How To Survive A Traffic Stop "I Don't Answer Questions"

[ZENemy]

Fantastic video on how to "not talk to police"

"I dont answer questions"

You can choose to be more polite then this guy and may have a better experience (not that I think the man was rude) but I do feel this man shows us how to respond to police but not "talk" to them :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwYBshAScmE&fb_source=message

[WM_in_MO]

Another liberty fiend of mine, he also got arrested at the 3/17 caucus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEVHYqa9YH4

[puppetmaster]

Was it 40 or 30 mph zone?

[ZENemy]

Was it 40 or 30 mph zone?

uhh, "Im pretty sure" haha

I was wondering myself what the actual speed limit was.

[Neil Desmond]

What was the purpose or benefit for all this? I've seen videos where they smash one of the passenger windows to get to a driver who wouldn't roll her window down at all.

[Lucille]

LOL @ his LOL at the end.

That video needs an update, thanks to the police statists on SCOTUS (http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/17/supreme-court-rules-fifth-amendment-has).


This decision means that it’s the responsibility of the individual to know about the protections offered by the Fifth Amendment even prior to arrest and to actually verbally invoke it:
[...]
The irony here is that the ruling is yet another reason to actually never cooperate with the authorities, ever, and add an invocation of the Fifth Amendment anytime you are put in a position to speak to one.

[ZENemy]

What was the purpose or benefit for all this? I've seen videos where they smash one of the passenger windows to get to a driver who wouldn't roll her window down at all.

Purpose:
Education, this is the proper way to deal with police.

Benefit:
Cops do what they do because people allow consent over their person, once people wake up to this we can take our country back.

[kahless]

LOL @ his LOL at the end.

That video needs an update, thanks to the police statists on SCOTUS (http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/17/supreme-court-rules-fifth-amendment-has).

Usually people are pissed off and nervous, he was smooth, smirking and had a good laugh, which made me laugh watching it.

[kcchiefs6465]

What was the purpose or benefit for all this? I've seen videos where they smash one of the passenger windows to get to a driver who wouldn't roll her window down at all.
The captions in the video explain the reasoning behind not rolling down your window more than a couple inches, not looking them in the eye, not speaking more than necessary, not allowing them to search your vehicle without a warrant and so forth.

It explains as well, why everything should be recorded and sent to an off site cloud storage. They are looking for a reason to imprison you.

At the very least he kept this pig tied up for the fifteen minutes and stopped him from issuing another ticket. If everyone treated their encounters like this, perhaps the police would start coming around to the idea that they can't just violate anyone's rights whenever they feel like it. Not only that but they should have a thought in the back of their mind that they are being recorded. I am not exaggerating when I say that it would save lives.

[Neil Desmond]

The captions in the video explain the reasoning behind not rolling down your window more than a couple inches, not looking them in the eye, not speaking more than necessary, not allowing them to search your vehicle without a warrant and so forth.

It explains as well, why everything should be recorded and sent to an off site cloud storage. They are looking for a reason to imprison you.

At the very least he kept this pig tied up for the fifteen minutes and stopped him from issuing another ticket. If everyone treated their encounters like this, perhaps the police would start coming around to the idea that they can't just violate anyone's rights whenever they feel like it. Not only that but they should have a thought in the back of their mind that they are being recorded. I am not exaggerating when I say that it would save lives.
Ok, but is there a chronic problem of police issuing ticket after ticket just for going a few miles over the speed limit? If it is, then ok, there would be a reason for all this.

[kcchiefs6465]

Ok, but is there a chronic problem of police issuing ticket after ticket just for going a few miles over the speed limit? If it is, then ok, there would be a reason for all this.
In some places, yes, there is. I know of a few smaller townships who rely on ticketing people to fund their courts and police force. The speed limit is 25 through the city. Don't do 26.

If he wasted enough of that cops time that one less ticket was written that day then it was successful. Honestly though it was a successful demonstration on how to handle traffic stops in any case. I wish everyone watched and participated as he did. For DUI checkpoints, for being stopped for speeding, etc. If everyone that were stopped in a DUI checkpoint did what this man did it would effectively nullify them. If everyone who was pulled over acted as this man did it would remind the cops that there are people who know their rights and cherish them. They should be recorded wherever they go so that the next time they have the urge to beat on someone they stopped, they stop and think, "I'm probably being recorded."

