

Don't Talk to the Cops - jackowayed
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-dont_talk_to_the_cops.html

======
philwelch
Aside from the legal advantages of not talking to the cops, it can also save
you from a very aggravating conversation.

I had the cops come by my apartment once. Apparently some kids were shooting
airsoft guns into the neighbor's yard and endangering their kids, and they
thought _I_ knew something about it. I didn't, but the cops spent the whole
time acting like they had a witness who saw me talking to the kids--and
singled me out by my t-shirt and car--and were convinced I knew who they were.

They even played good cop bad cop--one of them acted friendly and sympathetic,
"I know you don't want to rat out your friends", complimenting me on my music
(I had Iron Maiden playing on my Pandora at the time) while the other one was
a total dick and kept saying "We know you're lying". They were expert at
turning around everything I tried to say--I'd say "I'm sorry, I can't help
you", and they'd say, "Why can't you help us? Why can't you just tell us what
you know?"

Then, of course, since they were rather intimidating they kept commenting that
I was acting "avoidant" and implying that meant I knew something, when
actually I was just intimidated by them. It didn't help that at the beginning
they told me to keep my hands out of my pockets, which is an obvious security
measure but also a power game.

To this day, I still don't know if they got a tip on me from someone who saw
me and misinterpreted the situation, or if they were sweeping the whole
complex and bluffing their way into making everyone think they had a specific
tip on them. Or maybe they were just practicing their interrogation skills.
Nothing ever came of it, but I should have known from the outset to say
nothing.

~~~
voidpointer
But would your situation have been any better if you had just declined to
speak to them? The amount of time wasted on your part could have been far
greater (let alone expenses for an attorny)

~~~
philwelch
Like if I was arrested or something?

If the cops/DA have any cause to arrest you, talking to them won't do anything
to save you from it. They'll just use everything you say against you _in
addition_ to whatever they had on you to begin with. You can't dig yourself
out of a hole with the police when your freedom is on the line. (Talking might
help a little bit in traffic stops.) And if they might gain anything on you
later on, you can't talk them out of it.

The purpose of not talking to the police is to avoid _giving_ them cause to
arrest you when they don't already have it. If they already have cause to
arrest you, you aren't talking your way out of it.

It was plainly obvious in my situation that they weren't questioning me as a
witness so much as they were playing word games, trying to trick me into
incriminating myself. You can't actually get ahead with that. At best, you'll
maintain your innocence and they'll get tired of playing games with you (which
is what I did). You get the same outcome with less stress by shutting up. If
you stand there talking, you might make a very costly mistake.

Finally, public defenders are free. They're overworked and they suck in a lot
of places, but where I lived at the time (and still live now) it's pretty
rural so that's less of a problem. In small towns, in fact, a public defender
is often just as good as the best lawyer money can buy locally. (If you're in
_serious_ trouble you hire a lawyer from the nearest big city, of course.)

~~~
stretchwithme
yes, as the video makes clear, you can't compel the police to testify to
anything you said, but they can use it all against you. its hearsay when you
want to use and the unassailable truth when its used against you.

------
baddox
I'd like to see a comprehensive breakdown of exactly what you _should_ do in
real situations when approached by cops. For example, do you literally utter
no words and just stare at them, or do you keep repeating "I'd rather not
answer that." If the cops make a false claim, such as "we can arrest you for
interfering with a police investigation if you don't answer," should you call
them on the lie or what? Also a more specific breakdown by state would be
great (e.g. do I have to carry/show ID while walking/driving/in my home. I've
seen some rather cheesy video dramatizations (I think from the ACLU) of what
to do in a traffic stop, but a nice comprehensive document would be the best.

~~~
CWuestefeld
And even beyond that...

You're supposed to refuse to talk until "your lawyer" is present. Now, I've
used a lawyer's services for making a will, and my boss's wife is a lawyer
specializing in environmental matters. But I don't have any sort of connection
with a lawyer that would handle criminal matters.

