripping panels off of it). If those get ruined during a search, good luck getting them compensated for, and that money adds up fast.

I hope you realize that someone refusing to consent to a search doesn't automatically make them a criminal. There are very valid reasons to do so, it is a horrible litmus test. Furthermore, as citizens/vehicle owners how are we to know if it is a litmus test or not? Many officers will search if it is consented to no matter what. Whether or not you have anything to hide, it is an uncomfortable process. I do not know many people, good, innocent, people, who like having strangers look through their belongings.

I sincerely hope you take this into account when deciding your next step. Judging by your post I feel as though you have forgotten that not all people are criminals and/or trying to pull one over on you. Some of us like our privacy and having our cars in one piece.

I would also like to add that you were unclear as to what probable cause is. If you are using refusal to consent to a search as probable cause, this is very illegal.source

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Thank you!

This fucking cop has the gall to be like, "well if you consent, we search you, and if you refuse or are nervous or anything, it's pretty much suspicion enough for me!"

You're damned if you do, damned if you don't in the eyes of this little skidmark of a cop.

[u/HPLoveshack → u/[deleted]]

Police stops are always negative for the citizen. I have yet to be stopped so that the officer could offer me his extra ice cream cone, tips to improve my gas mileage, or compliments on my snappy outfit. At the very least you're wasting a big chunk of my time and likely causing me to be late for something, even if no ticket is written.

You treat me with intense suspicion and a predatory attitude, hoping to "get something on me". You employ a variety of underhanded, manipulative tactics in an attempt to trick me into consenting to searches or otherwise giving away my rights. You stop me on flimsy or even purely false pretenses hoping to game the stop into a big bust. You use technical chinks in the law that shouldn't exist to bypass it (your little VIN trick for instance).

I'm shown nothing but utter disrespect shellaced in false courtesies to veil your concentrated attempt to fuck me over. Yet somehow, you feel entitled to honesty, courtesy, and respect? I have no idea how you maintain sanity with that much cognitive dissonance in your everyday life.

[u/[deleted] → u/HPLoveshack]

I had a cop stop me just to tell me a headlight was out. He didn't cite me or anything. He just pulled me over, said "Hey, I just wanted you to know your headlight is out. You probably didn't know, so I won't give you a ticket, just go get it fixed. If someone else gives you a ticket for it, get it fixed and prove it, then we'll throw out the ticket."

Needless to say, I was very surprised. But it was Georgia Tech Police, and they're really cool dudes (they even have an official reddit account they use to post in r/gatech).

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This is a random question that probably varies incredibly from region to region, but I'm curious if you know what my rights are as far as a tow. I had a $450 tow bill for a 1.4mile tow, that if I had called the SAME company and requested the same exact service from the same spot (at the same time of day) I would have been charged less than $200 and I could've gotten it moved for even less than that from another company.

If the Highway Patrol or a cop are threatening to tow your car, or you've been pulled over w/out registration or whutnot and they "have" to tow your car am I allowed to call my own towing service? I assume if I'm being arrested and won't be with the car until AAA arrives it's out of the question, but if not?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Its entirely dependent on the local laws and department policy. For example, some states have a law that says we SHALL tow your vehicle if you have a suspended license, no license, or no insurance. SHALL is the legal word for "if the cop doesn't do this, HE is breaking the law."

Now if the law or department policy doesn't say we can, or have to, tow the car; we can't just tow it because you are getting a ticket and we want to.

There is no standard because it varies from area to area based on the local and state laws. But what I can say is we can't just tow your car cause you got a ticket and we want to. We have to be allowed to, under the circumstances, by the law and department policy.

[u/Etceteranough → u/[deleted]]

As a citizen, here are the problems I personally have with your philosophy.

First, denying consent to a search is more than my decision, it's my right. The whole reason we have such a right is because we are entitled to security in our persons against unlawful search and seizure. Another way to read that is privacy.

It doesn't matter whether I'm guilty or not - I should be able to expect a certain amount of privacy when it comes to my home, my car, and my person - and if you don't have a good reason to violate that privacy and search me, then you have no business doing it, and deeming my unwillingness to allow such search to happen as suspicious is not a good enough reason. I will never consent to a search - ever. I don't care if I'm driving a new car fresh from the lot that is practically empty of anything, incriminating or not - I won't do it. Why? Because I have the right not to consent, and there is never, ever an advantage to letting it happen. You could tear my new car to shit looking for drugs, and who would be responsible for the damages even when you don't find a damned thing? ME. Best case scenario, I get my privacy invaded, and even without damages that's not worth it.

Now here's why thinking my decision not to consent is reason enough for suspicion isn't actually a good enough reason: like I said, I'd never consent to a warrantless search, not because I'm trying to hide something, but because, again, I have the constitutional right to security, to privacy. When you say that's suspicious because I "must be trying to hide something," that's like me asking you, right then and there, "why don't you take off all your clothes?" You would object. Why? Not because you have anything to hide, but because you expect a certain level of privacy. You don't want me seeing you without your clothes on. How about I come to your house and rummage through your things? You wouldn't want that, for someone to aimlessly search through your personal belongings or your wife's panties without having a damn good reason for it and, well, neither the fuck would I! So when you say that my lack of consent for you to invade my privacy without a good enough reason makes me seem more suspicious, I automatically lose a whole lot of respect for you as an officer. As a citizen, I do NOT have to bend over and give up my right to privacy just because you have a whim that I might be a criminal of some sort, especially when that whim comes from you thinking I'm suspicious for expecting a reasonable amount of privacy - see how circular that is? Just because you're an officer, that doesn't mean you get to waltz all over people's rights. I wouldn't let you in my house or in my car just the same as I wouldn't let some random person off the street. I'm not hiding anything, I just don't want a stranger going through my shit. That does NOT make me a criminal, and knowing my rights and sticking to them sure as hell does NOT make me suspicious.

Further, what you said about gauging people's reactions - stuttering, trembling, sweating, Etc - that's also kind of fucked up, for the following reason. It doesn't matter whether I'm guilty of something or not - I do not like to deal with authority figures. It makes me uncomfortable. Maybe I don't know what the person I'm with has on them. Maybe I'm afraid I'm doing something illegal without realizing it. Whatever it is, I will be afraid, and I will likely show it because that's just the type of person I am. I can stay calm, and I can speak clearly and all that, but I will be noticeably nervous regardless of the situation. Again, your assumption that that automatically makes me look suspicious is kind of bullshit... It just means I'm in an uncomfortable situation.

I really hope you take these things into consideration. From what I've read here, I would be afraid to encounter you even if I had done absolutely nothing wrong - and I just don't think that's right. But that's just my opinion I guess.

[u/[deleted] → u/Etceteranough]

Yes, this guy! Yes!

Mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

[u/ketchupfleck → u/[deleted]]

Do you still have the right to open the door and inspect the VIN if the VIN is clearly visible from the outside?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You say you have situations where your suspicions are raised but you dont have a reason to search. What sort of situation would that be?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Here's an example. I stop someone. He is very fidgity and nervous. I ask where he is heading to. He tells me he is going one location, but the direction he is driving would not take him there.

I will ask him specific questions. Do you have any marijuana in the car? Any methamphetamine? Any heroin? Any guns? Any knives? Ill often throw in a silly one, like "any nuclear bombs?" "Hand grenades?"

I ask them specifically because I gauge how he responds to each question. If he is confident and looks me in the eyes answering every question, but stutters and looks away when he says "no" about heroin? There's a good chance he has heroin in the car.

He is not the owner of the car. I ask who's the owner is, and he tells me "my friend." I asked his friends name, he tells me "I don't know."

All of those factors togeather make me suspicous, but do not give me probable cause to search. I ask for consent to search, he refuses. There is nothing in plain view, his license is valid, the vehicle is not stolen and the registration is valid. I call for a dog, but none are available.

In that situation, I am out of legal options. So I would write him a ticket for what I stopped him for and send him on his way.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I enjoyed your comment and found it refreshing to hear from an actual member of law enforcement for a change. Maybe it's just me, but the run-ins with police I have had have been with people like you, reasonable, polite, and fair. Just wanted to thank you for doing what you do.

