It’s really important to know your rights. A lot of people think they know, but often times they don’t. And it gets those people in trouble.
For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No exceptions. Don’t get hung up on the reason for the stop, it doesn’t matter. Additionally, police can articulate in virtually any situation that they fear for officer safety, which is reason enough in many states to order you out of the vehicle. At this point they have a foundation to frisk you for a weapon.
Resisting at any point of this is very risky.
Understanding when and where an officer doesn’t have the legal authority to do the above gets very nuanced. But generally I encourage Americans to learn the rights they have when operating a car seeing as their lives revolve around driving.
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.
Don’t those cases establish that police may, within the bounds of the fourth amendment, detain both the driver and any passengers; which then triggers requirements under other state laws allowing police to compel detained people to identify themselves?
As that link indicates, not every state has such a thing. States can; not every state does.
(And "identify" isn't necessarily the same as "show ID". It's legal to not have any form of ID in the US whatsoever - this comes up with voter ID discussion a lot - and those folks are still allowed to ride in a car.)
It gets even weirder because at least in same states it is ruled if a crime has an age component then once again you can't be forced to reveal ID (which would betray your age) and incriminate yourself even if driving. And then in some states you're required to answer questions unrelated to your identity like if you're carrying a weapon (unless you can't have weapons, in which case you'd be incriminating yourself and then again you don't have to answer).
Under what circumstances a passenger needs to identity themselves differs significantly from state to state. Also, neither Brendlin v. CA or AR v. Johnson talk about identification requirements, so I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Maybe you're confusing it with exiting the car?
And before someone says "but the Supreme Court overrules the states", no it doesn't. Many state courts have found that their state constitutions grant their citizens more rights than the US Constitution in various circumstances.
I'm going to charitably guess that you do not mean "surprising" in the common way, as in "wow, I can't explain why people don't know this laundry list of requests you are or are not required to comply with"; but rather as in "it's surprising that we find ourselves in this hellish society where citizens need to memorize a bunch of shit or else live in fear of every police interaction where they might sacrifice a right they didn't need to or vice versa and get handcuffed."
Police should not be allowed to put you in that situation, period. Then you can teach everybody that one fact, instead of an incomplete list of one-off rules (that are apparently not even easy to interpret, as demonstrated by the other replies to your comment).
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.)
> 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.
> It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify.
Again:
> Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
It is legal for a state to require you to do so, but some have not done so.
That’s not the point. The point is that a traffic stop is a traffic stop. Traffic stops, while they are Terry stops, also have separate governing rules, such as the fact that there is a failure to identify while operating a motor vehicle statute in every state.
> As of April 2008, 23 other states had similar laws. Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists, which penalize the failure to present a driver license during a traffic stop.
A state may require it. A state does not have to require it.
(To be clear, I'm handing over my license when asked regardless. There's just no apparent law applying universally to all 50 states that says I have to.)
And again, this is about stop and identify, which again covers both pedestrians and motor vehicle operators but does not preclude the requirement to identify oneself when operating a motor vehicle, which is covered by different statutes.
Correct. Some states have broad stop-and-identify laws. Some have limited stop-and-identify laws.
What we're talking about is more specific than that, and other statutes are implicated.
If you were operating a vehicle and cop pulls up next you and casually asks about your day, then you don't have to identify, because that's a consensual encounter. If he suggests that you rolled through the stop, even if you didn't, then you're subject to things like implied consent that are attached to vehicle operation.
If a state does not have a law regarding stop and identify, that does not mean they do not have a law about identifying when operating a motor vehicle.
> As of April 2008, 23 other states had similar laws. Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists, which penalize the failure to present a driver license during a traffic stop.
"When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop."
> You are required to provide a license to operate a vehicle.
And the police are required to have probable cause to believe you are operating it without such a license to stop you for that. Thus making it… a Terry stop!
>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect.
While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved.
So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do:
1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case
2. I talk, and it screws me
3. I don't talk, and it contributes to a case not being solved
4. I don't talk, and it screws me
I read stuff like this article and it tells you about 2, but it doesn't really put that into a broader context about the likelihood that 2 is the outcome. And there is a real decision to be made here!
The police couldn't creatively turn a five-minute interaction into my day/week/month getting wrecked? You can be held for ~2 days without charges being filed, right?
Convicting you of a crime is not possible. But there are many, many ways in which you can be screwed, from forcing you to spend a weekend in jail to having a prosecutor offer you a plea deal that you can't risk refusing.