Should one make contact with a _potential_ lawyer today, before anything
happens, and carry the lawyer's card in your pocket? Should you just call any
lawyer you know _at the point you need it_ , and ask for a referral?

~~~
TomOfTTB
This seems obvious to me. Put it this way, if you're ever accused of a serious
crime your life will hang in the balance. So how much research would you be
willing to do to save your own life?

Now if you get arrested for a serious crime you'll have one phone call and no
time to do research. So yeah, I'd at least ask around and find out who the
best criminal lawyer in my area is (and make sure I have his number handy)

~~~
CWuestefeld
That much makes sense. But do you think I should just find out who he is and
store his name and number in my phone?

Or is there some standard process with a lawyer, where you contact him ahead
of time and ask if you can keep him on file just in case?

~~~
dotBen
It would be wise to find out rates at the very least! Some lawyers might
charge more than you can afford.

You might also want to ask the receptionist/assistant who answers calls to the
office how you contact the lawyer outside of office hours and whether they
need a retainer on file in order to service clients in these kinds of
circumstances (ie call them out cos you have been arrested at 3am on a
Saturday night).

------
dotBen
I've seen these two videos a long time ago and they are GREAT advice. It's
actually scary the kind of stuff the cop says he has done and other cops will
do to you during questioning.

In the UK, where I'm originally from, the police are not allowed to lie or ask
you to do anything outside of your rights and so it is total wake up call for
anyone who is not used to the way the police work here in the US.

This video is also useful, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk>

However, a friend who I talked to about this did make a counter perspective...
that sometimes it is worth talking to the cops in the right circumstances.

For example, if you are pulled over cos you just ran a stop sign and you have
nothing illegal on you/in the car/etc then it is better just to talk to the
cop and get the ticket dealt with. If you start playing the 'not going to say
anything' and 'no you can't look in the car' then you are opening yourself up
for a long painful experience and potentially arrest if they decide to fuck
back with you and they can pin some suspicion for something on you (eg you are
driving through an area that happens to be associated with drug sale, you have
a LeatherMan tool you and the cop can say the knife was being carried for
other intent, etc)

Cops are naturally authoritarian and can choose to make your life hell if they
think you are trying to be superior or above them.

~~~
branden
If everyone who is innocent cedes their rights then yeah, asserting your
rights will make you look suspicious. So never cede your rights to a cop under
any circumstances. That's too important a principle to sacrifice for a more
convenient traffic stop.

~~~
rdtsc
In a certain way it is already too late. Cops can pin random 'catch all'
charges on your because the law allows them, some are vengeful and power
hungry, they can legally lie to you, it is seems the system is already stacked
up against you.

In other words, if you ran stop sign, do you want to be a "constitutional
martyr" and expose yourself to a cop's rage? Do you want to be detained for a
day when you have a family and a job to go to, do you want your car towed, do
you want random charges that are hard to defend slapped on you? Even if all
charges are cleared by a judge, the amount of effort, time and money spent is
too much for most people to handle. They'd rather fly under the radar,
hopefully, the cops will catch the next guy...

~~~
branden
I don't see how you could be detained or have your car towed for refusing a
search or any requests beyond your name, driver's license, and insurance.
Maybe the officer could fabricate a traffic charge, which you could contest.
(I'll agree you're likely screwed there - when it comes to traffic infractions
you're guilty until proven innocent.) The officer might decide he smells
something and force a search which makes you late for an appointment.
Unfortunate for sure, and spiteful on the officer's part. But I don't think
this reaches the level of martyrdom, and it'd be worth the shot of pride I get
from defending my rights (though I understand not everyone would feel that
way).