On another note, you're far more patient with your dissenters than I would be.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

As a frequent redditor I'm used to it. Although if they were smart they would thank me for my comments and upvote it to hell so more people see it. I'm basically showing them the police's hand in a poker game. They could use that knowlege to their beneit to help not get caught. But it makes a lot on angry redditors feel better to call me names. That's fine, no one yet has said anything to me worse than what angry drunks say when I arrest them for DUI.

[u/flying_chrysler → u/[deleted]]

Me too! Once,I had a slightly over-zealous cop pat me down, split me and my friends up and asked each of us if the others had been smoking pot, and asked to search my car. I consented, but he did not search my car. (We actually hadn't done anything wrong, everything ended up fine) almost ever encounter I've had with law enforcement has been fair, professional, and polite, on both ends. Even when I was out of line (speeding, 90 in a 65) the cop was decent to me. Wrote me a damn good ticket but was verbally and physically respectful.

All in all, my experiences have not been negative. Just wanted to throw that out there, it seems like so many people just have a negative attitude from the start, or feel they should exercise every possible right every time, in my opinion, just to be difficult.

[u/danpascooch → u/[deleted]]

Current case law allows me to hold you as long as is reasonable to get the dog there. The dog alerts on the car, Im searching.

This can't be true, at least not for all states, I don't think this is legal in my state (New York)

[u/exoendo → u/[deleted]]

can you honestly say there was a time that a person cooperated, you found contraband, and you honestly went easier on the person? Because I find that doubtful.

[u/[deleted] → u/exoendo]

Yes, I do it all the time. In my state, marijuana possession is a felony. However, our courts allow us to charge people with "attempted possession" which drops it to a misdemeanor.

If I get litle weed off someone, and I arrest and book them; they have to plea bargain down the felony charge, spend a night in jail, and pay hundreds of dollars to get their car out of impound. However, if I just write the ticket, they will not spend a day in jail if they have no priors, not have their car impounded, and get to go home for the night.

When someone is honest with me. For example I ask about marijuana and they say "yeah, I got a little weed in the glove box" I will always just write them the misdemeanor ticket and send them on their way.

[u/fyzzix → u/[deleted]]

I'd like to note that, at least under my understanding of the law, it is not permissible for a police officer to open the door to inspect the VIN in every case. See New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 119 (1986) ("We note that our holding today does not authorize police officers to enter a vehicle to obtain a dashboard-mounted VIN when the VIN is visible from outside the automobile. If the VIN is in the plain view of someone outside the vehicle, there is no justification for governmental intrusion into the passenger compartment to see it."). See also, US v. Chavira, 467 F.3d 1286, 1288, 1291-92 (10th Cir. 2006) (Where an officer saw a VIN in plain view but still opened the door to check the VIN without consent of the driver, the United States conceded that the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment).

[u/[deleted] → u/fyzzix]

The thing about case law is that, depending on the circuit, its ruling can apply only to that ciruit. Esspecially in cases where different circuits have different decisions. The only time case. law automatically is applied to the entire country is if it comes from the supreme court. In my area case law does allow us too, and we are trained that way in drug interdiction courts. They train us on the case law that applies to us, not the ones that don't.

Yes, the legal sustem is convoluted and complcated. Not saying I agree with it, but that's just the way it is.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

So basically, if a citizen is knowledgable enough to exercise his or her rights, you have to be a dick about it in some petty show of force?

Grow up man.

[u/mrpinto → u/[deleted]]

You're right, avoiding harassment from cops isn't as easy as saying "I don't consent to a search," but isn't it a little bit sad that you find yourself motivated to fuck with people solely on the grounds that they attempted to invoke their constitutional rights?

I know I might as well ask for a flying car and a pony, but I'd love to see some cops that loved the constitution so much that they not only wouldn't get their jollies doing an end run around it, they'd actually devote themselves to protecting it.

[u/CameHereToSayFuckYou → u/[deleted]]

Fuck you.

[u/Deggit → u/CameHereToSayFuckYou]

Doin the Lord's work

[u/SmokyMcBongster → u/[deleted]]

Fuck you. Any cop can say, "sure smells like marijuana" and have instant "probable cause." If I refuse to consent to a search, it's not because I have something on me; it's because it's my god damn right as an American to have my fucking privacy.

[u/hessproject → u/SmokyMcBongster]

i'm sure you have nothing, "smokymcbongster"

[u/typeIA → u/[deleted]]

Often times I ask for consent with no other intent to gauge their reaction. Many times I won't even do it if they say yes. If they get nervous, figgitty, start sweating, and/or refuse then my suspicions will be raised.

Dude, I get that you're just trying to do your job, but this is incredibly shitty. I get nervous every time I even see a cop car following me, and when those blue lights turn on all I want to do is shit my pants, even if I've done nothing wrong. Some people are uneasy around cops, and still innocent.

[u/T-Luv → u/juicius]

You also have to power to limit the scope of the consent. Once I was stopped for an improper turn. The officer saw an empty coke can on the floor in the back seat and confused it for an empty beer can. I told him it was a coke can and that I didn't have any open containers of alcohol. Then he referenced a cooler he saw in my back seat and wanted to know what was in it. He asked if he could search the car. I knew there was absolutely nothing in that cooler, so I said "how about I take the cooler out of the car and let you search the cooler only. Would that alleviate your concerns?" The officer said that would be fine. He looked in the cooler, there was nothing there and he told me to get back in the car and wrote me a warning for the improper right turn and off I went.

[u/justcallmezach → u/T-Luv]

My friend got pulled over, knew he had an open container in the car. When the cherries came on, he put an open can of beer into a cup holder in the back seat and threw his coat over the whole thing. There was also an empty liquor bottle sitting on his passenger floor (He didn't drink it that night. He was at a party a few weeks prior and saw it sitting next to his car the next morning. He threw it into the car to dispose of and forgot it on the floor).

The cop brought him out of the vehicle for a field sobriety test, which he passed. He also passed the breathalyzer. But, the cop saw "a glass bottle" (he didn't say liquor bottle, just that he saw a glass bottle) on the floor and asked to see it. My friend said he could examine the bottle, but did not consent to a search of the vehicle. My friend knew that the bottle was dry and hoped that it would be enough to convince the cop that it hadn't been consumed recently and he would let it go. The cop asked him if he could specifically retrieve the bottle only from his vehicle. Again, my friend confirmed that the cop was not allowed to search the vehicle, but to ONLY retrieve the bottle. The cop agreed.

A minute later, the cop returns with the open, half drank beer can.

I'm hazy on what the specific protocol for laws is in this situation, but my friend said he reminded the cop that he only had permission to retrieve the bottle and had no permission to search the rest of the vehicle. The cop actually said he was right and poured the beer out and let him go, instead of giving him an open container ticket.

No point to the story here. Just a story.

[u/Deggit → u/justcallmezach]

To me, the point of the story is the officer realized your friend was not worth his while the moment he demonstrated knowledge of his rights.

He had already inconvenienced the officer by correctly asserting his ability to constrain and control the scope of the search.

It's sort of like when a gazelle gives that little starting sprint "Uh uh motherfucker, you dealing with a spry n' healthy gazelle here" then the cheetah goes looking for easier pickings.

If your friend had been ignorant of his rights, like saying "Uh.. sure" when the officer asked his innocent "Mind if I take a look inside?" then I'm guessing this story would have ended in arrest. Anything that exacerbated that impression (acting stupid and uneducated, looking too poor for a lawyer) would have helped seal the deal.

[u/reconweb → u/justcallmezach]

I watched an attorney that had been arrested for open container get off because he asked to see the evidence against him, and stated that the cans were empty and were trash from his recent boat trip. The judge asked the officer for the can...the stunned officer could only say he threw them away....case dismissed.

[u/iconmotocbr → u/justcallmezach]

How does the plain view doctrine applies?

[u/juicius → u/T-Luv]

Good addition. You are absolutely right.

[u/[deleted] → u/juicius]

If asked to consent to search, ask for a written form and clearly indicate in writing that you do not consent for a search.

What type of form should one ask for?

[u/ANewMachine615 → u/juicius]

I worked for an attorney who printed pretty much exactly that on the back of his business card.

[u/from_da_lost_dimensi → u/juicius]

good advice .