The police have a lot more power in any encounter, and there is no way to avoid having them make your life worse. About the only truly concrete advice is that if you are guilty of something then you absolutely, positively must get a lawyer before saying anything at all. The magic words are “I will not answer any questions without my lawyer present,” and any variation from that exposes you to the risk of the police creatively misinterpreting you.
The magic words can help you beat the rap, but they cannot help you beat the ride. If they decide that you are going to jail, then you go with them, and nothing you say or do (or not say or do) will prevent that. And you will stay there until your lawyer shows up.
After Salinas v Texas, you must positively assert that you are exercising your right to silence, not simply remain silent.
The prosecutor in a murder trial argued, at trial, that silence of the defendant (during police questioning) was evidence of his guilt. The supreme court in Salinas v Texas allowed this.
* The defendant also selectively answered some questions, so perhaps there is nuance, but to be safe, a positive assertion of right to remain silent seems prudent.
IANAL, and would love if an actual lawyer would comment on this.
It absolutely is. In theory, staying silent or getting a lawyer shouldn't hurt you in court. But it could lead to the police focusing their investigation on you and/or making your life difficult.
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.
>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.
Sorry, I'm not following exactly: your colleague was ordered to appear because he was genuinely involved in something bad, he was falsely set up as being involved in something bad, or he's helping to litigate an insurance fraud case?
Because he offered some info that made it into the report and years later some guy they had reviewing the fifteen dozen reports relating to that insurance fraud saw that info and said "let's get that guy on the stand, a jury will eat that shit up".
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.
You don't talk, and it annoys the cop, so they fabricate evidence against you, or charge you with some other unrelated thing that they would have otherwise let slide.
if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for?
If they don't have it out for you to start with, answering their questions can get you out of it. If they pull you over and you just answer their questions, the odds are that they will just send you on your way, eventually.
But if you start invoking your rights and they think you have something to hide, they can easily find an excuse. "I smelled alcohol" is a popular one. If you refuse the test, they can invoke the smell of alcohol as an excuse to bring you in. They will eventually let you go, but that's days rather than minutes.
Police will correctly tell you that they don't want to harass you and it is much easier to simply answer their questions if you have nothing to hide. You don't have to, and most of the time they'll still just let you go as long as you comply with the actual orders. But it's not a guarantee.
You make up a ton of hypotheticals to support your point, versus a lawyer and a retired detective (video in the link) who tell you explicitly to never talk to cops.
Because cops are human, and most people answer questions when cops ask them questions. Refusing to answer questions cannot be held against you in court, but it certainly often is in the minds of humans. And when a cop has "evidence" against you that they cannot use in court, that's when it seems likely they'll manufacture some evidence that is usable.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."[1]
>if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for?
A huge amount of police work is vibes based "this guy looks sketchy, let's wait for him to do something and check him out" stuff. If you talk, they decide there's nothing to see here, move on.
If you don't talk in a clumsy way they decide you're up to no good and pull every trick in the book to get you. And they have plenty of tricks to construe the situation to their favor once they go down that path.
You absolutely can escalate what could've been a warning or simple ticket into a full fledged drug dog fake hit type stop by being obtuse. Or in the case of a real investigation escalate a "this ain't are guy" into a "put them on the short list and really go over them" (which you hope comes to nothing, but still).
You can absolutely talk your way out of situations. Jeffery Dalhmer infamously convinced cops that his drugged victim was his boyfriend and they let him go. Probably not going to be able to do that after you're booked and in jail.
I don't think it's terrible advice to not talk to the cops but it tends to discount the reality of the world. Going through any sort of criminal trial is expensive and has devastating life impacts. Cops are the first step in that process and convincing them not to arrest you is the easy path out.
Exactly. You have to remember you're not just interacting with a faceless legal system, you're interacting with a human cop. There's some nuance to it. I've talked god knows how many fishing stops down to 5min papers checks. I'd still rather have not had them, but better than if I'd have been all "officer, I have a right to remain silent" which likely would've resulted in a whole bunch of hoopla, bringing the dog around to find nothing, etc, etc, all for a petty fine.
If the cops were seeking me personally (i.e the system is seeking me out) out it'd be a different story though.
In England, a refusal to answer questions can be taken as an indicator of guilt. But you can still ask for a solicitor and they will tell you which questions to answer and which not.
