How To Respond In A Police Stop
Eric Peters of EricPetersAutos.com has an instructive piece on this at LewRockwell.com on why, as I've blogged before, you should not answer a police officer's questions...even if you've done nothing wrong. An excerpt:
Say nothing... nothing!To cops, ever.
Anything you say can and will be held against you. Remember that?
You ought to.
Even if you haven't been formally arrested (merely "detained," as in the case of a traffic stop) it does you no good and very possibly much harm to give any information to the cop beyond the simple minimums of name and perhaps address, as required by law. Nothing more, because anything more will simply give the cop information - information he can and will use against you, both at curbside and later on, in court.
This is his job. Do not forget it.
He is not there to "help" you. He is not a good Samaritan. You are not having a chat with a friend. You have been detained because the cop believes you have violated some statute or other - and he is investigating you. He is trained to elicit confessions of guilt, which can and will be used against you. Depend upon it.
He explains how to deal with a police officer in a traffic stop and then summarizes:
There are, in fact, only three things you should ever say to a cop. The first is:"Am I being detained?"
And next:
"Am I free to go."
Repeat.
And finally:
"I do not consent to any searches."
Never mind that you know there are no drugs, illegal weapons or any other contraband item in your car. Such contraband has been known to magically appear underneath seats. If you grant entry, you've given opportunity. By refusing, you force them to abide by at least some procedure - and you have formally refused consent, which could be a lifesaver later on, if they ignore you and go ahead and ransack your vehicle (or person) regardless.It is important to be polite, calm and collected.
But it is far more important to not be servile - and to assert your rights, whatever's left of them, anyhow.
A friend who is a cop has further advised me to put three signs outside your house: "No trespassing, no soliciting, beware of dog." This is a little extra "Don't come in" for police.
Here's a terrific video I've posted before:
UPDATE: See criticism of this post by SHG, a lawyer I respect, below. An excerpt from his comment below (left September 11, 2011 6:45 AM):
While I don't quite take issue with any of the advice given, I also feel some concern about it being a bit overly simplistic and lacking in nuance. It's not that the advice is wrong, but rather incomplete and inadequate to address many common situations...
Is the guy in the video named "Marshal," perhaps? If not, I'm not given much confidence in this video, based on his inability to spell martial law correctly.
Robert at September 10, 2011 1:37 AM
You would also have to assume that he's the person responsible for naming this video and posting it to the internet.
By the way, Amy, this is entire video including the (less than) equal time he gave to a policeman to talk to the class about why he agrees or disagrees with what the professor had to say.
And it's even without the misspelled title that offends you so much, Robert. So, you can listen to this one.
Patrick at September 10, 2011 2:39 AM
You know Robert, being a launguage Nazi is now covered under Goodwins law.
If your only ojection is the mispelling of a single word you automatically lose the debate
lujlp at September 10, 2011 3:30 AM
"lujlp", there's no such exception in your case.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 10, 2011 5:30 AM
>>There are, in fact, only three things you should ever say to a cop. The first is: ...
uh huh, and you can look forward to having every traffic stop turn into a two hour ordeal. There are some legitimate reasons for the police to stop people, such as speeding and reckless driving. They're not typically looking to set you up for crack possession. If you behave suspiciously, such as by refusing to respond to basic questions, they're going to assume that you've been coached and logically question why. Then they'll bring out the dogs and check you out six ways from Sunday.
malmo at September 10, 2011 8:31 AM
Malmo, let's be logical here. I've been stopped for speeding (multiple times, actually.) THe first thing the cop always says is: "Do you know why I stopped you?" There no info given in just saying, "no."
(Side note: I was always told to say, "no," to that first question. You may know that you were speeding, but the cop may have pulled you over for a broken taillight, which is a fixit ticket, rather than a $300 fine.)
He then tells you why he pulled you over, usually as a question: Did you know you were driving 65 in a 55?
Again, a simple, "no," is all that really required. No, I didn't know I was going that fast, no I didn't know that was the speed limit, whichever it is, he can infer, you're not being obtuse, you're just answering the question directly and simply. (And politely, I should add. Don't put an attitude in your inflection.)
He'll take your license and go back to look up your record in his car, then come back and either say, "here's your ticket," or, less likely, "I'm giving you a warning this time."
Either way, at this point, "am I free to go?" is the appropriate response, which is #2 under the things to say to police.