It's all effective and there is reasoning behind it. He doesn't let them search his car because they may plant evidence. He doesn't roll his window down because if they unlawfully order him to exit the vehicle and he objects, they'll simply unlock his car door and drag him out. Also because a cop can lie and claim to smell marijuana coming from the vehicle. Having your window cracked adds a level of reasonable doubt that the cop was making up the probable cause he used to search your vehicle and the evidence found may be tainted because of it. He doesn't look them in the eyes so that the cop can't say his pupils are dilated and order the man out to perform a sobriety test. When this happens, his car could easily be searched and evidence planted. He doesn't speak aside from what is necessary and the five words of "I don't answer any questions" so that the cop has less of a chance to say he is slurring his words. It also helps prevent the cop from building up other things to charge him with. It is you vs. them. They have the intentions of fulfilling their quota and getting another arrest. You have the intention of remaining free. Free from imprisonment and from the harassment they routinely give. It may seem pointless or that he was acting unnecessarily uncivil but I can assure you, the day you have a charge trumped up on you, or the police lie against you, or your rights violated in other ways you will understand full well why he acted the way he did. I applaud. I am glad he made it home safely.

[heavenlyboy34]

In some places, yes, there is. I know of a few smaller townships who rely on ticketing people to fund their courts and police force. The speed limit is 25 through the city. Don't do 26.

If he wasted enough of that cops time that one less ticket was written that day then it was successful. Honestly though it was a successful demonstration on how to handle traffic stops in any case. I wish everyone watched and participated as he did. For DUI checkpoints, for being stopped for speeding, etc. If everyone that were stopped in a DUI checkpoint did what this man did it would effectively nullify them. If everyone who was pulled over acted as this man did it would remind the cops that there are people who know their rights and cherish them. They should be recorded wherever they go so that the next time they have the urge to beat on someone they stopped, they stop and think, "I'm probably being recorded."

It's all effective and there is reasoning behind it. He doesn't let them search his car because they may plant evidence. He doesn't roll his window down because if they unlawfully order him to exit the vehicle and he objects, they'll simply unlock his car door and drag him out. Also because a cop can lie and claim to smell marijuana coming from the vehicle. Having your window cracked adds a level of reasonable doubt that the cop was making up the probable cause he used to search your vehicle and the evidence found may be tainted because of it. He doesn't look them in the eyes so that the cop can't say his pupils are dilated and order the man out to perform a sobriety test. When this happens, his car could easily be searched and evidence planted. He doesn't speak aside from what is necessary and the five words of "I don't answer any questions" so that the cop has less of a chance to say he is slurring his words. It also helps prevent the cop from building up other things to charge him with. It is you vs. them. They have the intentions of fulfilling their quota and getting another arrest. You have the intention of remaining free. Free from imprisonment and from the harassment they routinely give. It may seem pointless or that he was acting unnecessarily uncivil but I can assure you, the day you have a charge trumped up on you, or the police lie against you, or your rights violated in other ways you will understand full well why he acted the way he did. I applaud. I am glad he made it home safely.
+rep :)

[heavenlyboy34]

According to the comment section,
You can't just say, "I don't answer questions" any more. You have to verbally invoke the Fifth prior to arrest now. Which is why I suggested the vid needs an update.
HTH!
Can anyone here verify this?

[heavenlyboy34]

This bit from the comment section is just sad :(
MsKristaRista (https://www.youtube.com/user/MsKristaRista) 50 minutes ago
(http://www.youtube.com/comment?lc=SbBXD_7YHLUKR8sjC6572CUnQajx20Gvyzc6KBj CIVw)
This is ridiculous. Sure you have all these rights not to roll down your window or whatever, but that's just making the entire situation so much more difficult. The cop is just there to do his job. He wasn't being unfair, unlawful, or harassing. He's just a man doing his civic duty to protect drivers on the road. Being difficult on purpose makes his job harder. If you have nothing to hide why not just comply? THEN if the cop oversteps boundaries be aware of these rights. Sheesh.

[69360]

What was the purpose or benefit for all this? I've seen videos where they smash one of the passenger windows to get to a driver who wouldn't roll her window down at all.

To prove some "point".

If he played along with the cop he could possibly bullshitted his way out of a ticket.

