Never Talk To The Police

[buddy_fuentes]

DonT, you hit the nail on the head. In over thirty years of Law Enforcement, I have only run across a handful of dishonest LEO's. Most Officers are trying to do the job that you hired them for. Some few may take it to the next level and over react to a situation as some of you may do. My feelings...if you see a flame burning are you going to throw gasoline on it to see what will happen next?

We are all only humans and each profession has a few people that screw off or are dishonest. ( Went to the Dentist the other day and was charged $10.00 for the Hygienist to tell me to brush twice each day and to floss + $14.00 for a tooth brush, tooth paste, and floss!) It is your job to use common sense and decide what to do for the situation at hand. How should you react? Should you resist any and all efforts of a LEO trying to investigate something? Are you the one that complains about the crime rate?

Buddy

P.S. I didn't notice the dental charges until I got home and I called back and was told that the charges were normal. I have sent a letter with a copy of the bill to my insurance company. They are going to take this office off of the approved Dentist list, according to someone that called.

[davidwiz]

Question; For vehicle searches, why would you not comply if you have nothing to hide? Is the non consent just out of principal of you're constitutional right?

If you don't have anything to hide, then you won't mind providing us with the following information: (1) full name and address; (2) SSN; (3) all financial information, including tax returns for the last 10 years and all bank account information; (4) your complete employee file for your last 10 employers. In addition, your consent to search your car and house whenever the need arises.

During my 49yrs experience as a citizen, I have been pulled over a couple of several times and told that my vehicle matches the description of one their looking for ...seems to be the universal reason to pull over a vehicle for no cause. A couple of those times I was asked if I would consent to a search. I said ok. They searched me, my vehicle, and ran a check. All was good and I was sent on my way. I feel that had I not consented, I would have been taken to the station and my vehicle impounded. So in this instance who's to say what the "right" decision would be?

No, they can't impound your vehicle unless they had probable cause that a crime was committed. You've outlined the classic DWB stop, which happens very frequently. Weren't you mad that the police stopped you for no reason? It would make me mad. Why do you think that that particular officer should be able to break the law and stop anyone he/she wants to w/o a lawful reason?

To say never talk to the police, I can't buy that. I think setting a default response to varying circumstances would not work well. Just my opinion. I agree to never give anymore info than necessary (open mouth insert foot).

I don't think you'll find an attorney in this county who would agree with you. When questioned by the police, some people want to be helpful and try to explain things. This can cause problems if you say something that is detrimental to your interests. Also, some police officers will try to trick you and/or lie to you in order to get you to incriminate yourself. They might appear to be very sympathetic to your plight, saying something like, "Yea, I understand, you didn't mean to do it. It was an accident." Or they might lie to you, saying, "Jim Bob already confessed, by why don't you tell us what happened." Or they might try the classic Good Cop/Bad Cop routine.

I have found if I have nothing to hide, I'm being truthful, and I treat LE with the respect and kindness they deserve, there has never been a problem. Is this being too naive?

In a word, yes, it is naive. No one is saying not to treat the police with respect. We're saying to invoke your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself and don't talk to the police w/o an attorney present and don't give your consent to any kind of search.

[NCShooter]

OK, so that begs the question... do the dogs alert on GSR? 'Cuz I'm thinking... with a half-dozen competition guns in the back of the rig, plus a couple of carry pieces locked in the drawer, plus associated ammo for each, plus... oh, I don't know, call it 10 years worth of residue in the bottom of my shooting bag and brass bucket... I gotta think my rig is going to *reek* of GSR. All of it is *legal*, and stored/secured appropriately, but... if the smell of guns gives them PC to search my vehicle, they're going to be in it anyway.

Our explosives dog will hit on a single fired cartridge case if it can get close enough to it. How close depends on environmental conditions. If your vehicle is open and the air can circulate I would suspect any explosives canine worth its salt would hit on any serious shooter's gear.

I've tested this with my empty shooting bag (just sitting on the concrete) with our dog and she will hit on it.

[Genghis]

Yes, I can certainly understand your unwillingness to consent to a search of the vehicle when you have guns, even if all are legal. But I have to wonder, in the real world, what kind of mood are you going to put the officer in by not consenting to a search. Will he say, oh, ok. Thanks anyway. You're free to go now.

That is EXACTLY why you should never consent to a search - the Founding Fathers thought the right to refuse a search was important enough to address in the Bill of Rights. Punishing you for exercising that right is unacceptable.

I represented a guy who "did the right thing" and consented to a search. One of the guys who was catching a ride to work with him had some marijuana and rolling papers on him. When they bailed out of the car, the marijuana ended up under the passenger seat, and the papers ended up under the driver's seat. My guy got charged with possession of drug paraphernalia.

Texas law requires a CHL holder to produce that license along with his DL when stopped., but ONLY if he is carrying a handgun under authority of the CHL. In effect it requires you to admit you have a gun, which is kind of a scary thought. So far I haven't had any trouble. The conversation usually goes like this: "Do you have your handgun in the car?" "Yes." "Where is it?" "Which one?" Then we usually have a long conversation and maybe show-and-tell on the side of the road. But that's Texas, so YMMV.