Specifically England, not the UK, as Scottish law is different.
If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment. Whether or not you need to produce ID at that point may vary by state but it’s likely the case in every state. If it’s legal for the police to demand your ID and you don’t, you can be arrested for failure to identify.
Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the original crime they stopped you for, but your day is still ruined.
> If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment
If you match the description and are in the vicinity of the crime, you are not going to save yourself by talking to the police. You are already in "get a lawyer" territory.
I'm not in the US, so maybe things are very different here, but I still wonder if the absolutist advice is helpful in situations like this:
One night, while walking, I was stopped by police because I roughly matched the description of someone who had burgled a house nearby. They didn't tell me this straight away; they just asked who I was, where I lived, and what I was doing. I didn't have ID on me, but I answered their questions honestly. They went to their car for a bit (presumably checking that my name matched my address and/or that I didn't have a record), then came back, explained the situation, and let me go as they had no strong reason to suspect me. The whole interaction was pretty relaxed and cordial, and they didn't contact me again.
Things definitely wouldn't have gone better for me had I made a point of refusing to engage beyond the legally required minimum, and it's easy to imagine how they could have gone significantly worse.
It definitely depends on the country. I live in Scotland and I've been perfectly happy to chat with police officers but if I'm taken in for questioning (which in Scotland is an arrest) I would have no hesitation in asking for a solicitor and they would probably advise no comment on every question.
If I want to help them out I would then prepare a written statement, approved by my solicitor, and give them that.
You are detained any time your freedom of movement is interrupted. If a cop calls to you and you turn to face them, that’s a detainment. So you’re correct, you can be detained before they’ve even questioned you.
"Don't talk to police" doesn't include legally required things like identification. What you don't do is volunteer more than you're legally required to provide.
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.
That is a very good point depending on the situation. On the flip side, abstaining from the process and remaining silent (but still compliant) can put a spotlight on injustice if there be any.
James Duane, the lawyer from the famous video about never talking to the police, wrote a book called You Have the Right to Remain Innocent. It’s a great read if you want to feel very sad.
But lawyers are expensive, and if it turns out you are just a witness, you are going to be spending a lot of money for nothing.
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.
>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).
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.
This is an example of the Vimes Boots theory. If you are well enough off that you can afford a lawyer, you might be better off in the long run, while someone who doesn't have the disposable income for a lawyer can end up losing more than the cost of the lawyer.
I live in a country where you can now consider police to be "on your side": in other words, policing. It used not to be the case, so I can appreciate this.
In light of this, I find the comments of the police officer invited to the youtube talk about how lucky the listeners are to be in the US (because police in other countries is so terrible) somewhat amusing.
In the US one should generally be terrified of the police, especially if one's skin color doesn't happen to be white. Plus everything that was said in the talk.
The type of person who gets themselves in a situation where they can become a suspect is one that I can't see getting into. It makes me question what the person did to have this happen to them.
I lead a normal life. I've never gotten into a situation where this could ever possibly concern me. I'm betting the vast majority of people who visit HN (and aren't commenting here) wouldn't have this issue, either.
I do not fear the police. The police have helped me in several situations such as car accidents. At my business they discovered my back door open and, within minutes, caught the person who stole something. My car got side swiped overnight and they walked the street to see if any neighbor had a camera. And on and on.
You wouldn't find me in an illegal situation involving the police except if I happened to be there. But I wouldn't fear being hauled off to jail cause that just won't happen except on the internet.
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.
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.
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.
Lawyers will damn you no matter what you do. AT one point I was accused of kidnapping my own child as a result of racial discrimination where a caller called in that the child was a different race so I must have kidnapped them.
I later contacted a civil rights attorney to see if there was any case for racial profiling, but instead they took the opportunity to eviscerate me for not talking my way out of detention. Truth is lawyer will say whatever you did is wrong because the premise of client fucking things up is often just a more convenient explanation.
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.
I'm also curious should you not answer a question about weapons in the car?
I would honestly say it couldn't help because it's not like they'd believe you if you said no and saying yes could make them suspicious. So while it seems like something that would be important to answer for safety, maybe it's safer to decline to answer.
Of course, if they're threatening you, you should comply because the place to fight is in the courtroom, not on the road.
I always dislike when this is posted, the advice of "Don't talk to the police" is repeated and repeated yet real life is more complex and multifaceted.
Is this actually helpful and does it actually educate anyone?