There's no reason to start a conversation with the cop who pulls you over, there's no reason to say anything other than a direct, simple answer to his questions. You can say EXTREMELY little, and still be polite, and not "behave suspiciously."
Jazzhands at September 10, 2011 9:09 AM
Also "crid," commas go on the inside of quotation marks. Its a totally illogical rule going back to printing presses and typewritters in america; totally counter intuitive if you ask me, but thems the rules
So, if you are going to comment on someones lack of launguage skills its best not to make any mistakes of your own. It makes you look stupid on top of being petty.
lujlp at September 10, 2011 9:29 AM
For more information on all of this and some terrific video, look to Flex Your Rights with their now classic video: BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encountershttp://youtu.be/yqMjMPlXzdA That's a 45 minute video. They have updated and briefer material at their website.
On occasions, I have been very polite and gotten off speeding violations with a warning. I suspect that saying nothing to the cop except for No, Am I being detained, am I free to go, would have resulted in a ticket.
However, there have also been other times when I wanted my own onboard camera system to document the bullshit of the cop.
The Busted video offers some terrific advice some of which has already been discussed in the comments here.
jerry at September 10, 2011 9:39 AM
I thought I could let this go, but apparently not. It's you're, not your.
"Especially if your innocent . . . " My innocent what?
Steve Daniels at September 10, 2011 9:45 AM
"Also "crid," commas go on the inside of quotation marks. Its a totally illogical rule going back to printing presses and typewritters in america; totally counter intuitive if you ask me, but thems the rules"
Apparently "the net" is reversing that, not just because of illiteracy, but because programming languages don't follow the original dumb rules, but follow the more logical way of putting punctuation outside the quotes unless it's part of a direct quote.
[Link removed due to spam filter, but google the following to find it at slate]
The Rise of "Logical Punctuation".
The period outside the quotation marks is not a copy error.
By Ben Yagoda
Posted Thursday, May 12, 2011, at 10:07 AM ET
For at least two centuries, it has been standard practice in the United States to place commas and periods inside of quotation marks. This rule still holds for professionally edited prose: what you'll find in Slate, the New York Times, the Washington Post—almost any place adhering to Modern Language Association (MLA) or AP guidelines. But in copy-editor-free zones—the Web and emails, student papers, business memos—with increasing frequency, commas and periods find themselves on the outside of quotation marks, looking in. A punctuation paradigm is shifting.
Indeed, unless you associate exclusively with editors and prescriptivists, you can find copious examples of the "outside" technique—which readers of Virginia Woolf and The Guardian will recognize as the British style—no further away than your Twitter or Facebook feed. I certainly can. Conan O'Brien, for example, recently posted:
Conan's staffers' kids say the darndest things. Unfortunately, in this case "darndest" means "incriminating".
The British style also rules on message boards and bulletin boards. I scanned four random posts in Metafilter.com (about Sony Playstation's hacking problems, the death of Phoebe Snow, the French police, and cool dads) and counted nine comments with periods and commas outside, seven inside.
I spotlight the Web not because it brings out any special proclivities but because it displays in a clear light the way we write now. The punctuation-outside trend jibes with my experience in the classroom, where, for the past several years, my students have found it irresistible, even after innumerable sardonic remarks from me that we are in Delaware, not Liverpool. As a result, I have recently instituted a one-point penalty on every assignment for infractions. The current semester is nearing its end, but I am still taking points away.
Why has this convention become so popular? I offer two reasons, one small and one big. The small one is a byproduct of working with computers, and writing computer code. In these endeavors, one is often instructed to "input" a string of characters, and sometimes (in the printed instructions) the characters are enclosed in quotation marks. Sticking a period or comma in front of the closing quotation marks could clearly have bad consequences. So, for example, the Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition), which otherwise endorses the American way— "This is a traditional style, in use well before the first edition of this manual (1906)"—makes an exception in the case of computer instruction, illustrated by:
name your file "appendix A, v. 10".
But the main reason is that the British way simply makes more sense. Indeed, since at least the 1960s a common designation for that style has been "logical punctuation."