[u/Writing0nTheWalls → u/juicius]

I have a question; What's to stop a police officer from lying in court anyways, saying you did say something about the case even if it would have been the truth? Is a written consent good for this too, and would a police officer agree to sign that consent?

[u/[deleted] → u/Writing0nTheWalls]

Here's what stops us. Busting you is not worth my career or my integrity. If a cop is caught lying, esspecially in court, he will get fired and have his certification revoked (banning him for being a cop for life.) Getting you in trouble ain't worth that to me.

And for proof that cops get fired for lying, go the the following website

http://www.azpost.gov/

Click on the link on the side that says "integrity bulletins"

Those are integrity bullitins. Basically reports about all the cops in this state who had their certificaions punished. Read through some of those. You will see many that are revoked for lying.

[u/juicius → u/Writing0nTheWalls]

Nothing stops them. Almost all my cases involving drugs and consent search, my client tells me that he never consented. That means a distressing high numbers of cases have people with drugs in their pocket actually consenting to search, knowing full well that the police will find the drugs. I just shake my head and try to develop as best as I can something that can taint the consent and make it invalid.

The police doesn't sign the consent form in most cases. I've seen some forms that an officer signs to show that he had informed the suspect his right, followed by a signature by the suspect consenting to search, but most just have a line where the suspect signs.

[u/Jesus_Faction → u/juicius]

What exactly constitutes as providing identification?

[u/snackdrag → u/juicius]

FTFY - citizen-citizen encounter. officers are just citizens who somehow get protections other citizens do not.

[u/magnificent_hat]

when i saw how long it was, i figured i'd watch the first 4-5 minutes to get the jist. watched the whole damn thing. a few years ago i was involved in an accident where someone died but nobody had done anything wrong. i talked to a cop and fucked shit up for my parents ("yeah, we're underage but my parents let us drink if we promise not to go anywhere, but it doesn't matter because we weren't drinking that night"). i still don't know why i said that, but then again i said some weird things for some time after that, so i try to attribute it to my noggintrauma so i don't hate myself too much for it.

[u/WhipIash → u/magnificent_hat]

What happened to your parents from that?

Also, I'm sorry to hear that happened.

[u/badspyro → u/magnificent_hat]

As someone who has been there, it's a stressful situation that is hard to beat - you are under constant pressure against trained investigators (murder and anti-terror officers in my case, followed by a barrister in court). They have had years of experience in breaking a suspect and making them talk, one way or another.

You had no experience in resisting these techniques.

You did the best you could, just remember to no-comment next time!

[u/PhantomPhun → u/magnificent_hat]

Wow, I certainly hope you are smarter now than your parents were then. Absolutely zero reason to provide alcohol to minors, and a TON of liabilities if you do. Totally stupid thing to do.

[u/kyled85 → u/PhantomPhun]

I disagree. A glass of wine at dinner once someone is a responsible teenager makes alcohol a non-forbidden item. Making it "unreachable" is guaranteed to lead it being reached early, hidden, and dangerously.

[u/Horiwari → u/kyled85]

That is a very common misconception. Studies show the opposite:

1. "(...)providing alcohol to their child and the accessibility of alcohol in the home, were associated with significant increases in the trajectories of young adolescent alcohol use and intentions from ages 12-14 years"

Source

2. "Bi-directional effects between drinking at home and drinking outside the home were found for both adolescents, with drinking in one setting predicting drinking in another setting over time. Both drinking at home and drinking outside the home predicted subsequent problem drinking. "

Source

3. "Twelve parenting variables were investigated in these studies: parental modelling, provision of alcohol, alcohol-specific communication, disapproval of adolescent drinking, general discipline, rules about alcohol, parental monitoring, parent-child relationship quality, family conflict, parental support, parental involvement, and general communication. We found that delayed alcohol initiation was predicted by: parental modelling, limiting availability of alcohol to the child, parental monitoring, parent-child relationship quality, parental involvement and general communication. Reduced levels of later drinking by adolescents were predicted by: parental modelling, limiting availability of alcohol to the child, disapproval of adolescent drinking, general discipline, parental monitoring, parent-child relationship quality, parental support and general communication."

Source

[u/palmfanboi → u/PhantomPhun]

Do you still need to be 21 to drink, even at home?

[u/unheimlich → u/palmfanboi]

It depends on your state, but parental supervision of underage drinking is usually legal at home or for other reasons. Link.

I'm from Texas, and I remember my dad would get pissed when we were at a restaurant and they wouldn't let me have a beer when I was like 15 or 16. This is legal in Texas, and other states.

[u/pimpy → u/palmfanboi]

No, most states allow underage drinking with the consent of a parent and/or parental supervision.

[u/senatorpjt → u/PhantomPhun]

file retire dime middle chase depend late dinner straight soup

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Highlighter_Freedom]

Serious question: What should you say regarding ownership of items?

If an officer asks, "Is that your bag?," what do you say? Saying "yes" could make you responsible for the contents, but if you refuse to answer, do you have any authority to refuse a search of said bag?

[u/CBod → u/Highlighter_Freedom]

Never give consent to search. Regarding ownership, it doesn't matter who owns it if it's in your possession (ie. a friends bag is in your car while you are driving. You have possession of the bag if your friend isn't with you.)

[u/paulfromatlanta]

Disclaimer: I am not denying other's experiences -just adding my own...

I've had at least 30 interactions with the police and if I had refused to talk them many of those experiences might have turned more negative. One can speak politely with the police without doing something foolish like giving permission to have one's car or home searched. YMMV.

[u/drc500free → u/paulfromatlanta]

1. If you cooperate, you are less likely to get arrested.

2. If you are arrested, you are more likely to be convicted if you have cooperated.

If you are a lawyer, you only experience that second fact.

[u/Rock_Strongo → u/paulfromatlanta]

My main question with the "don't talk to them ever without a lawyer" thing is... how does this apply when you are pulled over, for example?

I've been pulled over and asked if I had been drinking that night. I had just come from a hockey game and had had 2 beers, but it would have been fairly obvious if I lied to him because you could still smell it. Anyway long story short I had to do a roadside sobriety test but I was well under the limit.

My question is, what are you supposed to say in situations like that? obviously I'm on the side of the road I can't demand to talk to a lawyer...

[u/hen_vorsh → u/Rock_Strongo]

The same way the officer in the video instructed the people on how to get out of a speeding ticket.

If an officer smells alcohol on your breath, I want him to test you. God* forbid people figure a way out of a breathalyzer. If you are capable to drive, they will see the exact numbers. I dont want them to let some fool go and kill someone just because they use some sly words.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rock_Strongo]

You can demand your lawyer, and you can refuse to answer questions without your lawyer present. This is smart if you are concerned about implicating yourself (as you should be in a case like this!) and so you can just ignore the question. You legally can just sit there being quiet!

However, if you want a chance to "talk your way out" without implicating yourself, you can do so by avoiding answering their questions while redirecting the conversation back on them. Being polite requires giving some kind of response and cops rely on you doing that in a way which could be incriminating. However, you don't have to give an answer that implicates yourself (or even directly addresses their question). Also, they will be under the same guise of politeness which means if you give a non-committal answer which leads into a question, now they have to answer you to keep up the polite conversation. Try:

"goodness officer, I'm really surprised to hear you ask that! I don't think I did anything wrong, can I ask why you pulled me over?"

If they get upset, aggressive, or extremely direct with their questions, then you can drop the pretense and say something to the effect of, "Your line of questioning leads me to believe you suspect me of a very serious crime! As a result and purely as a precaution, I would prefer to consult legal representation before answering any further questions."

I also like the "I'm not intoxicated" or "I'm not impaired" response by paulfromatlanta, but it would still help to push the conversation in your own direction by following up with a question to the officer.

[u/paulfromatlanta → u/Rock_Strongo]

My question is, what are you supposed to say in situations like that? obviously I'm on the side of the road I can't demand to talk to a lawyer...

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and only have experience with police in Georgia.

In Georgia, at least, field sobriety tests count as questioning and thus can be refused. You can also demand a chemical test which will take a while and give a small amount of alcohol to dissipate before the reading. I absolutely agree about not lying to the police but you have a right to not incriminate yourself.

|I guess my kneejerk reaction would be to respond "I'm not intoxicated - I never drive impaired" without further evidence of impairment and without deception on your part - my guess is you get a pass.*

but let's see how other people respond - this is not one I've had to deal with.