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.
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.
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
It’s really important to know your rights. A lot of people think they know, but often times they don’t. And it gets those people in trouble.
For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No exceptions. Don’t get hung up on the reason for the stop, it doesn’t matter. Additionally, police can articulate in virtually any situation that they fear for officer safety, which is reason enough in many states to order you out of the vehicle. At this point they have a foundation to frisk you for a weapon.
Resisting at any point of this is very risky.
Understanding when and where an officer doesn’t have the legal authority to do the above gets very nuanced. But generally I encourage Americans to learn the rights they have when operating a car seeing as their lives revolve around driving.
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.
> show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States]
Not what it establishes. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5841
> your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)]
Not what Brendlin establishes (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-8120) nor Johnson (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-1122).
Passengers in a vehicle aren't even required to have a license. There's no requirement for citizens to carry papers in the US.
(They may be required to give their name, but not carry ID.)
> you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers)
Only because "officers had stopped Mimms for a legitimate reason and, upon observing [a] bulge in his jacket" (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830)
> Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)]
Similarly, if the stop is legitimate. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1268)
Don’t those cases establish that police may, within the bounds of the fourth amendment, detain both the driver and any passengers; which then triggers requirements under other state laws allowing police to compel detained people to identify themselves?
E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes ?
As that link indicates, not every state has such a thing. States can; not every state does.
(And "identify" isn't necessarily the same as "show ID". It's legal to not have any form of ID in the US whatsoever - this comes up with voter ID discussion a lot - and those folks are still allowed to ride in a car.)
It gets even weirder because at least in same states it is ruled if a crime has an age component then once again you can't be forced to reveal ID (which would betray your age) and incriminate yourself even if driving. And then in some states you're required to answer questions unrelated to your identity like if you're carrying a weapon (unless you can't have weapons, in which case you'd be incriminating yourself and then again you don't have to answer).
Not legal advice.
Under what circumstances a passenger needs to identity themselves differs significantly from state to state. Also, neither Brendlin v. CA or AR v. Johnson talk about identification requirements, so I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Maybe you're confusing it with exiting the car?
And before someone says "but the Supreme Court overrules the states", no it doesn't. Many state courts have found that their state constitutions grant their citizens more rights than the US Constitution in various circumstances.
I'm going to charitably guess that you do not mean "surprising" in the common way, as in "wow, I can't explain why people don't know this laundry list of requests you are or are not required to comply with"; but rather as in "it's surprising that we find ourselves in this hellish society where citizens need to memorize a bunch of shit or else live in fear of every police interaction where they might sacrifice a right they didn't need to or vice versa and get handcuffed."
Police should not be allowed to put you in that situation, period. Then you can teach everybody that one fact, instead of an incomplete list of one-off rules (that are apparently not even easy to interpret, as demonstrated by the other replies to your comment).
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.
That case is about Terry stops, not about failure to identify when operating a motor vehicle.
A Terry stop includes detainments of pedestrians, who do not have an obligation to identify in most states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
> When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop.
They can't pull you over without reason in the first place.
Yeah you’re doing the thing I suggested people don’t do.
It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify.
If you feel as though the detainment was illegal, you can sue after the fact. There’s no point in trying to litigate the situation with the officer.
> It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify.
Again:
> Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
It is legal for a state to require you to do so, but some have not done so.
Again, this case is about Terry stops. Not traffic stops.
If you have been detained in a motor vehicle you are in control of, you must identify.
> Again, this case is about Terry stops. Not traffic stops.
A traffic stop is a Terry stop. It's within the circle on the Venn diagram.
Stop-and-frisk of a pedestrian is also a Terry stop.
That’s not the point. The point is that a traffic stop is a traffic stop. Traffic stops, while they are Terry stops, also have separate governing rules, such as the fact that there is a failure to identify while operating a motor vehicle statute in every state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
> As of April 2008, 23 other states had similar laws. Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists, which penalize the failure to present a driver license during a traffic stop.
A state may require it. A state does not have to require it.
(To be clear, I'm handing over my license when asked regardless. There's just no apparent law applying universally to all 50 states that says I have to.)
And again, this is about stop and identify, which again covers both pedestrians and motor vehicle operators but does not preclude the requirement to identify oneself when operating a motor vehicle, which is covered by different statutes.
"Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists" implies that others do not, correct?
Correct. Some states have broad stop-and-identify laws. Some have limited stop-and-identify laws.
