Talking to cops

[ZarakiKujata]

I'd assume the cops?? sorry ,I just thought that was funny. Most police don't go into the profession because of their intellect.

not attacking you or anything, just thought it was funny because of the topic at hand.

So many scenes in the Wire relating to this (McNulty, Bunk, and Lester Freamon being smartest fucks in the department) but this is one of the better ones if slightly offtopic.



edit: fuck wrong scene with these two from that episode... still a great one oh well.

[Yugl]

I recognize this point, the stories about overzealous prosecutors under pressure to close cases, over worked public defenders and overloaded court dockets are not uncommon. The system certainly has its problems, nevertheless, starting an encounter with a police officer with “I plead the fifth officer” during something like a routine traffic stop strikes me as just a little bit ignorant.

Alright, I see where you stand on this and I'll agree to a degree (I'm not a fan of universal statements, so I have to leave room for disagreement in specific/nontraditional standards).

[Arrmani]

I remember it from a bunch of constitutional law classes, but a quick wiki of terry v. ohio says the Supreme Court majority opinion disagrees with you.



Although I could be remembering things wrong, or maybe the phrase "terry stop" has been broadened in scope in some areas.

My prof said during a Terry Stop, the pat down is only for weapons. Anything else they feel is irrelevant and they can't take it out of your pockets.
She also always said to not carry ID if you're underage drinking, and run from the cops if you're black (which she is).
Also, in some states, your car can be searched if you're placed under arrest, so locking it is a good idea. The only time an officer can go in is they see something illegal in PLAIN VIEW. Sometimes bags can be searched. You should never consent to a search though, especially if you have something to hide.

[Gorki]

Okay so obviously lying to a cop is illegal. Say your pulled over, cop comes to window, says he smells marijuana, asks if you smoked/posses said marijuana.
And you do infact either have weed/paraphernalia in your car.
Do you...
A. Deny having it (Lie)
B. Admit (hoping for leniency?)
C. I PLEED THE 5TH
extraneous details: how bad it smells, how much you have on you( just paraphernalia), prior record, black

[rog]

black

Probably would want to try denying it, and if that doesn't work (this probably depends on how dark your skin is), just shoot the cop, then dump the car (just steal another one later, np), and move to canadaland.

[Nephlite]

If the above doesn't work then denying it will either cause the cop to have you step out of the car which in turn he'll search it for the drugs (plain view here). Admitting it will probably get you a simple possession and I haven't seen one of those drop any jail time in the 7 years i've been in law enforcement (weed is so 1970's nowadays...) Dummying up will just prompt #1 to happen and more than likely if you get stopped by a county or municipal unit then they'll bring a K-9 by to confirm and search you anyways. Just don't do anything else stupid and you should be able to pull through it (i've heard of people dumping excess in to the glove box but you gotta be on fucking point with it because if they find a CRUMB on your dash, you're boned).

Oh and at least in D.C. if we pop you for any number of stuff where you think you can get out of it by not carrying an I.D., we arrest you and fingerprint you under John Doe then tack on an obstructing charge on you when we get your name back from AFIS. In real life time you're looking at at least 2 weeks in central till you at LEAST make citation.

[miokomioko]

Hey Nephlite... I'm kinda' curious about a (illegitimate?) booking I had done a long time ago... which I'm wondering if I could get undone or something just because I'd rather not have my mug/prints on file or any input you might have on the subject, if you're familiar with this end of things.

I had graduated high school a year before my old girlfriend way back in the day (2000). While she was still a senior, I came onto campus to bring her some lunch one day, and the local liaison douchebag recognized me from a previous, unrelated incident where he kicked me out for skateboarding in the school's parking lot (way after hours) a few weeks prior. He recognized me by my beanie, immediately flipped his lid (while I was trying to leave), and called over the school's local campus police officer and demanded that he ticket me for trespassing. The cop made me go with him and sat me down in an office. As soon as the liaison shitbag had finished yelling at me and left the room, the cop pretty much apologized for how big of an asshole the guy was and basically sat there complaining about him and basically said he was sorry for having to write the ticket and that it wouldn't really be a big deal. So he hands me the ticket. I go on my merry way.

