> "beware of dog."

Given the track record of cops executing vicious labrador retrievers, pugs, and assorted lapdogs with shots to the back as they flee, I'm not sure this is the best idea.

Well, a burglar would have to out of his mind to try breaking into Amy's home, with her fearsome monster of a dog Lucy on the premises.

Kidding aside, here's a good video that will show you two ways to handle a traffic stop: the right way and the wrong way.

Click here.

I don't buy it-we only see the lips of one office move & for

To the maximum extent possible, don't talk to the police if there is any possibility that you might be their target.

"You don't mind if we [activity that would otherwise require a warrant without consent]?" should always be answered, "Yes, I do mind."

"Would you please [action you cannot be compelled to do]?" should always be answered, "No, not unless I'm required to do so."

If you don't have any choice, you will hear, "Now I'm going to ..." and "I need you to ..." They will make statements and demands, not ask questions or ask for your cooperation.

Attorneys tell their clients that when they are being deposed by the other side, they can not win their case with their testimony, they can only lose it -- by giving the other side ammunition. The same principle applies in potentially adversarial dealings with the police or other law enforcement.

Martha Stewart would never have gone to jail if she had just refused to answer the federal investigator's questions. When she responded at all, they had the chance to argue that she wasn't truthful -- and send her to prison for "obstruction of justice", not the alleged securities violations originally being investigated.

A buddy of mine, way back in college, used to get pulled over for driving a crappy car in a nice neighborhood. The nice neighborhood was between his work and his home, and he worked the late shift.

Once, Buddy was asked if his car could be searched. Buddy said "no," and the cop told him "you saying that makes me think there's something in your car, which gives me probable cause to search it." I wouldn't be surprised to hear that kind of thing happens all the time.

Dumb ass cop. Ask to see his drivers license. I'm pretty sure that was part of the deal when you signed the license.

Sergeant Heather just told me that if you see a drunk driving checkpoint, just turn around and go the other way.

That's probably not the best idea. I've heard of people doing that, and then having the spare cop at the checkpoint come racing up behind them, pulling them over and putting them thru a field sobriety test.

Your turning around being all the probable cause needed.

IRA is right. Cops who are manning DUI check points usually have officers in cars a few blocks away on both sides to go after cars they see flipping a U Turn or diving down a side street. You may get away, you may get pulled over.

DUI Check points have been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, but I believe 11 states have laws against them. In the other 39 states, you are required only to present your license, insurance, and registration. You do NOT need to agree to a field sobriety test, however, if asked to do a breathalyzer, you must agree or be prepared to be detained.

First - an officer does not have right to demand your D/L unless he has stopped you for cause. An immigration checkpoint is not cause.

Secondly, regarding field sobriety tests - here's another secret - field sobriety tests (ten steps heel-to-toe, horizontal nystagmus, etc) are not mandatory, and you are perfectly within your rights to refuse to participate. The officer will make the strong implied suggestion that you must participate, but you are not obliged to. FSTs are notoriously subjective and prone to error, yet if you choose to participate, the officer's subjective opinion can be used as PC to arrest you. Do not provide him the opportunity to form that subjective opinion. Plenty of stone-cold sober people 'fail' the FST.

Regarding the PBT - the handheld gizmo that the officer invites you to blow into at the side of the road? You should probably refuse to do that also. In some places, this is a civil infraction, which may get you a ticket. Check your local laws. But in any event, you should refuse all breath-testing devices if at all possible, because they depend on evidence which you cannot preserve and which you cannot challenge in court. It may be better to get yourself detained/arrested and demand a blood test, where there is a testable, referrable sample. All breath-testing machines, including the fancy 'calibrated' one at the police station, are inherently inaccurate at determining blood alcohol concentration. Their basic technology is flawed and depends upon a fixed algorithm which does not accurately measure BAC. Always demand a blood test, if at all possible.

Refusing a voluntary search of your vehicle does not generate lawful probable cause to search it. This is merely another mental device that officers use to coerce consent. "Well, I'm going to search it anyway now, because you refused, so you may as well just give me consent and I'll go easy on you . . . " If an officer were to search after you have refused consent, he cannot cite your refusal as his sole probable cause. However, as noted, I'm sure this happens all the time. Many officers are very adept at 'finding' PC when they want to.

llater,

llamas

@llamas - respectfully, I have to disagree with your advice to refuse a breathalyzer. Almost every state in the US has now passed what is referred to as the "implied consent" law. This means when you get your driver's license, you agree to submit to a breathalyzer test if asked. Your signature on the license is your agreement that if you are asked, you will submit to the breathalyzer test.
Should you refuse to take a breathalyzer when asked, the penalties can be quite severe. For example, in the state of California, if you have a CA license and refuse a requested breathalyzer, your license will be automatically suspended for one full year, regardless being intoxicated or not. In New York, you get your license suspended AND you get to shell out $500.
So considering that a) you agree to take the breathalyzer when you sign your license and b) the penalties for refusing are pretty stiff...go ahead and refuse the field sobriety tests but not the breathalyzer.

@ UW Girl - respectfully, you may be confused.