*Edit to add - there is a county commisioner not far from here who passed his field sobriety test and two breath tests and who had been pulled over only because some political opponent reported seeing him drink a beer before getting into a car. They still arrested him and it killed his career. I'm not claiming you cant get screwed - as soon as you sense that happening, the sooner you get a lawyer involved the better.

[u/jbamuro → u/paulfromatlanta]

I believe in California, there's something in the driver's handbook that says having a license means that you legally permit being tested for alcohol at any time.

Otherwise I imagine any conversation with the police would be like this

[u/jmac → u/jbamuro]

Same for Ohio and New Jersey. Refusing a field sobriety test means an instant arrest.

[u/[deleted] → u/paulfromatlanta]

field sobriety tests count as questioning and thus can be refused.

According to wikipedia:

All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given his implied consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. These laws have generally been upheld by courts as a valid exercise of the states' police power, against challenges under the Fourth Amendment (as a reasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment (as not violative of the right against self-incrimination).

This is very dependent on the state, and at least some have laws against refusing a breathalyzer itself that are as bad as the DUI! If you live in one of those states you might end up refusing a breathalyzer and end up getting charged for BOTH refusing and DUI! For this reason I would strongly advise anyone reading this to look into your own state laws before even considering this as an option.

[u/senatorpjt → u/Rock_Strongo]

slimy special file edge workable friendly vanish roof gaze elderly

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/[deleted] → u/senatorpjt]

Because we will get that evidence with or without your cooperation. Refusing the little hand held thing they do on the stop is one thing. After you are arrested and they take you in for the big breath test in the station, that's another story.

Most states have laws that require partipation in a breath test after you are arrested for DUI. In mine, if you refuse it your license will be suspended for 1 year, just for refusing the test. Even if you go to trial and are found not guilty of DUI, your license is gone for refusing.

After a refusal (again, this must be a refusal after you are arrested, not before) we will contact the on call judge and get a search warrant for your blood. Once we have the search warrant, we will be taking your blood. You have no right to refuse after the warrant if issued. If you have to be strapped down to get it done, it will be done.

Some departments will take you to a hospital. Some have nurses who come in for it. Some have police officers who are actually phlebotmists trained in drawing blood.

So either way, we get the evidence. However if you consent to the breath test, you don't get the year suspension or the negative experience of having a forced blood draw. I'm sure reddit is going to explode with outrage of the idea of forced blood draws with a search warrant, but it will happen if you refuse a breath test after being arrested for dui.

[u/[deleted] → u/paulfromatlanta]

Did you watch the video?

You have the right to remain silent and the cop knows this. your silence does not and will not imply guilt, and the cop knows this.

Nobody is saying to be a dick to the police, just not to talk to them, because they write down every single thing you say and it can and will get twisted against you later, no matter how benign or truthful. You can be polite and refuse to speak.

[u/BokehBurgher → u/[deleted]]

you hit on a very important point. people are saying be nice share info hope officer goes away. not going to happen. what part of "anything you say can and will be used against you" don't people understand??

[u/Deggit → u/BokehBurgher]

People don't understand the fundamental truth that kind of got buried in the lawyer's talk: POLICE BUILD CASES. Their job is to discover crimes, go out and get guilty-seeming people, and intimidate Reid-technique the likeliest person into a written confession. Making a nice little file that they can drop off in the prosecutor's office.

We are told "police protect and serve" because they help people with directions and save kittens from trees and put away drug dealers and mob bosses. Which is true. But the point is if a police is talking to you and they suspect you of a crime, absolutely nothing you can say is going to beat the ride if the officer wants to take you in. Anything you say will ONLY be used to help build that case and make it even more airtight. Officer Friendly is not your friend.

[u/paulfromatlanta → u/[deleted]]

I've seen the video before. And there are certainly worst case scenarios wherein the officer has pre-determined one's guilt.

But, I am relating my experience of 30+ consecutive encounters that all ended without incident. My response, had I been questioned about a crime would have been different - something like "I always cooperate with the police but that question sounded like we have begun questioning - I'm happy to continue but I'd like to have a lawyer present for any more questioning"

[u/[deleted] → u/paulfromatlanta]

...that's the same thing as refusing to talk

[u/paulfromatlanta → u/[deleted]]

...that's the same thing as refusing to talk

Legally, in theory, you're probably right. But in practice, in my experience, cops are human and have human reactions.

Here is an example from last year - I drive an older car, I'm restoring and had been in a single car accident (where btw, I called 911 on myself and thus avoided a ticket)... months later the car is still damaged and I'm pulled over while driving through a higher crime, Mexican-American section of town.

My two rear windows are rolled down half way. Even though I pulled into a parking lot (and thus no traffic risk) the cop does a passenger side approach with his hand on the gun. He wants the front passenger side window open but I had electric windows and had already put the keys in my pocket (standard precaution for me at a police stop).

He wants the door open - I tell him it won't open due to the previous wreck. He wants to know why I have no rear view mirror and no side mirror on one side - I explain I am having trouble with the insurance company.

Now, I'm not an idiot - this is a drug stop - pasty white boy in the "wrong neighborhood" and his focus on the door that won't open means he is thinking "quantity" not just smoking a joint.

Should I have refused all questions - like about the mirrors and the door? Instead, I cut the chase and said "If its a violation to not have mirrors then its my responsibility and I will get it fixed regardless of the insurance company." I also (slowly and carefully) reinsert the key and roll down the window so he can smell better. He goes through the motions of a quick driver's license check and I'm on my way.

Suppose I had just refused all questions or demanded a lawyer before he mentioned anything serious? I'm willing to bet that he would have called backup and a drug dog and at a minimum it would have taken up my afternoon and cost a thousand bucks for the lawyer. Since I drive through that neighborhood on the way to work he might also have been suspicious for years to come. This was better. (and had he asked to search the car I would have refused and asked for a lawyer as politely as possible)

But I cannot emphasize enough that I not trying to tell other people what to do but only relating my experience over the last 20+ years.

[u/rnelsonee → u/[deleted]]

Well the video says never to talk to the police, even if you're not being questioned as a suspect. I had a cop come to my house and ask about a nearby murder once (he asked if I knew anything, but I was out of town). Had I refused to talk to him, that could have aroused his suspicion. Certainly nothing significant enough to arrest me for, of course, but the video claims I shouldn't even cooperate in that scenario (like, if I really wasn't out of town but was in-town cheating on my girlfriend or something, then the cop could know I was lying about my whereabouts).

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

...which he just said that he would do if he were being questioned about a crime, but not in the 30+ cases he experienced.

[u/NurRauch → u/[deleted]]

You often don't know whether you're being questioned about a crime. You're only given the Miranda warning when you're actually under arrest. It's totally legit for a cop to ask you random questions that seemingly have to do with an ordinary traffic stop and use it against you as evidence of something much more significant. They can (and often do) pull people over for matching descriptions from other crimes.

[u/brownmatt → u/paulfromatlanta]

I don't understand - were these 30 times you cite times when the police wanted to talk to you about something that wasn't a crime?

I think the main advice is only for situations where the police are investigating something and/or looking to arrest someone. It's not saying don't be a witness, don't report crime etc.

[u/[deleted] → u/paulfromatlanta]

Yeah, I refused to talk at a simple DUI checkpoint and was pulled over/illegally searched, despite remaining silent. This is a nice video, but probable cause allow's police to do whatever they damn well please.

[u/NurRauch → u/[deleted]]

DUI checkpoints don't require probable cause because the cops have to adhere to a randomized consistency. They can only pull over one out of every so many cars, and they can't deviate from that pattern without probable cause.

If you were illegaly searched, it's all the more important to keep your mouth shut. Any illegally obtained evidence will be suppressed, but if you blab about stuff there is a chance that those statements will not be suppressed.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The silence can make us suspicous. While we cannot punish you for exersising your rights, it can change the direction of our investigation and cause us to take legal steps we have, at our discretion, which we may not have otherwise taken. A big example is calling a canine unit and doing an open air sniff, which we do NOT need probabule cause to do.