What we're talking about is more specific than that, and other statutes are implicated.
If you were operating a vehicle and cop pulls up next you and casually asks about your day, then you don't have to identify, because that's a consensual encounter. If he suggests that you rolled through the stop, even if you didn't, then you're subject to things like implied consent that are attached to vehicle operation.
If a state does not have a law regarding stop and identify, that does not mean they do not have a law about identifying when operating a motor vehicle.
But not all Terry stops are traffic stops. The case you're citing wasn't a traffic stop.
The Terry ruling establishes a test that applies to all Terry stops, not just some.
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
> As of April 2008, 23 other states had similar laws. Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists, which penalize the failure to present a driver license during a traffic stop.
Hiible wasn't operating a vehicle; he was standing outside, near it. It was not a traffic stop.
And just for clarity, a Terry stop is any brief investigative detention, not just those that arise from traffic stops.
> Hiible wasn't operating a vehicle…
So? Some Terry stops are vehicle-based, others are not; the ruling applies to both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
"When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop."
Terry stops != traffic stop
You are required to provide a license to operate a vehicle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
"When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop."
> You are required to provide a license to operate a vehicle.
And the police are required to have probable cause to believe you are operating it without such a license to stop you for that. Thus making it… a Terry stop!
Related:
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45317167 - Sept 2025 (2 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24754163 - Oct 2020 (1 comment)
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390344 - June 2020 (6 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police – James Duane - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717507 - April 2019 (4 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886628 - Dec 2017 (165 comments)
Don't talk to the police [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001859 - July 2013 (37 comments)
Don't talk to the police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758 - June 2008 (35 comments)
>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect.
While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved.
So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do:
1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case
2. I talk, and it screws me
3. I don't talk, and it contributes to a case not being solved
4. I don't talk, and it screws me
I read stuff like this article and it tells you about 2, but it doesn't really put that into a broader context about the likelihood that 2 is the outcome. And there is a real decision to be made here!
If you genuinely have evidence as a witness that can help police solve the case, then you get an attorney present.
Not everyone has attorney money.
Do you not live in a country where they are obliged to provide one?
The point of the article (and any similar advice) is that 4 is not possible
The police couldn't creatively turn a five-minute interaction into my day/week/month getting wrecked? You can be held for ~2 days without charges being filed, right?
If they wanted to do that, your chances of "I talk, and it screws me" are pretty high anyway.
Also, don't take my word for it - here's a US police officer saying the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (skip to the second half)
He wouldn't talk to police.
Convicting you of a crime is not possible. But there are many, many ways in which you can be screwed, from forcing you to spend a weekend in jail to having a prosecutor offer you a plea deal that you can't risk refusing.
The police have a lot more power in any encounter, and there is no way to avoid having them make your life worse. About the only truly concrete advice is that if you are guilty of something then you absolutely, positively must get a lawyer before saying anything at all. The magic words are “I will not answer any questions without my lawyer present,” and any variation from that exposes you to the risk of the police creatively misinterpreting you.
The magic words can help you beat the rap, but they cannot help you beat the ride. If they decide that you are going to jail, then you go with them, and nothing you say or do (or not say or do) will prevent that. And you will stay there until your lawyer shows up.
But, 4 is possible.
After Salinas v Texas, you must positively assert that you are exercising your right to silence, not simply remain silent.
The prosecutor in a murder trial argued, at trial, that silence of the defendant (during police questioning) was evidence of his guilt. The supreme court in Salinas v Texas allowed this.
* The defendant also selectively answered some questions, so perhaps there is nuance, but to be safe, a positive assertion of right to remain silent seems prudent.
IANAL, and would love if an actual lawyer would comment on this.
It absolutely is. In theory, staying silent or getting a lawyer shouldn't hurt you in court. But it could lead to the police focusing their investigation on you and/or making your life difficult.
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.
>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.
Sorry, I'm not following exactly: your colleague was ordered to appear because he was genuinely involved in something bad, he was falsely set up as being involved in something bad, or he's helping to litigate an insurance fraud case?
Because he offered some info that made it into the report and years later some guy they had reviewing the fifteen dozen reports relating to that insurance fraud saw that info and said "let's get that guy on the stand, a jury will eat that shit up".
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.
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.
You don't talk, and it annoys the cop, so they fabricate evidence against you, or charge you with some other unrelated thing that they would have otherwise let slide.
if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for?