Fast forward a few months(?) to the day I'm supposed to get booked (it might have been the same day as the court hearing, I don't remember). I show up at the police department and say I'm there to be booked for a trespassing charge and I give them my name and whatnot and they type some shit and make me sit and wait. They take my mugs, they take my prints, they make me wait again. Then the same bitch comes up to me and says there's absolutely no record of any ticket, trespassing or anything on my name. At that moment, I was just psyched because I assumed that the cop just decided to toss the ticket and not turn it in, so I immediately left. It didn't occur to me until later, that they essentially booked me for absolutely no reason and now my shit was on file and that didn't sit well with me. Paranoia, sure, but I just don't like the idea of having my fingerprints on file if they didn't have to be.

I was always wondering if I could make a stink about it and have the shit deleted, or if the option to not be booked was waived as I simply agreed to it at the time even though they didn't have any record of a scheduled booking. Not to mention, even if it were a possibility to get the files removed, I doubt they would actually do it.

Is there any clear solution to this?

[Fhqwghads]

If you're stupid enough to smoke weed in your car you deserve to get caught. That being said I would not answer directly, and ask if I was being detained or free to go. Again, and again. Don't ever admit to wrongdoing. Possession isn't a simple traffic stop. Admit to nothing and lawyer up if you get caught. This is the same answer I'd repeat to any hyoptheticals thrown out there. You do not know what the cop knows. An answer to a seemingly benign question could put you in hot water. It's simply not worth it.

[Dimmauk]

Slightly unrelated, but

The answer to "have you had anything to drink tonight?" is ALWAYS "no sir"

ALWAYS.

There's no point in admitting to a couple drinks, it pretty much guarantees they will brethalyzer you, and runs the risk of you being just over the limit. There's no penalty for lying in this situation, and often the cop won't know if you've been drinking or not.

And if you're drunk? If you know you'll blow hot? Then lie your fucking face off...with a simple "no sir". The only chance you have in that situation is for the cop to believe you and not consider pulling you out for a field sobriety test.

(jmc i'd like your opinion on the above - but it's worked for me a couple times)

Have you heard what is happening in Texas?

"a handful of Texas Cities started a controversial 'no refusal' policy for drawing blood in cases of suspected driving while intoxicated in Texas. The initiative has been used across Texas on certain holiday weekends, utilizing warrants that require defendants to provide blood samples if they refuse to submit to breath-tests or refuse to give samples voluntarily. Now many Police Departments want to expand it to a year-round effort.
"

"Consider the following hypothetical: Imagine yourself on the way home from late dinner at a local Italian diner when you get stopped for failing to signal a lane change with no other traffic near your car. You explain to the officer that you had two glasses of wine with your meal but you are not intoxicated. The officer notices that you have bloodshot eyes, appear sluggish and lethargic and he smells the odor of an alcoholic beverage on your breath. He asks you to exit your vehicle and perform some “simple roadside agility tests”. Before agreeing to perform the tests you recall your day so far:

– got up this morning at 5:00 a.m. and got in a tough workout at the gym before going to the office. You spent all morning on the computer and after an energy bar for lunch got right back in front of the computer screen. You worked on a new assignment until 7:30 p.m. and then stopped by your elderly mother’s house to visit and help her with a few physical chores that she was unable to do for herself. You are physically tired but stopped to eat a bite on the way home.

Wanting to cooperate but unsure of your rights as a citizen you ask if it would be alright to speak to an attorney friend before taking the tests. The officer tells you that if you do not cooperate you will be arrested for DWI and taken to jail “due to the manifestations of intoxication he has already identified about your person.” Because you consider yourself to be in pretty good shape for a person your age you decide that doing the tests is preferable to jail. You fail to mention your past physical sports injuries when he asked if you are injured since they are not something you are currently receiving treatment for.

The officer shines his flashlight in your eyes and tells you to follow his finger with your eyes while keeping your head still. You attempt to do as instructed but he yells at you twice to “keep your head still” and says “can’t you follow my simple instructions.” The officer keeps talking into the microphone on his shoulder during this eye test but you don’t understand the terms he is using. Then he starts telling you about a Walk and Turn test. You are worried that your past leg and back problems could interfere with your performance.

