Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Never talk to the police

campolalaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 154 posts

Re: Never talk to the police

#71

Post by ceejayoz »

ibejoeb wrote: post #66
ceejayoz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

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."

Re: Never talk to the police

#72

Post by ceejayoz »

lwansbrough wrote: post #70
ceejayoz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Re: Never talk to the police

#73

Post by ibejoeb »

ceejayoz wrote: post #72
lwansbrough wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But not all Terry stops are traffic stops. The case you're citing wasn't a traffic stop.

Re: Never talk to the police

#74

Post by ceejayoz »

ibejoeb wrote: post #73
ceejayoz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Re: Never talk to the police

#75

Post by retsibsi »

Capricorn2481 wrote: post #29
lwansbrough wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Re: Never talk to the police

#76

Post by lwansbrough »

ceejayoz wrote: post #72
lwansbrough wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Never talk to the police

#77

Post by cucumber3732842 »

Brendinooo wrote: post #62
Spooky23 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

>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".

Re: Never talk to the police

#78

Post by buellerbueller »

pseudalopex wrote: post #48
buellerbueller wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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...

Re: Never talk to the police

#79

Post by ceejayoz »

lwansbrough wrote: post #76
ceejayoz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

Re: Never talk to the police

#80

Post by spelk »

thayne wrote: post #39

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 mig…

>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).

Post reply on HN