I can't tell you how many appellate cases I've read that go like this:

"Appellant was driving down the Interstate when he got pulled over. He consented to a search, and the officer found 500 pounds of marijuana in his trunk. He was convicted of possession with intent to sell. He appeals, claiming the search was illegal.

"He consented to the search. Appellant's conviction is affirmed."

[davidwiz]

I can't tell you how many appellate cases I've read that go like this:

"Appellant was driving down the Interstate when he got pulled over. He consented to a search, and the officer found 500 pounds of marijuana in his trunk. He was convicted of possession with intent to sell. He appeals, claiming the search was illegal.

"He consented to the search. Appellant's conviction is affirmed."

Yup. You can challenge probable cause and the issuance of a search warrant in court. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to challenge your consent to search. In the immortal words of Grandmaster Flash, "Don't Do It".

[DonT]

I want to thank CSEMARTIN for starting this thread. It has been very informative and educational

I want to thank everyone for remaining civil and allowing it to continue (3 pages)

And I want to thank Davidwiz and Genghis. Gentlemen, thank you both for taking the time to respond to my questions as they pertain to the law and constitution.

I hope this thread will continue on but as far as me making any further posts here... I'll take the 5th

oops left out a word

Edited June 26, 2008 by DonT

[Woody Allen]

"If you don't have anything illegal in the vehicle, why not consent to a search?" Why not just cooperate. Avoid the hassle. Cooperate. Answer the police officer's questions. Don't act guilty. Lawyers are only for those who are guilty.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Woody Allen

[Jim Norman]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You MAY THINK you are ok, but you may have something that het officer THINKS is evil, you will then have to go through all the hassles that you might have avoided.

Case in point, A Gun manufacturer in Texas went out to dinner, He KNEW that there was nothing in his car.

Sadly what he did not know was that one of his employees had, while using his car with permission, had left a box of shotgun shells of a type outlawed in Mexico. He was convicted of a felony and has spent a fortune trying to get cleared so he can stay in business.

Another case is local to us here, A PA Resident, hoped in his wife's car, to run an errand, one that took him into NJ. He and his wife both have PA CCWs. He did not have his gun with him, his wife for some unknown reason had left her gun under the seat, or in the console, not sure which, doesn't really matter, he was stopped in NJ, gun turned up, Felon and no more guns for him.

So, consent. NO! But by all means be polite and cooperative as to name rank and serial number. Beyond that, that is what lawyers were made for.

Jim

[davidwiz]

"If you don't have anything illegal in the vehicle, why not consent to a search?" Why not just cooperate. Avoid the hassle. Cooperate. Answer the police officer's questions. Don't act guilty. Lawyers are only for those who are guilty.

That is not correct. There are tons of people who were illegally arrested by the police, only to be set free after spending boat loads of money on an attorney. The US Constitution exists for a reason - to protect your rights to unlawful government intrusion. If you want to waive your rights, go right ahead. Just be prepared for the consequences.

[Woody Allen]

.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Woody Allen

[Rob Boudrie]

Sadly what he did not know was that one of his employees had, while using his car with permission, had left a box of shotgun shells of a type outlawed in Mexico. He was convicted of a felony and has spent a fortune trying to get cleared so he can stay in business.

I think you are referring to the Lamar Bean case where SCOTUS determined that there was no appeal possible since the feds did not accept the relief from disability petition. There was another case, Small v. US, where SCOTUS determined that a foreign conviction (Japan in this case) did not trigger the us felony disabilities - http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-750.pdf

[CMV]

my .02

No matter what happens it's always better to be judged ny 12 than carried by 6

If you use force up to and including deadly force, you need to be able to clearly articulate why you did so. Whether you tell the investigating cop or whomever at the time of the incident, a day later, through and attorney or whenever is your decision.

Self-defense is an intentional act and an affirmative defense to murder, remember this!

As a homicide detective and primary investigator of police involved uses of deadly force I have investigated too many homicides to count and at least 20 police involved uses of deadly force. I tell other police officers several things when they ask my opinion. First, it is my job to figure out what happened, no matter who it favors. Second, IF (and that's a big IF) you know in your heart you did nothing wrong and your actions are justified the you only help yourself by making a well thought out statement. On the other hand, if you are unsure or you know you did something you shouldn't have or can't explain then you should ask for an attorney.

I am always amazed at the % of people, even professional police officers that are unable to explain in clear concise terms why the did X. If someone tries to hurt you for example, you hurt them in return or attempted to hurt them in return because you were afraid you were going to be hurt or killed...YOU WERE AFRAID! How hard is that?

Anyway, tangential rant there.

My point is simply this, you have to assess the situation and make a decision when involved in a incident such as this. I know the political climate, the position of the prosecutor's office and police department where I live and work, so I know if I justifiably use deadly force I will gladly tell them what I did and why. However, that is a decision I have made after carefully evaluating everything and everyone involved I am able to.

[Genghis]

The problem is that in these cases the authorities will probably scrutinize your actions under a microscope. They will pay special attention to what you say after the incident, and you may not be in the best mental condition at the time. With all the adrenaline flowing, and the emotional reaction to the incident, the relief at being alive, and all the pressure of being questioned, it would be very easy to say something that could be used against you. It might be a minor inconsistency in your story, or misremembering something in the heat of the moment, or gushing out too much information, or even saying something perfectly proper that could be misinterpreted. But anything you say can and will be used against you.