Am I missing something? What else could a cop do that doesn't require
documented evidence of wrongdoing? I suppose Chicago-level corruption could
wreck your life, and if that's the environment you're in then it's probably
best to keep your head down. And take part in local government, or consider
moving.

~~~
rdtsc
They can fabricate a charge. There are enough catch-all charges : "interfering
with official business", "obstruction of justice", "looking suspicious" (my
friend got a ticket for "suspicious behavior" in one of the mid-Western
states!).

Your tires could seem to be too bold, your windshield could have a crack, your
turn light might not work properly. Then the cop start "smelling drugs" that
are not there (police camera don't have smell detectors!). He might decide you
need to a DUI test. You might be to close to a drug or prostitution area -- so
just that lets them arrest you. He thinks your license if fake, so he detains
you to take you to the station to establish your identity.

If he detains or arrests you, your car is towed. You don't show up for work,
your family is worried about you. Basically, you cannot win. You can only lose
after you encounter a cop.

I guess what I am saying is that I am disappointed at the legal system and the
disproportional power the police can project. But aside from calling my
congressman, I don't know if I'd want to try to be a "constitutional martyr"
and get a cop angry at me...

------
stretchwithme
You have me convinced. 25% of those later exonerated by DNA evidence actually
confessed to the crime? crazy.

~~~
rdtsc
Can't up-vote that enough. I would guess in a lot of those situations cops
invited those people to the station "just to talk".

~~~
stretchwithme
the founders knew what they were doing.

------
edj
Excellent 45 minute ACLU documentary on how to interact with police in three
situations: traffic stop, in your house, and on foot.

BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA>

tldr:

-say as little as possible.

-be courteous and don't argue or complain.

-memorize the phrase "I do not consent to any searches."

-do not invite police in your house.

~~~
blinks
> do not invite police into your house.

Sorry, just made me laugh: can they cross running water? Do they reflect in
mirrors?

The TL;DR seems like good advice in general.