Your anxiety is heightened when you realized that the officer is giving a lot of instructions and you have never tried these physical skills before. When he asks “do you understand?” you say yes so you don’t look like someone that can’t understand these “simple instructions”. You become concerned and again ask for permission to call your attorney on your cell phone before you try to take anymore test. The officer then places you under arrest and asks if you are willing to provide a breath test. When you ask to speak to an attorney for the third time he tells you that he considers that “a refusal”. You are handcuffed, placed in back of the patrol car and taken to the jail where a nurse awaits you with a hypodermic needle and draws your blood. As your blood is being pulled from your veins you ask yourself how are you going to explain this to your wife, kids, boss and your mother. You ask yourself – how did this nightmare happen?

Texas Law provides for the taking of blood without a warrant in Intoxication Manslaughter (fatalities) and Intoxication Assault (serious bodily injury) cases. The only issue in those situations is whether or not the officer has a belief that intoxication is involved. They cannot just take your blood without some indication that you are under the influence of an intoxicating substance. Otherwise, a blood draw would be allowed in every auto accident that resulting in death or injury. That law was written to assure that the blood draw could be done without delay in case there was no judge or magistrate available to sign a warrant and the evidence would be lost.

The latest fade in the “War on DWI” is the Blood Search Warrant. In Texas and throughout the nation, Law Enforcement agencies have found a loophole to circumvent the restriction on taking blood except in those most serious cases described above. By obtaining a Blood Search Warrant signed by a Magistrate the police have effectively extended the Statutorily allowed blood draw to any and all DWI cases."

We call it the Vampire law here in San Antonio.

[archibaldcrane]

That's why you ALWAYS say "no sir".

ALWAYS.

[Niiro]

You ask yourself – how did this nightmare happen?

A) You're a moron and refused a breath test knowing you weren't drunk and would have blown below the limit, which would have ended the whole thing right then and there.

B) You refused the test because you were above the limit and deserve to be busted.

Nothing about that little hypothetical bothers me in the least, I've always felt drunk (or otherwise impaired) driving penalties are way, way too lax.

[Yugl]

How about people just stop speeding, smoking weed, and driving drunk? Just an idea, not a command.

[jmc]

@miok

You should be fine if there was no citation in the system. You were not even added to CJIS, clerk probably just ran a query to make sure you didn't pop up as wanted (and to see if you were who you are). It was more than likely the sane query check you receive when pulled over by a officer (different states might do things differently)

As for the Texas vampire law....

1) I like the dirty needle reference there, good way for the author to throw in some disgust to readers.

2) if your not drunk, and you refuse the breathalyzer..... I see it as idiotic, and a great way to "stick it to the man"

[Correction]

How about people just stop speeding, smoking weed, and driving drunk? Just an idea, not a command.

Why you gotta hate America, Yugl?

[Maaglin]

Most states (all?) have the implied consent law, in that in order to be issued a driver's license you are required (and agreed to by accepting a driver's license) to submit to a BAC test (either breath/urine/blood) when requested. The penalty is usually a 1 year suspension of your license if you refuse. Also interesting to note, that this is the state doing this, not the court, so that if you went to trial and were found not guilty, you could still have your license suspended.

Also, you are not under any obligation to ever submit to roadside sobriety tests and you never should. Obviously these tests are stacked against you and in most cases, the officer has already made his determination to take you in and is now just building a case.

[Yugl]

Why you gotta hate America, Yugl?

Liberty empowered me to do so.

[archibaldcrane]

Also, you are not under any obligation to ever submit to roadside sobriety tests and you never should. Obviously these tests are stacked against you and in most cases, the officer has already made his determination to take you in and is now just building a case.

JMC, is this true? Can you do the "are you detaining me or am I free to go" at requests to do a field sobriety test (follow this light with your eyes, or "step out of the car") if you haven't admitted to alcohol consumption?

[jmc]

You always have the right to refuse a field sobriety or breathalyzer test in the field. You will be arrested though for driving under the influence still.

From there police will usually seek a warrant for a blood sample (not hard to get no matter what the time is in large towns). There's also the possibility that you could still be trailed for driving under the influence even with no breathalyzer test. I've only seen it once, but combine police video cameras with the refusal to submit to any tests and it was just not good for the defendant.


Tdlr, depends on state laws.....can refuse in the field, but you will be arrested or detained.

[SephYuyX]

So, lets say..

If you were to get pulled over, and honestly have not been drinking. Whats the best way to go about it?

If you were to get pulled over, and have been drinking. Whats the best way to go about it?

[rog]

If you were to get pulled over, and honestly have not been drinking. Whats the best way to go about it?

A .00 on the breathalyzer might convince him.