I totally agree with not answering any questions, but this guy had a shitty attitude.

Here's how I have dealt with stuff like this. Shut car off, keys on dash, hands on wheel, window down. Don't go digging for paperwork. Tell the cop everything you are about to do "I'm going to open the glovebox and get my paperwork". Don't admit to any speed or driving infractions. Generic answers like "I don't know" are best. Don't do anything to stand out.

Ask politely "Do you think you could give me a break or a warning".

It's not worth your money, loss of license and time to prove some "point" if you can bullshit your way out of it. I'll play their games up to a point. I wouldn't answer questions or let them search me or my car. But I'll play nice if I think I can get away with it. Never, ever admit to anything. If you do get a ticket show up and ask for a reduction in charge. If you didn't admit to anything, you'll probably get one.

[CPUd]

What was the purpose or benefit for all this? I've seen videos where they smash one of the passenger windows to get to a driver who wouldn't roll her window down at all.

The one where they smashed the windows was where the driver wasn't saying anything at all. It was more like a case study to see what happened if he just stopped and sat there.

[youngbuck]

Nice, I like this guy!

[Tod]

Where I am, here in Ohio, I could not practically upload video to the internet because of slow connection speed. I would have to have a hidden hard drive in the vehicle.

[Athan]

They should make a reality TV show out of this stuff! It's fantastic!

[ZENemy]

Where I am, here in Ohio, I could not practically upload video to the internet because of slow connection speed. I would have to have a hidden hard drive in the vehicle.

Probably doable.

[tod evans]

According to the comment section,
Can anyone here verify this?

A month or two back the supreme court decision was posted on the forum...

[angelatc]

Purpose:
Education, this is the proper way to deal with police.

Benefit:
Cops do what they do because people allow consent over their person, once people wake up to this we can take our country back.

The problem with that theory is that the police are the embodiment of the people. People want to control you. And they want you to get the crap knocked out of you if you don't obey.

[angelatc]

To prove some "point".

If he played along with the cop he could possibly bullshitted his way out of a ticket.

I totally agree with not answering any questions, but this guy had a shitty attitude.

Here's how I have dealt with stuff like this. Shut car off, keys on dash, hands on wheel, window down. Don't go digging for paperwork. Tell the cop everything you are about to do "I'm going to open the glovebox and get my paperwork". Don't admit to any speed or driving infractions. Generic answers like "I don't know" are best. Don't do anything to stand out.

Ask politely "Do you think you could give me a break or a warning".

It's not worth your money, loss of license and time to prove some "point" if you can bullshit your way out of it. I'll play their games up to a point. I wouldn't answer questions or let them search me or my car. But I'll play nice if I think I can get away with it. Never, ever admit to anything. If you do get a ticket show up and ask for a reduction in charge. If you didn't admit to anything, you'll probably get one.


You'll get to be a trustee in the camps! Good for you!!!

[kcchiefs6465]

According to the comment section,
Can anyone here verify this?
What they are referring to is not prior to arrest, it is after arrest.

If you simply say I am not answering any questions the cop can continue to badger you and what you say will be admissible in court against you. If you invoke the Fifth Amendment and ask to speak to a lawyer they cannot continue the conversation. (after you've been arrested.. which is another reason asking if you've been detained is a good thing.. if not, leave. If so, don't speak to them)

You Naturally have a right not to incriminate yourself, or rather, not to be forced to speak. Whether you simply sit there and say nothing or say "I do not answer questions" theoretically makes no difference. Realistically it does depending on the crime you are being investigated for and what you say, your tone, and the demeanor in which you say it. Say you are being investigated for a murder, extreme I know but bear with me, you saying, "I don't answer any questions" sounds combative and unremorseful. It can and will be shown to the jurors to paint the picture that you have a problem with authority, for example, or that you have no remorse for the crime you allegedly committed. Not to mention the detectives can continue to interrogate you and what you say afterwards is admissible. But say, for example, you say, "I would like to speak to my attorney" that plays better for the jurors than a defiant, "I'm not answering anything you say" or even, a "Fuck you, pig"... as many might be inclined to say.