------
mclin
I watched these a while ago, and based on what the second guy (the cop) has to
say about him going to bat for a particularly nice iraq vet, while lying to
and manipulating 'hood rats', I inferred the rule is don't talk to the cops if
you're poor/black.

~~~
randallsquared
Indeed. I'm a white guy, and I've talked to the police repeatedly, back when I
lived in the poor parts of various towns. As far as I know, nothing I've ever
said to any police has been used against me. Of course, I assume I've hardly
ever been a suspect, so maybe that's part of it, but the difficulty with all
of this "don't talk to the police" is that we don't have any statistics on
what percentage of people who talk to the police never even get arrested.

It's probably quite true that it will be difficult for the courts to convict
you of anything if you don't talk to the police. However, it seems like
there'd be a large risk of attracting a lot more attention than you otherwise
would have, should you conspicuously _refuse_ to talk to the police. Being
arrested and having to endure a trial is, itself, a fairly large imposition on
someone's liberty and time, and it's hard to know how many people would have
been looked at far more closely had they insisted on saying nothing.

------
tptacek
Like everything else, when and how much to talk to the police is a judgement
call.

I am quite possibly the world's least legal driver; I've spent more of my
adult license with a suspended license than a legitimate one. Not only that,
but I drive around with expired plates. In one case, very, very expired
plates. From a different state. And I drive a pretty consistent 10MPH over the
limit.

And yet I very rarely get tickets. Because I am (I think) good at not
antagonizing cops. For instance, here is a trick that works _very reliably_
for me: when driving on the highway, if I see a cruiser pull out onto the road
from a trap or the median, I pull over preemptively --- before the lights come
on. They say, "why'd you pull over", I say "I figure you pulled out like that
because I did something wrong", and they say "drive slower next time".

Similarly: dome light on, car engine off, hands on the wheel, window (mostly)
down. "Got any weapons in the car"? That's a question I'm happy to answer.

I think the thing people don't realize is that most people are total assholes
to police officers. Just being civil puts you in the top 10th percentile of
their clientele. I'd rather be civil (and, for my neighborhood cops, _helpful_
) than self-righteous.

Another thing, after reading the ACLU guides, watching the videos, and reading
the books: you have rights, but you have no _authority_ over the police. You
usually have a constitutional right to be free from search without probable
cause. But that does _not_ mean you can prevent an unreasonable search; it
merely means you're likely to win a case that hinges on evidence obtained from
that search.

If you're an iota less than civil to a cop who's having a bad day, he'll
arrest you. That's pretty much the ballgame. Your day is ruined. Find a
friendly, polite, _short_ way to avoid discussing incriminating topics with
the police. Say, "sorry, I don't consent to searches" and, if pressed, "I'm
really sorry, this is just a thing with me, but I'm not going to consent to a
search; is there anything else I can do to help?". But _do not_ say "My life
might hang in the balance if I allow you to search me". You're just going to
get arrested, and then immediately searched anyways.

Finally: _none of these things apply near the border_. You have essentially no
rights near the border.

------
ErrantX
I work with cops, for an ex-cop and have been arrested a couple of times for
"kicks" or through false accusation. So this is my experience...

Generally the idea of not saying anything without a lawyer is sensible and
advised. But I think you have to be pragmatic about it.

For example we were stopped entering a country once (by the police not border
guards) and asked a few fairly routine questions about drug importation.

I answered them because there seemed little danger and got released with an
apology in about 5 minutes (probably even less - they just pulled us to one
side into little alcoves). But my friend clammed up and asked for a lawyer,
"no comment" etc, had to wait about 40 minutes for one to turn up, got told to
just answer the questions and was there answering them for about another 20m.
Pointless...

You have to remember that for the most part cops are people (I need to
remember that myself sometimes because they can be the most infuriating
techno-phobes too :P) and usually aren't out to get us.

I advise - if you're worried, don't answer questions, but stay polite and
engage in small talk if you feel safe (i.e. they aren't leading you somewhere
with it). If you're confident just answer the questions and be helpful - it
saves everyone time.

------
w1ntermute
_It's something you should share with your children (grown or not). I have a
particular interest in this subject because of "zero tolerance" policies in
schools. Too often, children defer to authority -- as they've been taught by
...uh... the authorities -- and when the principal says "Write out what
happened and sign it," that resulting confession is often given to the police.
Cops certainly can't demand that a suspect write a confession without first
advising the suspect of their rights ("You have the right to remain
silent..."), but school officials -- typically government agents in their own
right -- don't seem to have a problem obtaining confessions for use against
their own students, even without bringing in their parents first (let alone a
lawyer). Kids (and adults!) often don't understand that they are sealing their
own fate when they comply with such outrageous demands._

The kids don't have a choice in this situation, do they? From what I remember,
the Supreme Court has ruled that students in public schools don't have
constitutional rights. If the school wants to expel the student for not
talking, they can do so.

~~~
katanil
Actually, the SCOTUS has ruled the opposite. In the case Tinker vs. Des
Moines, the court ruled that the students who were wearing arm-bands as a
protest against the Vietnam War enjoyed first-amendment protection and
discipline from the school was illegal. The court has been much more lenient
on searches -- see New Jersey v T. L. O. However, you still need at least some
reasonable ground for a search to be legal.

As for interrogations, the supreme court has yet to rule on it. There is,
however, a case brewing:
[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0405/Supreme-
Court...](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0405/Supreme-Court-lets-
stand-ruling-in-self-incrimination-case). The fact that it's written in such a
fashion as to be assumed that students have Fifth Amendment rights and the
court cases are arguing over a technicality of pre-trial processing would seem
to imply that students don't shed that right, either. Specifically: "A
juvenile court judge determined that Paul did not understand that he had a
right to remain silent and a right to have a lawyer and his parents present
for the entire interrogation. The judge ruled that police coerced Paul’s
confession."

~~~
scott_s
Public school students don't have full first amendment rights. If the speech
interferes with the school's ability to conduct classes, the administration
can stop it. I don't know the case name, but this was established in a case
with a high school principal censoring the school newspaper.

~~~
dgordon
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.