...
jerry at September 10, 2011 9:47 AM
I'm right about everything, always, "lujlp". Know that.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 10, 2011 10:05 AM
@Jazzhands I don't think that we disagree. In your example, you are responding to direct, reasonable, questions and enabling the officer to get through the process. Yes they're trick questions, but legitimate all the same. But if you were to ignore their questions and just kept repeating - Am I being detained, Am I free to go, I do not consent to any searches - they would almost certainly suspect that you're up to something (e.g. drug mule). Recognizing that you were attempting to invalidate any searches, they'd probably call in the dogs and a bunch of other officers to poke around the outside of the vehicle looking for probable cause. The tricky thing is that while traffic stops don't provide probably cause for searches, they do for arrests, and arrests enable probable cause for searches. So you might actually be escalating things by being so recalcitrant.
I've dealt with abusive LEO's before and agree that it's best to keep things short and sweet. At some point you may need to confront them, and that's where the detention question comes in. But I think that it's best to see how things are playing out before bringing up the subjects of detention and searches.
malmo at September 10, 2011 10:07 AM
Jerry I am aware of the clamor for change to a more logical approch to punctuation with and around quotations. Its a change I support, however until such changes become offical the stanndards we have remain the correct usage
Also, periods remain inside quotation marks when theyare at the end of a sentance "crid."
And whats with the quotes? Do you think it bothers me? Is there some point beyond a childish atept to get my attention and/or upset me in some strange manner?
lujlp at September 10, 2011 10:48 AM
"I certainly pretend I'm right about everything, always, "lujlp". Know that.
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 10, 2011 10:05 AM"
jerry at September 10, 2011 11:05 AM
People dig me. Guys, the world is as you find it, knowutimean?
Don't hate....
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 10, 2011 12:02 PM
I go more with Jazzhands approach -- but I would amend it to say "Yes sir," "No sir," or Ma'am or Officer as appropriate.
Giving a little on the politeness scale shows that you have at least a little respect for the uniform, if not its occupant. ;-)
Jim P. at September 10, 2011 12:32 PM
The world may be as we find it, but that doesnt mean it need remain so
lujlp at September 10, 2011 3:25 PM
This thread went from defending yourself from the police to defending yourself from the language police in exactly one post.
Bravo, Internet. Bravo.
I'm amazed the lettering on my screen doesn't veer off to one side as the inertial dampeners struggle to keep up as the comments veer off course.
Vinnie Bartilucci at September 10, 2011 5:34 PM
> Bravo, Internet. Bravo.
Vinster, we're bitchslapping in here. If you want to take part, have something better to say than I'm above this sort of thing.... Ya gotta kick the ball forward somehow.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 10, 2011 6:56 PM
Offtopic 'phants.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 10, 2011 8:37 PM
Invasion. Who knew?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 10, 2011 10:41 PM
While I don't quite take issue with any of the advice given, I also feel some concern about it being a bit overly simplistic and lacking in nuance. It's not that the advice is wrong, but rather incomplete and inadequate to address many common situations.
There are wealth of criminal defense lawyers who write about these issues, and provide a deeper level of thought as to appropriate dealings with police. It's likely unwise to provide simplistic lay advice in an area where someone might be inclined to follow it under circumstances where it could cause significant harm.
Dealing with the police is a very important subject. Protecting one's rights is a very important subject. But these are legal issues, and non-lawyers who offer their thoughts won't be the ones picking up the pieces of people's lives who follow their advice. The wrong advice in the wrong situation could result in arrest, conviction, a good beating and possibly even death. This is serious stuff.
Just as you wouldn't repeat medical advice from the guy down at the garage, it would probably be wise not to rely on his legal advice either, especially when there are a wealth of criminal defense lawyers who write about these issues regularly.
shg at September 11, 2011 6:45 AM
Hey, shg, I've gotten advice from an actual defense attorney. His advice? "Don't say nothing."
I've heard the same thing from several other lawyers.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 11, 2011 8:49 AM
If boiled down to the absolute barest bones, say nothing is the best advice there is. But if we get to use more than two words, we can do even better.
Try this: If you are detained or arrested, these are the magic words to invoke your rights under Miranda:
1. I do not want to answer questions.
2. I want to speak with my attorney.
Then stop talking.
Memorize them, because if you get them wrong, they may not work.
However, if it's a stop for a traffic infraction, these words will get you arrested rather than ticketed and sent on your way. Different set of rules apply.
These are the absolute basics, but if you have the ability to understand more, then you can do better by understanding how and when to preserve your rights while avoiding arrest. Remember, you might beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.
shg at September 11, 2011 12:12 PM
Leave a comment