The problem I have with having to invoke the Fifth Amendment for the interrogation to stop and any further badgering probably ruled inadmissible is that it has come to be known as someone being guilty. In movies or before Congress people associate invoking the Fifth Amendment with having something to hide. Especially if you word it in such a way as some suggest, "As per the Fifth Amendment, I invoke my right against self-incrimination." I don't like that wording and would never personally say it. Should jurors hear that, it very well could bias their opinion of you and what you have said.

Traffic stops have a lot less risk involved when saying something that could sink you as opposed to criminal cases which have very real and long lasting effects. If he says you were going 'X' amount over the speed limit, dispute it. Never admit that you don't know how fast you were going. When you do, they have won the case. His word alone, without radar evidence is enough to have you found guilty. For any criminal case plead not guilty. Take it to the jury. They have reasons not to want it to go that far. If they offer you something sweet of a deal and you can live with the terms and what will be on your record, accept it. That's a case to case thing but generally speaking, never plead guilty.

[Lucille]

According to the comment section,
Can anyone here verify this?

I can because that's me! See #6 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424985-How-To-Survive-A-Traffic-Stop-quot-I-Don-t-Answer-Questions-quot&p=5186870&viewfull=1#post5186870) above, or:

Supreme Court Rules Fifth Amendment Has to Actually Be Invoked
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/17/supreme-court-rules-fifth-amendment-has


In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
[...]
This decision means that it’s the responsibility of the individual to know about the protections offered by the Fifth Amendment even prior to arrest and to actually verbally invoke it:
[...]
The irony here is that the ruling is yet another reason to actually never cooperate with the authorities, ever, and add an invocation of the Fifth Amendment anytime you are put in a position to speak to one.

[osan]

Ok, but is there a chronic problem of police issuing ticket after ticket just for going a few miles over the speed limit? If it is, then ok, there would be a reason for all this.

D00d, there's a chronic and ACUTE problem with cops shooting people without just cause, issuing tickets based on lies, perjury in court testimony ("testilying"), lying to you to gain information or other booty, beating people, murdering them, entering private property illegally, robbery and theft, and so forth.

Police in the USA are ape-shit out of control and need to be eliminated in toto, but before we can do that we have to shorten their leashes to choking.

Cops are the most dangerous persons a Meaner will ever encounter in his entire lifetime.

[osan]

In some places, yes, there is. I know of a few smaller townships who rely on ticketing people to fund their courts and police force. The speed limit is 25 through the city. Don't do 26.

Summersville WV - Route 19 around their famous bridge - 50mph limit. 50.epsilon gets you yanked over and ticketed. You have been warned. :)


They should be recorded wherever they go so that the next time they have the urge to beat on someone they stopped, they stop and think, "I'm probably being recorded."


Speaking of which, any good freeware apps for real time upload streams?


He doesn't let them search his car because they may plant evidence. He doesn't roll his window down because if they unlawfully order him to exit the vehicle and he objects, they'll simply unlock his car door and drag him out. Also because a cop can lie and claim to smell marijuana coming from the vehicle.

Someone needs to invent one of those drawer thingies for cars that you have at the drive up window at the bank. "Please place the citation in the slot officer and have a NICE day."


Having your window cracked adds a level of reasonable doubt that the cop was making up the probable cause he used to search your vehicle and the evidence found may be tainted because of it. He doesn't look them in the eyes so that the cop can't say his pupils are dilated and order the man out to perform a sobriety test. When this happens, his car could easily be searched and evidence planted. He doesn't speak aside from what is necessary and the five words of "I don't answer any questions" so that the cop has less of a chance to say he is slurring his words. It also helps prevent the cop from building up other things to charge him with. It is you vs. them. They have the intentions of fulfilling their quota and getting another arrest. You have the intention of remaining free. Free from imprisonment and from the harassment they routinely give. It may seem pointless or that he was acting unnecessarily uncivil but I can assure you, the day you have a charge trumped up on you, or the police lie against you, or your rights violated in other ways you will understand full well why he acted the way he did. I applaud. I am glad he made it home safely.

This is SO on the money. Neil's a good guy, but it seems he has never had the great, insatiable, and terminally diseased Police-Penis pointed at him. Hope he never does, but if it happens and he is not prepared to stand on his rights properly, he may find out first hand just how on point you are.