Your position is just bonkers.
If they don't have it out for you to start with, answering their questions can get you out of it. If they pull you over and you just answer their questions, the odds are that they will just send you on your way, eventually.
But if you start invoking your rights and they think you have something to hide, they can easily find an excuse. "I smelled alcohol" is a popular one. If you refuse the test, they can invoke the smell of alcohol as an excuse to bring you in. They will eventually let you go, but that's days rather than minutes.
Police will correctly tell you that they don't want to harass you and it is much easier to simply answer their questions if you have nothing to hide. You don't have to, and most of the time they'll still just let you go as long as you comply with the actual orders. But it's not a guarantee.
You make up a ton of hypotheticals to support your point, versus a lawyer and a retired detective (video in the link) who tell you explicitly to never talk to cops.
Because cops are human, and most people answer questions when cops ask them questions. Refusing to answer questions cannot be held against you in court, but it certainly often is in the minds of humans. And when a cop has "evidence" against you that they cannot use in court, that's when it seems likely they'll manufacture some evidence that is usable.
Cops being human is also exactly why the lawyer and detective in the video is exactly why never talk to cops.
Real lawyer opinion > armchair lawyer opinion.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."[1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Brosky: I called them no names. I referred to their argument as bonkers...
The quoted guideline covered your false separation. The discouraged example called a statement idiotic.
Yet it did not allege that calling the statement idiotic is the same as calling its poster idiotic.
>if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for?
A huge amount of police work is vibes based "this guy looks sketchy, let's wait for him to do something and check him out" stuff. If you talk, they decide there's nothing to see here, move on.
If you don't talk in a clumsy way they decide you're up to no good and pull every trick in the book to get you. And they have plenty of tricks to construe the situation to their favor once they go down that path.
You absolutely can escalate what could've been a warning or simple ticket into a full fledged drug dog fake hit type stop by being obtuse. Or in the case of a real investigation escalate a "this ain't are guy" into a "put them on the short list and really go over them" (which you hope comes to nothing, but still).
>Your position is just bonkers.
Your position is just ignorant.
You can absolutely talk your way out of situations. Jeffery Dalhmer infamously convinced cops that his drugged victim was his boyfriend and they let him go. Probably not going to be able to do that after you're booked and in jail.
I don't think it's terrible advice to not talk to the cops but it tends to discount the reality of the world. Going through any sort of criminal trial is expensive and has devastating life impacts. Cops are the first step in that process and convincing them not to arrest you is the easy path out.
Exactly. You have to remember you're not just interacting with a faceless legal system, you're interacting with a human cop. There's some nuance to it. I've talked god knows how many fishing stops down to 5min papers checks. I'd still rather have not had them, but better than if I'd have been all "officer, I have a right to remain silent" which likely would've resulted in a whole bunch of hoopla, bringing the dog around to find nothing, etc, etc, all for a petty fine.
If the cops were seeking me personally (i.e the system is seeking me out) out it'd be a different story though.
In England, a refusal to answer questions can be taken as an indicator of guilt. But you can still ask for a solicitor and they will tell you which questions to answer and which not.
Specifically England, not the UK, as Scottish law is different.
If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment. Whether or not you need to produce ID at that point may vary by state but it’s likely the case in every state. If it’s legal for the police to demand your ID and you don’t, you can be arrested for failure to identify.
Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the original crime they stopped you for, but your day is still ruined.
> If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment
If you match the description and are in the vicinity of the crime, you are not going to save yourself by talking to the police. You are already in "get a lawyer" territory.
I'm not in the US, so maybe things are very different here, but I still wonder if the absolutist advice is helpful in situations like this:
One night, while walking, I was stopped by police because I roughly matched the description of someone who had burgled a house nearby. They didn't tell me this straight away; they just asked who I was, where I lived, and what I was doing. I didn't have ID on me, but I answered their questions honestly. They went to their car for a bit (presumably checking that my name matched my address and/or that I didn't have a record), then came back, explained the situation, and let me go as they had no strong reason to suspect me. The whole interaction was pretty relaxed and cordial, and they didn't contact me again.
Things definitely wouldn't have gone better for me had I made a point of refusing to engage beyond the legally required minimum, and it's easy to imagine how they could have gone significantly worse.
It definitely depends on the country. I live in Scotland and I've been perfectly happy to chat with police officers but if I'm taken in for questioning (which in Scotland is an arrest) I would have no hesitation in asking for a solicitor and they would probably advise no comment on every question.
