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

91–100 of 154 posts

Re: Never talk to the police

#91

Post by alwa »

ceejayoz wrote: post #42
m348e912 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 [P…

> 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.…

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 ?

Re: Never talk to the police

#92

Post by phkahler »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #83

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 f…

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

Re: Never talk to the police

#93

Post by rationalist »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #83

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 f…

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.

Re: Never talk to the police

#94

Post by ibejoeb »

ceejayoz wrote: post #88
lwansbrough wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Never talk to the police

#95

Post by thayne »

linsomniac wrote: post #69
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…

>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.

Re: Never talk to the police

#96

Post by patwork »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #83

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 f…

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.

Re: Never talk to the police

#97

Post by phkahler »

Cider9986 wrote: post #46
linsomniac wrote: post #37

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

Re: Never talk to the police

#98

Post by ceejayoz »

alwa wrote: post #91
ceejayoz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

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.)

Re: Never talk to the police

#99

Post by onraglanroad »

mcmcmc wrote: post #27
Maxatar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Re: Never talk to the police

#100

Post by mothballed »

alwa wrote: post #91
ceejayoz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

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 ?

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.

Post reply on HN