NEVER allow yourself to be sucked into the system. NEVER consent to contact, searches, seizures, questioning, and so on. NEVER

If you get sucked in, you will lose even if you win. This is hard, cold fact and one thing you never want is to find out how true it is on the basis of first hand experience.

[osan]

According to the comment section,
Can anyone here verify this?


Sounds like bullshit, but I cannot say for certain.

I would be very careful about things like this because the legal system is so hopelessly corrupt that the most innocent utterance made by you can get you into deep shit. For example, if a judge asks if you understand your rights, ALWAYS say "no". The moment you say "yes", you have consented to jurisdiction and you are well on your way to a fine set of brand new hemorrhoids.

[Lucille]

^ LOL I guess I must be on Osan and HB's ignore lists.

The Salinas v. Texas ruling is what was bullshit!

[heavenlyboy34]

^ LOL I guess I must be on Osan and HB's ignore lists.

The Salinas v. Texas ruling is what was bullshit!
Nah, I just skimmed the thread and missed your post. :( Sorry! ~hugs~

[kcchiefs6465]

Summersville WV - Route 19 around their famous bridge - 50mph limit. 50.epsilon gets you yanked over and ticketed. You have been warned. :)

I didn't believe it myself but sure enough was pulled for a mile over. I was given a warning (harassed to try and search my vehicle) but have had family who actually received the ticket. It's their bread and butter.



Speaking of which, any good freeware apps for real time upload streams?

qik.com or bambuser.com. I haven't used them myself but have heard good things about them. I don't know if you've seen this before but it's on my wish list.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoWTd8TlaeU

If cops thought every vehicle was equipped as his is, police would surely think twice before violating someone's rights. At least when they pull them over, that is.



Someone needs to invent one of those drawer thingies for cars that you have at the drive up window at the bank. "Please place the citation in the slot officer and have a NICE day."

Lol



This is SO on the money. Neil's a good guy, but it seems he has never had the great, insatiable, and terminally diseased Police-Penis pointed at him. Hope he never does, but if it happens and he is not prepared to stand on his rights properly, he may find out first hand just how on point you are.

NEVER allow yourself to be sucked into the system. NEVER consent to contact, searches, seizures, questioning, and so on. NEVER

If you get sucked in, you will lose even if you win. This is hard, cold fact and one thing you never want is to find out how true it is on the basis of first hand experience.
Even some of my family do not understand the experiences I've had with law enforcement, or rather, pigs and how it has affected the way I view things. My experiences sound so incredible that I usually refrain from speaking of them.

I have gone through it too many times. Car ripped to shreds on a mutt's scratch, girlfriend molested and myself groped, charges trumped up, threatened with being tasered or even executed, incited to fight them, kidnapped or falsely detained.. I could go on and on. I told a pig when I was just a kid, no older than 12, that if I were found in a car crash - the example he gave of when cops help people - to leave me there. I was as dead serious then as I am now. They can leave my mangled ass where they find me and if it's God's plan, or my luck, that a good Samaritan happens to come by and wishes to help, that would be fine. If not, not.

[enhanced_deficit]

That was fascinating.

Because of this video, 2-inch-window-roll( TIWR) movement is going to spread across America like freedom fire in the jungle.

[fr33]

I freakin love the people who defy cops and don't roll over for them. I spend a lot of time watching these videos.

"Am I obligated to answer that?"

"Am I being detained?"

I'm shopping for a new truck and I think when I buy it I'm going to install a nice camera system and slap a bunch of anti-govt stickers on it. But first I need to get over my cowardice and nervousness when dealing with cops. I admit it. I get shaky around them.

[osan]

^ LOL I guess I must be on Osan and HB's ignore lists.

Huh? Why? What did I miss?

For the record, not a single member here is on any ignore list. If I want to ignore you, I simply ignore you. :) But I assure you that I am not doing so - I would be more than happy to admit to it were you to earn such from me.

[kcchiefs6465]

Here's another article on the Salinas v. Texas ruling which people should read and keep in mind.


At the outset of a white collar investigation, counsel will invariably advise the client that if a government investigator unexpectedly appears seeking to “just ask a few questions,” the client should politely decline and direct the investigator to counsel. Although the Supreme Court’s decision this past Monday, June 17, 2013 in Salinas v. Texas relates to police questioning in the context of a murder investigation, it has implications for this common aspect of white collar investigations.