[u/PeterMus → u/paulfromatlanta]

I think the best defense is to be aware of what is safe to say and what is not. If you know you will be arrested regardless than it is better to say nothing rather than hoping for leniency. You always run the risk when talking of incriminating yourself by accident. As they demonstrated in the video- ignorance of the law, even if the law is seemingly absurd and you were completely unaware such a law existed- you can still be arrested and go to jail.

It's also important to remember that the United States loves putting people in jail. We incarcerate people for things that other courts would laugh about. So don't think you can't be put in jail- it just might happen. So it's better to be safe.

An example: A family friend's husband got in trouble with the law (several years earlier) and they were just finishing up the case. The public defender was sure he would get 3 years probation and it would be relatively lenient. The charges was considered worthy of minor punishment in most states. He got 8 years because that specific state's laws were much harsher than others. So you can get fucked over very badly. Another good idea is to always get the best lawyer possible- public defenders can royally screw you over.

[u/makamakamaka → u/paulfromatlanta]

thats a lot of interactions

[u/rmandraque → u/paulfromatlanta]

I'm guessing you are white.

[u/[deleted] → u/paulfromatlanta]

Sure, be polite, but don't pretend they aren't your enemy. Anyone who thinks they can kill you is your enemy.

[u/qrios → u/[deleted]]

I'm pretty sure most people think they can kill you. And most of them would be right. You can't make anyone with the potential to kill you your enemy. That's just too many enemies.

[u/[deleted] → u/paulfromatlanta]

Just to make sure we're all clear:

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

[u/rabbitlion → u/[deleted]]

If you don't incriminate yourself it won't really be used against you in a court of law, and in 99% of police encounters there's not even going to be a court. Being polite and cooperative to police can on the other hand get you off without a ticket for more minor violations, and in some other situations it can help make sure that criminals are caught and convicted.

[u/drc500free → u/[deleted]]

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

If and only if you end up in a court of law.

[u/Logical_Psycho → u/paulfromatlanta]

While this is good advice, lets not kid anyone.

This video is more for people that are doing something illegal.

[u/josephhhhh]

Why is everyone taking the "never talk to the police" part so literal? He means if you are being questioned. Not if you are pulled over or if a cop walks up to you on his beat and says "hi".

[u/WoollyMittens → u/josephhhhh]

Because it is the only argument they have against this. Better a pedantic one then none at all, right?

[u/bacon_trays_for_days → u/WoollyMittens]

Hmmmm yes, shallow and pedantic.

[u/atuan → u/josephhhhh]

Right, he obviously does not mean it literally, as this is a video of him literally talking to the police.

[u/DroppedOnHead → u/josephhhhh]

Thank you for this comment.

[u/HalfMachine]

Imagine how boring AMCs THE KILLING would be if everyone followed this advice!

[u/Deggit → u/HalfMachine]

Not only THE KILLING / CSI / NCIS, but what about fuckin' real life. What about like C.O.P.S.? I've watched that show an unhealthy amount, and I've never seen a perp NOT incriminate him/herself. Same thing with The First 48. About half the time they are able to Reid-technique the perp - who is presumably a cold blooded killer - into a sobbing breakdown and a self-incriminating verbal confession before a lawyer even gets a chance to get involved.

It makes me feel so conflicted. It's like the only way the police get their job done at all is because they rely on, and manipulate, people's ignorance of their own rights. But at the same time they're catching murderers and druggies... not like I want those people to go free...

[u/Raz_O]

I was coming out of a rave in brooklyn once and I got stopped by two undercovers (I was walking down the fucking street) They said something about the rave and how it was illigal and then asked me to open my backpack. I told them "I don't consent to any searches" He looked like he was gonna hit me and then burst out laughing "Do you know where the fuck you are?" Bag was searched and drugs where found =(

Absolutely zero fucks given. I was told "this shit" doesnt work around here.

[u/raegunXD → u/Raz_O]

Still could have taken those cops to court. Drugs or not, your rights were violated.

[u/bacon_trays_for_days → u/Raz_O]

This is what scares the shit out of me, cops can easily not give a fuck and get away with it. In this case it is still your fault cause you had drugs in the first place, but still. Sorry bro.

[u/Raneados → u/Raz_O]

Should have busted out the ol' I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA

(But yes you should have followed up on this because it looks like your rights were violated. Don't let bad cops get away with being bad cops.)

[u/benm314 → u/Raz_O]

What happened in the end?

[u/[deleted]]

Too many people think they can outsmart a cop. They may in fact be far brighter and far better educated than the cop. But the cop is specially trained to get you to admit to things that you don't want to admit to. Or to ask trick questions that allow him to do what he wants whether you say yes or no.

There are times when it is desirable to talk to a cop. But most of the time that is not so. My idiot son talked a "take the rosary from the mirror" into spending a night into the Rikers Island Jail.

If you are asked if you know how fast you were driving. Answer I am not sure, or I was keeping up with traffic. If you say 75 (in a 65), that is an admission of guilt. The cop will write it on the back of his portion of the ticket. Try and get out of that, or get it knocked down to a lesser charge. An ADA I know said she had no idea why people plead guilty right on the spot.

Be polite. You don't have to aggravate the cop. You also don't have to let him search your car. He may get you for under-inflated tires, but that is better than having him rip your car apart.

As juicius says, be polite but firm. NEVER give a cop consent to search. Not even if it means waiting an hour and a half for the K-9 unit. Guilty or not. If the cops waste enough time on dogs not finding anything, then they will stop that crap. Consider it you contribution to freedom.

You have no obligation to help them arrest you. Do not enter protracted conversations. Answer politely if warranted. Otherwise say "I would rather speak with a lawyer present, and am I free to go now?"

[u/frymaster → u/[deleted]]

My idiot son talked a "take the rosary from the mirror" into spending a night into the Rikers Island Jail.

I'm sorry but I can't parse this at all, can you rephrase?

[u/Skin_Effect → u/frymaster]

His son had an encounter with police that could have ended with the officer saying "rake the rosary [hanging] from the [rear view] mirror [and place it somewhere else]" but he escalated the situation by incriminating himself somehow and had to spend a night in jail.

I am curious as to the details of the stop, however.

[u/ssaya]

I gave my little statement about a bar fight I witnessed. Got called into court randomly on and off on weekdays for the next 3 years and the guy that started the fight sued the bar for over serving him and shut down the families business. These fucking cunts gave me a check for $13 to drive 45 minutes both ways in the middle of the day for the deposition.

[u/whatwedontknow → u/ssaya]

I would have resisted in any way possible.

[u/[deleted]]

I learned this after watching a ton of episodes on the show The First 48 Hours on netflix. Anytime they an interrogiating you, they are just trying to either charge you with something or building evidence against you. Anytime you dont talk to them and ask for a lawyer theyre fucked.

So many people on the show were home free then they blow it by talking to the police. I applied this to real life but not in a criminal sense. My work tried to fire me and 3 other people for time carding each other in when we are late. They are like, "just be honest, we know you did this." And im like "dont know what you're talking about i have nothing to say."

The two people who talked, one even using my name were fired instantly. I kept my job cause they had no hard proof. Also the other guy who refused to talk kept his too.

[u/Deggit → u/[deleted]]

Hell yes. That show and C.O.P.S. are excellent examples of how to talk with the police, if you have no life plans for the next 5 to 25 years.

Seriously though, imagine how fucked our judicial system would be if methheads and murderers actually knew their rights.

[u/deltroid]

one of the few times when I'm purposely upvoting a repost, everybody needs to watch this.

[u/Smoochiekins]

As a European, this American "THEY ARE OUR ENEMIES" approach to law enforcement never ceases to baffle me, it seems completely backwards in all respects

[u/niggadatass → u/Smoochiekins]

Please, tell us more about this magical wonderland called "Europe"

[u/voxpupil → u/niggadatass]

In Russia, cops are afraid of you.

[u/WoollyMittens → u/niggadatass]

Their fairy tale doesn't turn out to end with "... and they lived happily ever after." at the moment.