If I want to help them out I would then prepare a written statement, approved by my solicitor, and give them that.
It's just the sensible way to go.
There's no rush. Take your time and be smart.
You are detained any time your freedom of movement is interrupted. If a cop calls to you and you turn to face them, that’s a detainment. So you’re correct, you can be detained before they’ve even questioned you.
"Don't talk to police" doesn't include legally required things like identification. What you don't do is volunteer more than you're legally required to provide.
This sounds obvious but a lot of people don’t understand this.
I suppose a grain of salt has to be taken for the fact that this is basically an ad
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.
Never frobnicate without a flangleharp, says the flangleharp salesman. He could be right, but you would probably want to ask someone else.
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.
Sometimes it's smart to be silent.
Pro 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
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.
That is a very good point depending on the situation. On the flip side, abstaining from the process and remaining silent (but still compliant) can put a spotlight on injustice if there be any.
James Duane, the lawyer from the famous video about never talking to the police, wrote a book called You Have the Right to Remain Innocent. It’s a great read if you want to feel very sad.
But lawyers are expensive, and if it turns out you are just a witness, you are going to be spending a lot of money for nothing.
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.
>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).
In a missing person case, it isn't just justice, you also want your loved one back (assuming they are still alive).
>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.
This is an example of the Vimes Boots theory. If you are well enough off that you can afford a lawyer, you might be better off in the long run, while someone who doesn't have the disposable income for a lawyer can end up losing more than the cost of the lawyer.
I live in a country where you can now consider police to be "on your side": in other words, policing. It used not to be the case, so I can appreciate this.
In light of this, I find the comments of the police officer invited to the youtube talk about how lucky the listeners are to be in the US (because police in other countries is so terrible) somewhat amusing.
In the US one should generally be terrified of the police, especially if one's skin color doesn't happen to be white. Plus everything that was said in the talk.
The type of person who gets themselves in a situation where they can become a suspect is one that I can't see getting into. It makes me question what the person did to have this happen to them.
I lead a normal life. I've never gotten into a situation where this could ever possibly concern me. I'm betting the vast majority of people who visit HN (and aren't commenting here) wouldn't have this issue, either.
I do not fear the police. The police have helped me in several situations such as car accidents. At my business they discovered my back door open and, within minutes, caught the person who stole something. My car got side swiped overnight and they walked the street to see if any neighbor had a camera. And on and on.
You wouldn't find me in an illegal situation involving the police except if I happened to be there. But I wouldn't fear being hauled off to jail cause that just won't happen except on the internet.
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.
What you are fearing is fear itself. It's not going to happen and I have no reason to fear it will
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.
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.
You are probably right most of the time, but that also depends where you are.
Lawyers will damn you no matter what you do. AT one point I was accused of kidnapping my own child as a result of racial discrimination where a caller called in that the child was a different race so I must have kidnapped them.
I later contacted a civil rights attorney to see if there was any case for racial profiling, but instead they took the opportunity to eviscerate me for not talking my way out of detention. Truth is lawyer will say whatever you did is wrong because the premise of client fucking things up is often just a more convenient explanation.
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.
I'm also curious should you not answer a question about weapons in the car?
I would honestly say it couldn't help because it's not like they'd believe you if you said no and saying yes could make them suspicious. So while it seems like something that would be important to answer for safety, maybe it's safer to decline to answer.
Of course, if they're threatening you, you should comply because the place to fight is in the courtroom, not on the road.
TL;DR: Never talk to the police. In fairness I'm going to give half my time to a police detective. Detective: He's right, never talk to the police.
This is a classic! it's informative but also entertaining.
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.
I find Lehto's Law on Youtube to be quite entertaining while also informative:
https://www.youtube.com/@stevelehto
It is OK to talk to them. Just don't lie and don't answer questions. Doing either could land you in jail.
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.
Actually it can help me if it helps solve a crime. The solving of a crime is good for society, actually. I live in a society, after all
Prevention of unethical behavior is good, but the scenario we are talking about is primarily police investigating 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.
I always dislike when this is posted, the advice of "Don't talk to the police" is repeated and repeated yet real life is more complex and multifaceted. Is this actually helpful and does it actually educate anyone?
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!
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.
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.
Replace the subject of police with politicians and then reread your sentence.
Many many people live every day like this.
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