In Salinas, two individuals were shot and killed, and the police recovered six shotgun shell casings at the scene. The police paid a visit to Salinas, whom they had begun to suspect, and he agreed to accompany the officers to the station. The police questioned Salinas for an hour, during which he was free to leave—in legal terms the questioning was “non-custodial”—and thus Miranda warnings were neither required nor given.

For most of the interview, Salinas answered the police’s questions. But when the officer asked Salinas whether his own shotgun would match the shell casings recovered at the scene, he fell silent, and according to the police, looked down, shuffled his feet and bit his lip. After a few moments of silence, the officer asked Salinas additional questions, which he answered. At trial, during closing argument, the prosecutor pointed out to the jury how Salinas had remained silent when asked about the shotgun, arguing that an innocent person would not have done so. [This is what I was referring to in even the simplest statements can be manipulated and used against you- KC]

The Supreme Court accepted review of the case to resolve a split in the lower courts on whether the prosecution may use evidence that a defendant asserted the privilege against self-incrimination during a non-custodial police interview. But the Supreme Court’s plurality decision did not reach that issue. Instead, three justices, Alito, Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts, found that Salinas’s challenge to his conviction failed because he did not expressly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege. The plurality relied on prior decisions holding that to ensure that the Fifth Amendment was not being asserted too broadly and to allow the government to challenge an assertion or overcome it by granting immunity, a witness must expressly invoke the right to obtain its benefits. The plurality reasoned that there could be many explanations for silence in the face of questioning, and if the witness’s reason was the Fifth Amendment, he was obligated to say so. The plurality’s view carried the day because two other justices, Scalia and Thomas, took an even narrower view of the protections of the Fifth Amendment.

In a vigorous dissent joined by three other justices, Justice Breyer pointed out that the Court had repeatedly held that “no ritualistic formula is necessary to invoke the privilege,” and that whether the right was invoked turned on the circumstances. The particular circumstances in this case — questioning of an unrepresented suspect in a criminal investigation at the police station – made it obvious that Salinas was invoking his fundamental Constitutional right to remain silent.

Other than the simple oddness of the results seeming to turn on whether or not the individual uses the magic words “Fifth Amendment,” another initial observation about Salinas is its apparent reach. There is nothing about the decision or its reasoning that would seem to limit its application to police questioning at the station house, or would prevent it from applying to any law enforcement or other questioning where the witness is not in custody. In short, it would seem to apply to any witness interview by the government.

Salinas also would seem to be contrary to the expectation of many lawyers, much less laypersons, that the government cannot comment at all on a suspect’s silence or failure to respond to questions. Under the rationale of Salinas, if investigators show up unannounced at a witness’s house, and the witness declines to speak to them, or worse starts to speak and then stops the interview, if the witness does not expressly refer to the Fifth Amendment the government would appear to be free to argue at a later trial that the refusal to answer questions was an indication of guilt.

Of course, depending on the circumstances, the inference that declining to speak to investigators suggests guilt can be stronger or weaker. If the witness says that now that she thinks about it, her company would not want her to answer any further questions without first speaking to company officials, the inference might be weak enough that a prosecutor would not make the argument, even if it is permissible under Salinas. But if the witness decides to follow company procedure only when the questioning approaches a sensitive area, it would seem that Salinas would give a prosecutor the option to later argue that the termination of the questioning at that particular point is an indication of guilt.

As the Salinas dissent points out, because of its focus, the plurality’s ruling seems to open up future dispute regarding whether the individual’s words or actions are clear enough to invoke the privilege. Decisions in this area suggest that if a witness mentions the word “lawyer” in declining to speak to investigators, courts are more likely to view that as an invocation that cannot be commented upon. Future decisions might also limit Salinas’s rule to cases where the witness was silent on only one question or a limited number of questions in the midst of an interview, viewing an express refusal to answer any further questions as clear enough notice that the witness is invoking the Constitutional privilege.

Of course the most basic and obvious lesson of Salinas is that a potential law enforcement target should never speak to an investigator without counsel. The less than intuitive rule announced in Salinas provides yet another argument for the wisdom of this oft repeated but not invariably followed advice.

hxxp://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2013/06/19/the-supreme-courts-decision-in-salinas-v-texas-implications-for-white-collar-investigations/

[Czolgosz]

"Am I obligated to answer that?"