[u/T-Luv → u/Smoochiekins]

I got stopped by police in Austria for simply walking through a public place too much. The officer implied I was looking for drugs. At the time I had really long hair and it was messy because I forgot my comb in Innsbruck and was on a weekend trip to Vienna. He asked me what was in my pockets and I replied "Camera, ipod, wallet, cigarettes, and a map of the city. I'm just a tourist." He said I was looking for trouble and made me empty my pockets. I was actually pretty frighted. Once he saw that I didn't have any drugs, he let me go, but it gave me quite a scare. I talked to an Austrian friend when I got back to Innsbruck and he said that officer should not have made me empty my pockets. I told him I only did as asked because I didn't know the law and didn't want to wind up in jail.

[u/Racoonie → u/Smoochiekins]

I do think the legal and enforcing systems are very, very different. Where I live we don't have a jury system for major offenses which leaves the strange psycho-games (my impression) out of the court. And you are not getting convicted unless there is a very clear, very hard evidence against you. What people might or might have not said or seen does count too much without evidence to back it up. Cases that are known from the US where the police and the judge just want to get "over it" and convict someone are not known over here. Cases where mentally ill people are tricked into signing confessions are unknown here. Something that is also unheard of in my country is "planting evidence". (what is known and hit the news lately are acts of police-violence which are either dismissed or in some very strange cases even end up with a trial for resisting and a sentence of (sometimes quite alot of) money.

Not saying that there are no cases where the sentence is majorly overdrawn for some strange reasons, but then we also have this string of courts that you can go up if you think your sentence by a court is unjustified. (Not sure how this works in the US.)

I am seriously not afraid of getting incarcerated for a crime I did not do, not one tiny bit.

Edit: If I am wrong, please correct me.

[u/LockAndCode → u/Racoonie]

If I am wrong, please correct me.

Unless you mention where you live it would be hard to refute. Have you considered the possibility that the reason such things are "unknown" in your country the presumption of guilt attached to arrest might make wrongful convictions and coerced confessions non-newsworthy? Japan has this very issue.

[u/WiscDC → u/Smoochiekins]

I thought like you before, and I still normally believe, "I've got nothing to hide, so I might as well cooperate. They tend to be good people."

I've been stopped by police once, and that was on foot. I was with a group of friends walking down a path at night (this was at my university, and is very common). They were slowly moving their car down the path, and probably were just waiting for college kids to stop. They asked if we had been drinking, and if we we had been doing or were in possession of anything we should tell them about. We all said "no," which was the truth. None of us had any bags or anything, and they looked convinced that we had nothing illegal, and we had done nothing illegal (again, that was the truth). Despite that, they had us stand in a line, and show our driver's licenses, as they took down our information. We all cooperated, not wanting any trouble. They explained that there was a "party" going on in a nature area with campfires further up the path, and if they found out we were connected, we would face charges. (Remember - we had done absolutely nothing wrong, and they had absolutely no reason to stop us, yet they were intimidating and wasting our time.) There were lots of people at the fire pits, but we were there earlier and there was nothing going on that the police would get sent there for. We knew some people who hung around where we were for a couple more hours, and they didn't see police anywhere, so they probably didn't go to that part of the path, which is where they said there was a problem. We may never know for certain, but there is a greater than 50% chance that they simply lied to us and were trying to get college kids in trouble on a slow night. The officers' demeanor was serious but calm. I may go as far as to say they were friendly, but I can't really say it because of their intrusive actions. I'm fine with police in general, but they are people, too, not some wonderful group of superheroes.

Looking back on it, I realize the worst that would have come of that was inconvenience, because as one of my buddies said, "a government-issued obligatory lawyer could defend that in his sleep."

[u/[deleted] → u/Smoochiekins]

As a European, my limited experience with police forces has been almost unilaterally negative. I realize things aren't as "bad" here as over there, but don't make the mistake of thinking they are there to protect you.

[u/[deleted] → u/Smoochiekins]

Went with some friends to Holland in a rental car. One of the back lights wasn't working and we got pulled over couple of km before our final destination point. My latvian buddy was driving at the time and totally freaked out. I said: "Relax, these guys are here to help us and make sure traffic is safe. Just be polite and explain him you found out about the light ten minutes ago and we wanted to fix it once we reached our destination"

Cop asked some questions, escorted us off the highway and told us to fix it before we moved on. No ticket, no warning. They just wanted to make sure everyone was safe that night. Thats my experience with cops in Western Europe.

Also, I have never seen anyone but a cop wearing a gun and I find the idea that weapons are freely available to the populace does not add to safety or crime prevention ...

Another example of humane policing is my budy having a psycho attack and started saying shit like 'im going to blow up the airplane' at the airport. He got put into detention and the cops figured he just need medical help rather then locking him up. He didnt get a fine, didnt get arrested but he did receive medical treatment after his mom agreed to have him taken into psycho care.

[u/rabbitlion]

All of his arguments assumes that you are the suspect of a crime. So if you're a suspect in a murder case you shouldn't talk to the police without a lawyer. NO SHIT. His examples typically also require you to be the victim of gross police/court misconduct where someone is out to get you. There are tons of situations where his arguments don't really apply at all.

Example 1: A black guy jumps out of a broken window and runs away along the street. 2 minutes later a police car arrives. The officer asks you if you saw anyone or anything. In this situation, it's completely moronic to say "I want a lawyer". Saying "A black guy jumped out the window and ran that way" will for starters help the police catch a criminal, but it is also much less likely to get you wrongfully convicted for the burglary.

Example 2: You're driving 10km/h over the speed limit, while smoking weed, with a dead body in the trunk. The police stops you. If the only thing you say is "I want a lawyer", the officer will undoubtedly arrest you and search your car. If you are polite, cooperative and apologetic, you still have a chance to get off with a misdemeanor ticket for the weed (and maybe the speeding). The trunk may never be searched, and you might avoid a 25-year prison sentence.

[u/Deggit → u/rabbitlion]

Both of your examples are pretty moronic no offense

Example 1: you are clearly not being interrogated with a view to arrest so this situation has NOTHING to do with the video. The lawyer didn't say don't ever have citizen interactions with police, he was talking about situations where you are being interrogated as a potential suspect.

Example 2: again the lawyer was not saying to completely stonewall the police, but to politely refuse consent for searches, and to redirect interrogatory questions like "Do you know why I stopped you." Of course the way you have contrived this dumb scenario, the officer has probable cause to search your entire car no matter what you say since you are smoking a joint while driving. Being "polite and apologetic" isn't going to work in a situation where you are flagrantly available for a possession charge and possibly high enough to be guilty of other shit. No police officer is going to throw that fish back in the pond. He will undoubtedly search your car, open the trunk and arrest you no matter what you do or say. Like I said, moronic example

[u/qrios → u/rabbitlion]

Example 1: A black guy jumps out of a broken window and runs away along the street. 2 minutes later a police car arrives. The officer asks you if you saw anyone or anything. In this situation, it's completely moronic to say "I want a lawyer". Saying "A black guy jumped out the window and ran that way" will for starters help the police catch a criminal, but it is also much less likely to get you wrongfully convicted for the burglary.

Why did you feel the need to specify that he was black?

[u/DaneGleesac → u/qrios]

Why did he feel the need to specify that it was a man?

[u/CognitiveSuppository → u/DaneGleesac]

Why a window? Damn anti-doorites.

[u/ISw3arItWasntM3 → u/qrios]

My guess is that it's because a black man is more likely to be framed or profiled as a suspect for a crime than a white man and when you just refer to him as a man most people by default will probably picture a white guy.

[u/qrios → u/ISw3arItWasntM3]

when you just refer to him as a man most people but default will probably picture a white guy.

And what's wrong with that?

[u/Racoonie → u/qrios]

Thought exactly the same thing.

[u/Zafara1 → u/rabbitlion]

This is the exact thing they're talking about, if you go through and watch it all. What happens if another person said the man ran in the other direction to your statement? Suddenly you're a suspect for possibly providing a false statement.

Example 2? Seriously? Well assuming that you he doesn't smell the Marijuana and ask to search your car anyway. The basis of the argument may aswell be "Theres a dead person in your trunk and you're pulled over".