"Instead of "teach[ing] children to respect the diversity of ideas that is
fundamental to the American system," and "that our Constitution is a living
reality, not parchment preserved under glass," the Court today "teach[es]
youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes."
The young men and women of Hazelwood East expected a civics lesson, but not
the one the Court teaches them today." --Justice William J. Brennan, in
dissent on said case

------
AgileCyborg
I see the tide shifting from an unrelenting awe of law enforcement authority
to a far more astute and cautious state that regards police with a guarded
circumspection.

This is actually a healthy thing for those interested in American liberty.

All children should also be trained exactly opposite of what law enforcement
teaches in the public schools. My kids talk to me first- NOT the cops.

Also, something not touched on in very many places is how close to get to law
enforcement when they are out of uniform. My suggestion: arms length always,
unless they are a close family member or you are as boring as a bag of green
beans.

~~~
rdtsc
I think that is not uncorrelated with the fact that now more people have
access to non-traditional media like youtube, web forums, other online
communities, where police brutality videos, stories about abuse of power,and
injustice can spread.

Americans traditional media will not turn against cops and will
"appropriately" filter stories to make the system of government look good.

In other words, I think cops have always acted this way, it is just that the
general public have been mis-informed.

------
baddox
The first guy is by far the most skilled and rehearsed public speaker I have
ever seen in my entire life.

------
btmorex
This really gets driven home when you watch a show like "The First 48" and
realize that a lot of murder cases are basically strong circumstantial
evidence and a confession. Take out the confession and getting a conviction is
really, really hard. With it though, the chances are very good.

~~~
niekmaas
Yes, on a episode I watched a couple of days ago the cop first tells the
camera "we have no proper evidence to take this suspect to court. None
whatsoever". He than talks to tge suspect and says "some people told me I
should talk to you about this. Tell me what happened.." And the guy confesses
everything. It went to a case in which they had no openings at all to a case-
closed conviction...

------
callmeed
Curious—am I allowed to video/audiotape a conversation with law enforcement?

I was recently the passenger in a car pulled over by the police. My iPhone
rang with a text message and the cop abruptly asked "are you recording me!?" I
wasn't ... but so what if I was? If cops want to talk to me, can I record the
conversation?

~~~
tptacek
Be very, very careful. In several states, like my home state Illinois, two-
party consent statutes allow you to be charged with a felony for recording on-
duty officers; in others, recording on-duty officers is an overt and specific
felony.

Some journalism student just got pegged with a felony charge, and failed in
his attempt to get the charged dismissed, because he surruptitiously recorded
an on-duty cop here. _Not worth it._

~~~
billswift
As I understand it that is _usually_ (I don't know specifically about IL)
about _surreptitious_ recording. If the other party (the cop) is informed and
continues the interaction, you are covered. As I have written before, the
2-party consent rules are specifically for the benefit of low-lifes. Nothing
prevents one party reporting what transpired in a conversation, all the anti-
recording laws do is to allow liars to get away with it by not preserving an
objective record.

~~~
tptacek
"Hey, sir, I just need to tell you that I'm recording this for my rec---"

"Turn it off. Now."

"But---"

"TURN IT OFF AND STEP OUT OF THE CAR."

You're right, but not in a relevant way.

(I have a very little bit of experience with this, though not with municipal
police; a friend got assaulted because of this, too).

------
evo_9
The thing with this kind of advice is while it's important to realize that
nothing good can come from talking to a cop, the circumstances of the
situation has to be factored in. Case in point, a police officer approaches
you about a murder investigation, then yes this is great advice. If you are
pulled over for rolling through a 4 way stop, yeah clamming up just isn't
warranted and likely to cause you more trouble than it's worth.

~~~
philwelch
At traffic stops, behaving very friendly and polite and _sober_ and knowing
_exactly_ where your license, registration, and proof of insurance are goes a
long way, even if you play dumb about why you were pulled over. Sometimes
there is no reason. They might ask you what you're out for, but that's just to
make conversation so they can size you up and it won't lead to anything
(unless you say something stupid like "buying some weed").