That question would only open a doorway for a bully's response, which would be, "yes, you must answer the question." The use of words and words omitted are *very important*.

Most of us, myself included, should speak less and follow a strict script when interacting w/ the enforcers.


Reserve your rights, ask what they want (or more specifically, their probable cause), ask if you're being detained, proceed to repeat, "am i free to go?" "Let me know when I'm free to go."

[69360]

You'll get to be a trustee in the camps! Good for you!!!

You can live your life and achieve your goals a lot easier keeping a low profile and off the radar than with a record or in jail.

This is just as stupid as people who are in favor of open carry getting arrested and becoming prohibited.

Just be friendly and BS the cop a little, don't answer questions or give up your principals.

[Lucille]

Huh? Why? What did I miss?

For the record, not a single member here is on any ignore list. If I want to ignore you, I simply ignore you. :) But I assure you that I am not doing so - I would be more than happy to admit to it were you to earn such from me.

What did you miss? I might as well be on ignore! ;) I posted about the SCOTUS ruling (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424985-How-To-Survive-A-Traffic-Stop-quot-I-Don-t-Answer-Questions-quot&p=5186870&viewfull=1#post5186870) three (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424985-How-To-Survive-A-Traffic-Stop-quot-I-Don-t-Answer-Questions-quot&p=5187299&viewfull=1#post5187299) times (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424985-How-To-Survive-A-Traffic-Stop-quot-I-Don-t-Answer-Questions-quot&p=5187420&viewfull=1#post5187420) in this thread alone! I skip posts too, guys. It made me LOL and so I snarked is all. But enough about me!

http://www.policymic.com/articles/52453/salinas-v-texas-the-biggest-change-to-miranda-rights-that-slipped-under-everyone-s-radar


The moral of the story — and if you're still with me, I applaud you — is that if you ever find yourself wanting to not respond to a police officer's question, for whatever reason, just mumble the magic words, "I wish to remain silent." Apparently, it's the only way to get the Supreme Court to hear you.

The Salinas decision does much more than provide overworked law school students with additional fodder for term papers. In fact, the ruling is absolutely crucial for the average American to understand because it applies to pre-arrest exchanges with law enforcement. In other words, the next time that you have a casual conversation with a police officer, proceed with caution, because anything you don't say may be used against you in court.

Wrong! "I wish to remain silent," and "I don't answer questions" can and will be used against you.

Memorize it!: "I wish to invoke my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent."

You Don’t Have the Right to Remain Silent
The Supreme Court’s terrible—and dangerous—ruling this week on the Fifth Amendment.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_cou rt_right_to_remain_silent.html


The court’s new ruling puts the “defendant in an impossible predicament. He must either answer the question or remain silent,” Justice Stephen Breyer said in dissent (joined by the other three liberal-moderates). “If he answers the question, he may well reveal, for example, prejudicial facts, disreputable associates, or suspicious circumstances—even if he is innocent.” But if he doesn’t answer, at trial, police and prosecutors can now take advantage of his silence, or perhaps even of just pausing or fidgeting.

Supreme Court Self-Incrimination Ruling: No Right To Remain Silent Unless You Speak Up
http://www.ibtimes.com/supreme-court-self-incrimination-ruling-no-right-remain-silent-unless-you-speak-1324515


Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of First Amendment law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, wrote on the ABA Journal Tuesday that criminal defense lawyers will now have to take extra care, advising their clients to explicitly speak up if they wish to remain silent. He added that the new ruling is also likely to cause unnecessary confusion.

“Constitutional protections should not be just for those who have legal training and know what they need to say to the police to invoke their rights,” Chemerinsky wrote. “From a common sense perspective, Salinas was penalized for exercising his constitutional right to remain silent in the face of police questioning. This should not be tolerated under the Fifth Amendment.”

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chemerinsky_silence_is_not_golden_supreme_court_sa ys/


The case is troubling because it is so divorced from reality. Most people don't know that they have the right to remain silent when questioned by police during an investigation. And certainly most are unlikely to know that even if they have such a right, they must explicitly say, "I wish to invoke my right to remain silent." Although the plurality rejects that there are any specific magic words that must be uttered, it seems fairly close to that because the suspect must unambiguously and expressly invoke the right to remain silent.