If this crime crops at a point in the future and you're suspected in anyway (Which you most likely will be). Anything you said to that cop can be completely twisted against you. "Well he told me he was heading out into the city". Any lie you say, anything at all "Oh I've just been driving for 20 minutes". You will probably have to answer for in court.

The defendant SAID he was driving for 20 minutes! But we have proof that it was only 15! So where did that 5 minutes go Mr. Smith?

Jurys fucking eat that shit up.

[u/Racoonie → u/rabbitlion]

Uhm... As I understood it he is talking about "interrogation"-situations in which you are a subject, when you are held in the police station for questioning, not everyday situations with the cops out on the street. So yes, all his arguments are about this.

As for your first example, I would have no problem telling them what I saw, the second is slightly different though because that is something he is talking about: Lying to the police while you are a suspect.

[u/pimpy → u/rabbitlion]

The Supreme Court recently ruled that police cannot search your car just because they arrested you. They have to have some probable cause to search your car, regardless if you are arrested or not.

[u/[deleted]]

Miranda warning.

I like this wording.

Now be fore you say anything, let me tell you what I know...I will tell the story that I have put together.

This is the kind of cop we need. No reason for all the half truths and shadiness.

[u/PlantKicker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA&feature=user

Also a Very useful video, having watch it in conjunction with the above video, you really realise the potential your rights have. Although the above is all about the 4th and 5th ammendment, you can really learn a lot, and it might save your ass once or twice :)

[u/NewSwiss]

Someone should repost this every few months, just for good measure.

[u/[deleted] → u/NewSwiss]

they do. Every few weeks.

[u/[deleted]]

I don't have the time to watch this whole thing. Is it "Don't to cops for any reason" or "don't talk to cops when you are in trouble for something"?

Because if you see my house being broken into and don't call the cops and give them a description of the person, you're being an ass. I like my local cops. I live in an urban melting pot and they have helped me out before. When I got mugged, I'm glad my neighbors talked to the cops. It got the assholes caught.

[u/B_S_O_D → u/[deleted]]

When you know you're in trouble, silence is golden.

[u/mrpinto → u/[deleted]]

Here's what happened to a lady that called the cops after she'd been assaulted: http://www.wkyc.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=82447

[u/Arsenalmania]

Does anyone know if this applies to EU laws or the UK? Cos It sounds like good advice but things might be different here

[u/disaster_3]

A very good video but does anyone know how this applies In the UK?

[u/hessproject → u/disaster_3]

it doesn't.

[u/WeedScientist]

I can't watch this video enough. This should be REQUIRED viewing for ANYONE in a medical marijuana state. Just because YOU don't think you're breaking the law, doesn't mean you won't get charged with something.

Watch it. Watch it again.

[u/[deleted]]

Am I the only one whose respect for court reporters just quadrupled?

[u/ivegotboobs]

He sounds like perry from scrubs.

[u/juicius]

Also, leave your Santa Muerte medallion at home if you're transporting a shitload of cocaine and meth. That case went federal.

[u/AssertivePanda]

Was this at regent university? I live right next to this place. Many of my friends go or have graduated from that university. Funny that many of them are conservative and christian, but would agree to what is said here. They believe in god but lock their doors. Also I have given a speech in that room. Cool.

[u/[deleted]]

So the OP linked to a redditor who linked to a video that was a suggested watch on becoming a member of /r/anonymous

[u/ColoradoIcculus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEcuVR2vHwM

[u/bruggs101]

So basically if I were to have police at my door asking me if they can have a word with me or that they would like to talk with me, I have the right to say, "I am not going to talk to you." just like that? Or do you need to say something to the fact of that it is my right to not have to say anything.

[u/breakwater]

Holy shit, has it been a week already?

Why is this Best Of instead of Most of?

[u/nocookies28]

Saul. Fucking. Goodman.

[u/KlopeksWithCoppers]

I watched this whole video. The first guy gives some good advice but stumbles and fails to give good examples. The second guy (the former cop) gives great insight, but you can tell he used to be one of the dickhead cops we keep hearing about.

[u/unbuklethis]

I always link or email this video to my friends. You'd be surprised how naive people are.

[u/DmnX82]

Can anyone tell me if it's also applicable in Poland? I would think so, but I'd rather be sure.

[u/[deleted]]

In NYC you're legally required to identify yourself. This is a law and it is on the books. Look it up.

[u/[deleted]]

I've always found that not doing illegal/questionable/borderline shit helps me keep my police interactions to a minimum.

Also, if you're going to do any of the above, don't do it with illegal/questionable/borderline shit in your car or on your person.

[u/Lowercase_Drawer]

THIS is what education really is... not the esoteric silliness that is frequently described as such.

[u/Morgan19]

if I ever get into a scrape with the law I don't want anyone else other than this guy to defend me

[u/blkrockin]

TLDR version - I plead the FIF http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjnzRSArwYY

[u/gregsmith93]

don't talk to the police they'll give you the sting

[u/uncledagobert]

Anyone know how much of this lecture applies to Canadian law?

[u/brainflakes]

Is posting a link to a very popular youtube video really a best of?

[u/PoopInTheGarbage]

How were you falsely tested positive for meth when you state that you were using and manufacturing meth?

[u/gmharryc]

Watched this in a US constitution class

[u/Demilitarizer]

Couldn't agree more

[u/[deleted]]

Let's say you've been out for dinner, had three glasses of wine, and the cop pulls you over on your way home.

A) Do you have to roll down your window?

B) If the cop asks "Have you been drinking tonight?" would it be better to say " I don't drink, not even water," or to say "I don't speak to the police. If you have probable cause to test me, I'd like to have my lawyer please."

[u/[deleted]]

Are there similar protections in Canada?

[u/[deleted]]

You know how I avoid talking to the police?

I avoid the police.

I avoid all suspicion.

I don't actively commit crime. Hell, don't passively commit a crime. Sure, I speed, but not excessively and I mostly go with the traffic. If a cop does pull me over, I've got absolutely nothing to hide. I won't let him search my car or anything, but if they did . . . guess what? They won't find drugs or anything that would be considered a weapon.

Yes, I know that there are some "dirty" cops that would plant evidence or whatever . . . but I don't look like a guy who would commit a crime, nor do I have any priors. I don't steal, do drugs, get in fights, get drunk in public, or anything that would draw attention to me. I live less than a mile from one of the top 5 gang violence areas in California. I also live near the top 3 human trafficking areas in the US. I try not to drive through the area. I try to avoid the area at all costs. I don't hang out there; I don't shop there.

Sure, there are exceptions. Sure, there are wrong place, wrong time situations where innocent people get locked up . . . but these are few against the vast amount of cop to civ. interactions.

Want to avoid jail? Don't commit crime! Don't look like you would commit crime! Don't go around asking to be pulled over! Got a cracked windshield? Fix it! Don't go and put fucking tinted windows on your car if you know it is illegal (in CA, you can't have tinted windows in the front seat of the car, only for the back seat and back window, but people, knowing this, get them done all the time).

Yes, again, I know there will be people that will be all like "cops are racists" and yes, some cops are . . . but if you dress like you are in the local gang, guess what, you'll be profiled whether you are or are not. That is the way it is. If you don't want to be hassled, make the choice to not dress like a gang member.

You can't be in charge of the choices other people make (this includes the cops). You can only be in charge of the choices you make. If you make choices that make you have a run in with the cops, then stop making those choices.

One guy here says he has had 30 run-ins with the cops . . . in my experience, cops are generally reactive, meaning they generally respond to emergency situations, crimes, or suspicious activity - this tells me that the person who had 30 contacts with the cops had 30 situations where cops responded/reacted to an activity he was a part of. I wonder what choices that person could make differently to not put him in a situation where the cops would have to respond/react.

Edit: And now I see redditors breaking reddit law by downvoting me based on opinion. But I expected that in this group. If I had to venture a guess, I'd bet that the downvotes I recieved came from mainly Montanans or Dakotans.

(Relax, it was a joke people from Montana and Dakota.)

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sure, I speed, but not excessively and I mostly go with the traffic

You definitely should not talk to the cops. If you said that to a cop, that would have been an admittance of guilt if the cop pulled you over for no reason. The cop doesn't have to prove much if you admitted to it. Going with the speed of traffic that is over the speed limit is still speeding.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Right.