------
hga
Also highly recommended, since at times there's more to all this than just not
talking when you don't have to: [http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-
Ex-Cop-Reveals-A...](http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-
Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377)

------
tzs
I wonder if the "never talk to a cop" people will feel the same way if one of
their kids is missing, and all the people who saw the abduction refuse to
speak without getting lawyers?

------
snewe
YouTube link:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=player_embedded)

------
bonsaitree
My route standard response to law enforcement queries:

"I'm sorry Mr./Mrs/Sargent/Lt X, but I don't talk to police on material
matters without counsel present."

~~~
baddox
A related question: apart from a subpoena in court, are you required to talk
to police about _anything_ even with counsel present?

~~~
jrockway
You may have to say your name if asked. Anything else, nope.

You might have to testify against yourself in court, without Fifth Amendment
protection, if you're given immunity for whatever you are about to testify to.
(This is interesting, because federal courts can use the testimony from state
proceedings against you, but the state can't give you federal immunity. Double
jeopardy does not apply because the state and federal courts are different.
Pretty sure that's not what the framers meant when they were writing the Tenth
Amendment...)

~~~
Retric
I would argue from an information theory perspective that ever speaking about
anything may be self incriminating for any crime you have ever commuted. Also,
I am fairly positive federal immunity does not protect you vs the hague. So
you could still be convicted of say war crimes based on testimony even if you
had immunity.

Unfortunately, the law does not agree with me.

~~~
jrockway
Yeah. If you've killed two million children, or something, you might want to
just take the contempt sentence. Though there is probably other evidence of
your guilt...

------
DenisM
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758>

------
Luc
I'd love to see the same kind of advice for other countries.

~~~
dotBen
My advice for the UK is to generally be cooperative with the police because
unlike the US are not allowed to lie nor ask you to do anything outside of
your rights.

EG, if they start searching your car when they pull you over, and they don't
have a warrant or you are not under arrest then the evidence collected is not
admissible in court.

However the UK doesn't quite have a total "right to remain silent" law
anymore, the current miranda warning is

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defense if you do not
mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."

and as such taking the tact of not saying anything at all can actually get an
innocent person into some legal difficulties if simply giving reasonable facts
about your innocence would have helped the situation at the time of
quesitoning.

~~~
JshWright
You seem to imply that cops in the US _are_ allowed to lie, and search your
private property without cause.

If a cop in the US lies to you, or searches your car without cause, or
otherwise 'tricks' you, it's no more admissible that it would be in the UK.
The issue (in both countries) is proving the cop lied to you, tricked you,
etc. Which is the whole point of have legal consul present in the first place.

One of the comments on the article mentions that the 'UK version of the
"Miranda rights" includes the sentence "It may harm your defense if you do not
mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."' The
most common tactic I've heard cops employ in the US is "if you're innocent,
it's in your best interest to talk to us." It would appear the UK has that
trick built right in to the process from the start.

~~~
dotBen
"If a cop in the US lies to you, or searches your car without cause, or
otherwise 'tricks' you, it's no more admissible that it would be in the UK.
The issue (in both countries) is proving the cop lied to you, tricked you"

Well, my understanding is different. Here is an example:

Suspect is in the police station being questioned and the police officer says
"we know you did it, your friend who we arrested in the car with you said you
did it. he just gave a statement. Why don't you just sign this confession now
and we'll sort out a deal".

(The police officer lied, the other person hadn't said anything let alone made
a statement)

In the US that would be admissible in court because it doesn't matter how the
confession was reached, even lies (short of beating the suspect/etc). In the
UK that would not be admissible because it would obtained through lying to the
suspect.

You are right though, no matter where you are in the world, by the time you
are being questioned in the police station it is time to make sure you have
legal counsel... and not the one provided to you by the state but a lawyer you
already know. For this reason everyone should have a connection with an
appropriate lawyer and have their information to hand in case of arrest.

------
fierarul
This looks strangely familiar to the memes I saw on Reddit. You know, the
stuff I was kinda delighted to see Hacker New was missing.

