Never talk to the police

This is so true, and it's surprising how many people don't know what they are obligated to do when asked by an officer. It's even fuzzy for me at times.

It should be well known that you are required to show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States (1996)], your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] , and you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) & Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)].

All of these requirements have been litigated to the supreme court. You should also know the difference between probably cause and reasonable suspicion. We should add these topics to high school civics or something.

Yes. However: it's always safe to say, as you are complying: "I do not consent to this." It should also be safe to ask "Are you giving me a lawful order?", but situations will vary. Beware that they can be very good at giving answers that sound like "yes" but are not "yes". ("I need to see your drivers license." "Are you giving me a lawful order?" "I need to see your drivers license." That is not a yes.)

> For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr...

> The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.

There is a reprise, too. In 2014 the SCOTUS weakened 5A rights significantly, so now you are best off asserting your 6A rights (i.e., say you won't talk without your lawyer present, and then really don't talk).

If you genuinely have evidence as a witness that can help police solve the case, then you get an attorney present.

The point of the article (and any similar advice) is that 4 is not possible

I recommend watching the video, he makes an IMO excellent case that #1 without a lawyer really is a bad idea. You can still help solve the case in way that protects you, the stakes here are often incredibly high.

4 doesn't really happen, unless you're a mandated reporter and don't report child abuse.

I used to have to testify in civil and criminal proceedings a few times a year as part of my job. If you aren't trained to talk to police or adversarial attorneys, don't.

The magic is essentially talk to them like you would a call center agent. One topic per interaction. Use simple language. Answer a question directly. "He went that way." "I don't know."

Don't answer unasked questions. Don't demonstrate how smart you are. Don't try to "help". If you help, do an Irish goodbye asap.

At the end of the day or incident, the officer is going to write an incident report. You never want to stand out or be interesting that report. The more interesting you are, the more likely you are to get sucked in. I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case.

What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.

Regardless, what they say here is genuinely true and it's worth knowing things like "police are allowed to lie to you". Some people find that sort of thing surprising.

If you watch the video (which is classic and the real content here), the lawyer cedes the second half to a career detective, who agrees with him in full.

Note that in the US, you need to verbally assert your right to remain silent.

Merely being silent means the prosecution is able describe your communication as "refused to cooperate with or answer questions from law enforcement" which is a "negative" finding, whereas the right to remain silent is at least meant to be interpreted neutrally.

>And then consider if you are are the spouse or parent of a murder victim or missing person, and are innocent. You are almost certainly going to be a potential suspect, but you also want to help them find the actual criminal, and if hiring a lawyer makes you "look guilty", then the police might focus their investigation on you rather than finding the real perpetrator.

I agree. This is a real problem in law enforcement. The issue is that while they're competing interests, my right to remain innocent should rationally supersede the deep profound desire for justice (but I recognize it rarely plays out this way).

>But lawyers are expensive

Maybe, but it can also be VERY expensive to NOT have a lawyer.

I have a lawyer that offers free 30 minute initial conversations. But I also practically beg her to charge me for her time because it's valuable to me to get her take on the situation.

That's where this part applies to you:

> NO, YOU CAN'T TALK THEM OUT OF IT

> No, they don’t care about your story

If you are suspected of a crime, your inclination is going to be to explain the situation because it must be a mistake. If you find yourself suspected of a crime, you should talk to a lawyer, not the police.

People unknowingly break laws every day, yourself included. You have a right not to incriminate yourself. It is not fearing the police to recognize that innocent people get swept up in the bureaucratic law enforcement machine all the time. Talking to the police can only hurt you in this situation.

Finally, your examples are all examples where you were the victim of a crime, which is covered in the article.

There's always the wrong-time-wrong-place situation, as well as running into an officer who is having a bad day or behind on his quota - lots of stories of police pulling over people who blow 0.0 on the breathalyzer and arrest them anyway for their quota.

Reminds me of the "I've got nothing to hide" mentality. Just because I'm not breaking the law, doesn't mean I want to make it easy for bad people to abuse me.

I was accused of a minor felony about 20 years ago. I was on video 80+ miles away from the crime from four hours before to four hours after.

My alleged coconspirator talked to cops because he knew he was innocent. They datained him overnight a couple times, showed up at his work and got him fired, and pissed off his landlord by showing up at his house a bunch of times.

I shut the hell up and refused to answer any questions without an attorney. I never heard back from the cops after that.

You are probably right most of the time, but that also depends where you are.

Lawyers will will say whatever you did is wrong so that you will pay them to tell you what is right. A lawyer is not on your side until you have formally engaged his or her services.

yes, there is a fine line between "Don't Talk" and standing up for your rights. I feel like it's advisable to speak up when your rights are being violated. I can't quite put the words on what I mean but I think stating a fact like "This is my kid" is A-ok.

This is a classic internet video for sure. One of my favorites to share.

If anyone has any other videos like this (usefulness, vibes, any topic) I would appreciate recs.

Talking never helps, it cannot help. Nothing you say to cops can help you.

Even if it's completely entirely true and they believe it and they like you and that's enough for me. It can only hurt you.

Maybe watch the video? This position is explicitly called out as nonviable. You still put yourself at major risk if you employ it.

Did you watch the video? It is never ok to talk to the police unless you’re a rich white dude.

In the United States at least, 99% of the time when you are approached by the police, you are suspected of a crime. They are given wide latitude in using their feelings rather than facts to evaluate whether you should be taken into custody, physically harmed, or even killed. They are protected from consequences of poor decisions by strong unions and the concept of qualified immunity. There is vast evidence out there about why on average they cannot be trusted to deal with you fairly.

You’re right, life is multifaceted and complicated. That’s why you should never talk to the police without a lawyer present, but there are also many, many people who fall within the remit of 28 U.S.C. 1001 whom you would never think of as “police” and with whom you should never speak without your attorney present.

Hope that helps!

Why would you give ammunition to someone who can shoot you with no negative consequences? They prove over and over that they can't be trusted, so the smart move is to take them at their word, and not trust them.

SCOTUS has ruled that the police are not obligated to "protect and serve"; the police are not on your side. Respectfully exercising one's rights is a sensible choice when engaged with them.

I think it's very helpful to understand that the police have their own agenda and a completely different perspective on the situation as you. they don't really give a shit about your problems, if they show up, its to see if there's anything that intersects with their world. this is why even as a victim talking with the police is a deeply confusing process -they seem to care a lot about stuff that doesn't matter as well as not being that interested in whatever crime may have occurred. and depending on the circumstance you could easily be the one getting your legs kicked apart. you learn that eventually, but some hints probably help