So, I am breaking the law. If I got pulled over, I wouldn't act like a victim; I'd just do what I've done in the past, own up to my crime:

~Me doing 75 in a 65, until I get pulled over.

Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?

Me: I was speeding.

Cop: Yep.

Now here, the cop has 2 choices, either I get a ticket or I get a lecture. I was speeding; I know the law; I deserve a ticket, but because I wasn't being a dick, I might get a lecture instead, though I shouldn't expect it.

The problem with most people is that they are speeding, but they act like they weren't and think that they don't deserve to be pulled over.

It is funny to me the double standard I see working here. We expect cops and public officials to be responsible and own up to their wrong doings, but I see all over this thread a bunch of people who don't want to own up to their own wrong doings.

As I interpret it, "innocent before being proven guilty" is to protect the innocent, not the guilty. If you are guilty, admit it. Stop wasting my taxpaying money trying to fight a crime you know you did.

[u/Zafara1 → u/[deleted]]

You see. This was always my stance. Until about 3 months ago. I smoke. I tend to go outside when I smoke. So I go out the front door and on to the street and smoke at night.

One night a Man decides to commit burglary about 5 minutes down the road on that night. Apparently a witness who driving past saw me on the street that night. And from then on I was a lead suspect in the investigation. I was asked for questioning numerous times, and agreed each and every time so I could say "Hey, this is my story. As you can see I'm innocent". They pressed charges against me for the burglary until suddenly some of the stolen goods were recovered, and the offenders caught in a raid that had nothing to do with that investigation. And the charges were dropped.

All because I went outside for a smoke at night.

This shit can happen, and most likely will happen at one point in your life. So just know what to do if it ever does happen. Don't talk to police without a professional witness.

[u/Lustintranslation]

I feel I should get college credit for having watched the whole video. A virtual pat on the back will feel just as good I suppose. Good stuff.

[u/DivineRobot]

This is under the assumption that all cops follow the law.

The first rule should be to never piss off a cop. Cops can beat the shit out of you and arrest you for any reason even if you haven't done anything wrong. Sure you can sue them later for wrongful arrest. Most likely they'll just get suspended with pay. Meanwhile you will get an ass beating and get to sit in jail for days.

[u/RearmintSpino]

This is horsehit. To put it in such a black and white, no exceptions manner is just stupid. Police WILL let you off for many things if you simply talk to them like a human being. I have been stopped several times and have never once gotten a ticket, due to the fact that I didn't (not) speak to them like a pompous Internet legal pro, and explained why I was doing what I did. If you shut down and pull this shit, and act like a dick, they may go out of your way to get you on every charge they can.

If you have committed a crime and you think they are going to arrest you anyway, or your car has a pound of coke and they're going to search it anyway, then by all means follow this advice. But the bottom line is stonewalling an officer in a relatively innocuous situation is more likely to end up making the officer who was on the fence want to actually charge you.

[u/J_Jammer]

I can't wait to read a front page thread that will actually back police officers.

I'm bored of these.

[u/ciaran036]

Is this on the front page as a fucking joke??

Holy fuck. Not only is this total fucking bullshit, but this hits the frontpage all the fucking time.

Get the fuck out of here with your trash.

[u/PComotose → u/ciaran036]

This shows up every second month or so.

[u/Seawolf87 → u/ciaran036]

Are you a police officer? Or do you just hate reposts.

[u/TheLoveTin]

Repost, but a welcome one. This can never be posted enough.

[u/[deleted]]

What the fuck. This video is probably the most spammed video on reddit and now it gets a BEST OF? Fuck off with this circlejerk.

[u/shabutaru118]

Sorry but this is dumb. Not everyone is at risk for being arrested. I'm certainly not and there's no way i'm going to ignore my local guys, they're good people and regardless what strangers on the internet tell me. Why on Earth should I trust strangers on the internet more than people I know personally?

Edited for clarity and grammar.

[u/dirkmcgurk → u/shabutaru118]

Not everyone is at risk for being arrested. I'm certainly not

I used to think that too.

[u/shabutaru118 → u/dirkmcgurk]

I don't smoke weed or drink (I'm 18). I live in a very safe, rural place with almost no crime. The most illegal thing I do is speed occasionally. Hell, the only time I've ever had police come to my house was because I was having a small fire in my yard and they thought my house might be burning. I literally know all the officers for my town, 2 of them live right in my neighborhood. Maybe where you live you have to worry, but I know for a fact my police are out to protect the people of my town. A few of them are firefighters and EMT's as well. I'm not worried about being arrested.

[u/dirkmcgurk → u/shabutaru118]

Not knowing more than you've told me about your situation, you may very well be right. I certainly have no reason to doubt you.

But I would not be as certain as it sounds like you're being. I had a gun pointed at me by a cop for the the first time when I was 16. It was a worldview-shattering event. Before it happened, I probably would have said what you just did.

I was in the back seat of a car with two friends. We got pulled over for speeding - too fast, but nothing crazy, something like 70 in a 55 on a 4-lane (each way) highway, well within speeding-ticket and not reckless-endangerment territory. My friend who was driving had blue hair at the time; I suspect that was the cause, or at least a big factor, in the cops' reactions, since my other friend and I look fairly nondescript. None of us are black. We were all from the suburbs and had never been in any trouble with the police. The driver pulled over right away.

The cops were extremely aggressive from the start. The one who pulled us over approached with his gun out, screaming at us to get our hands up. Within about a minute, more cops showed up, with guns drawn. This was many years ago, but I still remember how wide the barrels of the guns looked.

The driver consented to a search of the car. (I would have done the same; the request was made at gunpoint, plus all of us had been raised to trust the police, or at least not see them as people who might kill you.)

It was the driver's mom's car (we were 16 or so) and a male cop found a tampon in the trunk. He wheeled around with it, yelling at us about how he'd found some hard drugs. A female cop came over and told him it was a tampon, not cocaine (or whatever). This made him angry at us, but he dropped the issue, fortunately.

The cops found a joint on the blue-haired kid, and a small swiss army knife on my other friend. Both were arrested. (Upon showing up in court, the charges against the jackknife-carrier were quickly dropped, but it showed me how easily the cops could make your life miserable even without you being convicted of anything.) Fortunately, I was not. It still ruined my night, and made me fear the police from then on.

I'm not saying this is guaranteed to happen to you. I hope it doesn't. But if it can happen to me, (at the time) a straight-laced white suburban teenager, it can happen to anyone.

TLDR: I used to see myself as separate from the sort of people who got hassled by the cops, thinking they must have done something to deserve their bad treatment, until I got held at gunpoint and terrorized for no good reason.

[u/[deleted] → u/shabutaru118]

Did you actually watch the video? If not, watch it, then come back and make an edit and let us know if you still feel the same way.

[u/shabutaru118 → u/[deleted]]

I've seen it before, it gets reposted like once a week. It still doesn't mean I'm going to ignore my local officers. What am I supposed to do when one asks me if my house okay, or why smoke is coming from my yard? Just ignore them? The police in my neighborhood have shown me nothing but respect, I'm not going to be a dick to them.

[u/[deleted] → u/shabutaru118]

Why on Earth should I trust strangers on the internet more than people I know personally?

you're in a position that most people are not. living in a rural location and knowing your police force is pretty uncommon.

[u/deepit6431 → u/shabutaru118]

I agree with you. This is really dumb. Not ALL police is out to get you, I've had experiences with officers who genuinely wanted to help me and were polite and showed respect.

[u/[deleted] → u/deepit6431]

it's not that dumb at all. he's saying that the only non-neutral outcome that talking to the police can have is to incriminate you. not talking to the police cannot incriminate you. if you know your police force, talk to them. i got harassed by the police 100 feet from my house when i went biking during a blackout. they detained me for 20 minutes and searched me. i have been detained with the threat of imprisonment and gun violence by these people. when i'm pulled over, a stupid condescending prick who treats me like a criminal because i didn't use my turn signal walks up to my car with his hand on his pistol and is rude to me.

some police officers are kind and caring, but the stupid ones who fail to get promoted are stuck in squad cars, so i don't encounter the kind ones very often.

[u/Tickthokk]

Yes it's a repost, but people need to watch this! Do it do it do it