I was suggesting that you refuse the PBT - the roadside test. Generally, this is not a breach of implied-consent laws because those laws only come into play after you have been arrested. In some places, refusing a PBT prior to arrest may be a civil infraction - a ticket.

Only once you have been arrested for DUI does implied-consent come into play (in those states which have these laws) and you are required to provide a sample for analysis to determine BAC. But in all states that I am aware of, you have the choice to provide a breath sample or a blood sample. I was suggesting that, if it gets to that point, you exercise your choice to provide a blood sample. It is more accurate than any breath or urine test, and a sample is retained which you can apply to have te-tested in your defence.

See here

http://www.sdcountydui.com/blog/what-is-californias-implied-consent-law/

or 101 other places for detailed description of the implied consent law in CA. Note how all the provisions are conditioned on your having been lawfully arrested. Most other places that have implied-consent laws are similar, but check your local laws.

The police will obfuscate this and lead you to believe that implied-consent laws require you to submit to the PBT, prior to arrest, on pain of losing your license. But this is not so - it's the other way about. They try to persuade you to submit to the PBT in order to create PC to arrest you for DUI, at which point, you ARE required to provide samples that can be used in evidence.

That's why I suggest that you may be wise to refuse any breath test prior to arrest. Nothing good can come of it. If you 'pass', the officer may arrest you anyway, based on other observations or evidence. If you 'fail', you just handed the officer what may be the only PC he has to arrest you. You're not required to walk yourself to jail - the police have to find sufficient evidence to arrest you without your help.

llater,

llamas

@IRA

"Dumb ass cop. Ask to see his drivers license. I'm pretty sure that was part of the deal when you signed the license."

If this is Border Patrol and not a cop, does he have any right to see my identification?

One day it shall be pirates.

"Once, Buddy was asked if his car could be searched. Buddy said "no," and the cop told him "you saying that makes me think there's something in your car, which gives me probable cause to search it." I wouldn't be surprised to hear that kind of thing happens all the time."

Sadly, I'm not expert in this department, but isn't that a sort of twisted reasoning? That is, that exercising your rights give the police probable cause necessary to circumvent your rights? Rather frightening if true.

Sadly, I'm not expert in this department, but isn't that a sort of twisted reasoning? That is, that exercising your rights give the police probable cause necessary to circumvent your rights? Rather frightening if true. -- Meloni at July 13, 2012 11:24 PM

This is the meat of a Terry Stop.

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.

If you are stopped by LEO for anything you don't even have to give them your name in about half the states*.

What does “specific and articulable facts” mean? Until they can say what law they suspect you of violating they have no probable cause. Refusing search is not probable cause. Repeat ad nauseam "I do not consent to search." and "Am I free to go?".

If there was a robbery/shooting three blocks away and you have fresh blood stains on your clothes -- the cops have PC. You could have had a nose bleed and if you are held -- the first thing you do is shut up. Then the next question is "Can I talk to my lawyer?"

* -- In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) Justices were told that 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute upheld by the high court: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin. These require you to reveal your name.

Meloni, I'm not suggesting what the cop said was true, just that he decided my 19- or 20- year-old friend was an easy target. College kids generally don't know any better, and even if they do, are more likely to be treated like a punk kid for demanding their rights not be violated.

The cops in my home town are notorious for these kinds of abuses. All of us who had bad cars when we were young knew that if we wanted to avoid getting pulled over, don't drive after 10pm in certain neighborhoods. They'd pull you over for busted tail lights that weren't, improper signalling which wasn't, and speeding for going 40 in a 45. They almost never wrote a ticket for any of that stuff, pretending to be magnanimous and letting you off with a warning. What they wanted was to find an excuse to search the car for drugs, because apparently all people with crappy cars who are out after dark are junkies and dealers.

Meloni, I'm not suggesting what the cop said was true, just that he decided my 19- or 20- year-old friend was an easy target.

It's not true. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled that a trigger by a police drug dog does constitute probable cause (despite the poor statistics on the dogs' accuracy), so a lot of jurisdictions are using this now. Read Radley Balko's blog for examples (important reading, but damn depressing).

When I was in the Navy, our command has a California Highway Patrol dude come in to speak with us about drunk driving. He was refreshingly honest. He said that the field sobriety tests were just so he could show the court some objective facts surrounding your sobriety. If you were being given FSTs, he had already decided to arrest you.

I fail to understand how this does not run afoul of the fifth amendment, but there you go. Apparently, refusing the FST will not make your situation worse.

I'm glad to hear my earlier question is not true, but sad to hear it apparently being used as a tactic.

The Original Kit: Just to clarify, I wasn't questioning your reasoning. I was questioning the reasoning of the cop in the situation you described. It really freaks me out to hear about sketchy government practices, partly because I'm desperately under-educated in this area.

Sorry if my post suggested otherwise. (insert cute smiley).

Not to be pedantic, but shouldn't a firm of legal defence attorneys know that evidence is "admissible", not "immiscible" as appears twice above?

For the home, may I suggest not just "No, you can't come in" but this doormat:
Come Back with a Warrant