[Christian Liberty]

Huh? Why? What did I miss?

For the record, not a single member here is on any ignore list. If I want to ignore you, I simply ignore you. :) But I assure you that I am not doing so - I would be more than happy to admit to it were you to earn such from me.

I thought you hated me until you posted relatively positively in my "What if I run for Congress?" thread.

[Saint Vitus]

I like seeing people exercise their rights and standing up to thug police officers. However, sometimes you have to remind yourself that a modicum of politeness and common human decency will get you a lot further. This driver in this video did absolutely nothing wrong, however, I would not have taken a hostile demeanor until the officer did so first.

Keep in mind that these officers are simple enforcers of shit laws. My main problem lies with the politicians and bureaucrats that make them. In my experiences, if you treat police with respect then they will reciprocate it (granted I have seen a lot of youtube videos where that was not the case, but I'm speaking of personal experiences). The only time that I have received a ticket was when I acted similar to this gentleman, Ive been given warnings the 10 or so times that I was polite with the officers.

[LibForestPaul]

To prove some "point".

If he played along with the cop he could possibly bullshitted his way out of a ticket.

I totally agree with not answering any questions, but this guy had a shitty attitude.

Here's how I have dealt with stuff like this. Shut car off, keys on dash, hands on wheel, window down. Don't go digging for paperwork. Tell the cop everything you are about to do "I'm going to open the glovebox and get my paperwork". Don't admit to any speed or driving infractions. Generic answers like "I don't know" are best. Don't do anything to stand out.

Ask politely "Do you think you could give me a break or a warning".

It's not worth your money, loss of license and time to prove some "point" if you can bullshit your way out of it. I'll play their games up to a point. I wouldn't answer questions or let them search me or my car. But I'll play nice if I think I can get away with it. Never, ever admit to anything. If you do get a ticket show up and ask for a reduction in charge. If you didn't admit to anything, you'll probably get one.

Suck some dick in otherwords on the offchance he might let you ride? Nah, its ok, give me the fucking ticket.

[fr33]

I like seeing people exercise their rights and standing up to thug police officers. However, sometimes you have to remind yourself that a modicum of politeness and common human decency will get you a lot further. This driver in this video did absolutely nothing wrong, however, I would not have taken a hostile demeanor until the officer did so first.

Keep in mind that these officers are simple enforcers of shit laws. My main problem lies with the politicians and bureaucrats that make them. In my experiences, if you treat police with respect then they will reciprocate it (granted I have seen a lot of youtube videos where that was not the case, but I'm speaking of personal experiences). The only time that I have received a ticket was when I acted similar to this gentleman, Ive been given warnings the 10 or so times that I was polite with the officers.

It depends on what one's goal is. Judging from the OP and the video WM_in_MO posted (of the same guy) his goal isn't to make things go smoothly. He wants to antagonize authority. I have a lot of respect for someone willing to do that. Usually these thugs with badges go unchecked and unquestioned. That can really make their egos swell out of proportion to their position.

[LibForestPaul]

I wish to invoke my right to remain silent.

Strange my right does not exist unless I "invoke" it.

[presence]

I always ask questions. Keep 'em on their toes.

"So do you guys recycle?"

[kcchiefs6465]

I always ask questions. Keep 'em on their toes.

"So do you guys recycle?"
I'm going to try this... hand to God. I should keep some recycling literature with me and go green earth ape shit on them. Ask about the Cats they are running and their fuel efficiency. Go off on tangents about mother nature every question I'm asked.

No matter what you can't lose your sense of humor.

[presence]

Go off on tangents about mother nature every question I'm asked.

So are those uniforms cotton? Synthetics make me itch.

[kcchiefs6465]

So are those uniforms cotton? Synthetics make me itch.
Hahaha

[GunnyFreedom]

Probably doable.

Certainly doable. This is the kind of stuff I would love to be doing for liberty peeps but at the price the market could bear, I could not travel enough to turn enough volume to make a living.

[69360]

Suck some dick in otherwords on the offchance he might let you ride? Nah, its ok, give me the fucking ticket.

Maybe you like giving the government your money, having to deal with the hassle of a record, increased insurance and increased future harassment. I don't, I have better things to do with my time and money and don't want to attract attention to myself.

If I can talk my way out of it, I will.