Whatever the ranking of a school, it is the experience as defense attorney that's critical. In any case, his advice is echoed by Supreme Court Justices and other attorneys - he's just more colorful and his lecture gained a certain amount of internet fame, which is why I linked to it here... it's not your typical "dry" legal lecture, so it's fun to watch. Regardless, there is not much argument that the advice itself is spot on - I have not seen anyone anywhere make a case for anything else.
So I got stopped by a cop.
- Thread starter Evan S
- Start date
ullanta
Veteran
I've found many in a cursory web search. I'm out the door now, but will post some later tonight if anyone cares. Basically, most hinge on the issues of witnesses and the need for victims to feel free to report crimes against them....
If you are guilty - yes. But also if you are NOT guilty, or NOT involved in any way. We have a particular legal system set up: adversarial. There are advantages and disadvantages to this system (f.ex. the French system is quite different). Personally, I'm fine with the American system. However, you have to know how to handle yourself - and in the case of interacting with an LEO, the best advice is to take the 5th every single time.
That would be interesting. The issue of witnesses is complicated, as is reporting a crime - you may wish to avail yourself of an attorney when you interact with a LEO, if circumstances allow... otherwise you may find yourself accused of the crime you just reported. Beware - be very, very careful with LEOs.
Evan S
Veteran
Lets set the record straight here. no one called the cops - they were patrolling. My girlfriend and I had not fought. I was on my way out. I was going to go home right when they pulled up they blocked me in.
It is possible that she did inflate it a bit. Which is why I said "second-hand knowledge" I didn't hear it myself. The officers in question were training, according to the IA.
Anyway, when they pulled up I was already shaken. I don't like cops. I was understandbly nervous. The way they ask questions is directed specifically to get a certain response. It was a lot of "maybe" I feel that way, "maybe" I don't. Eitherway I still feel the cop was more in the wrong than I. Once he found that my girlfriend was FINE and the family was FINE with me being there he should have apoligized and left. However, he procceeding to grill me about the situation. A situation that existed ONLY IN HIS MIND. The Female police officer was SILENT 80% of the time.
After this expeirence I agree with the pleading the 5th. I WISH I knew this before hand. Lesson learned it's just disheartening. Like I said I understand his initial reaction and stopping me, but after litterally what was an HOUR and 10 minutes of asking me questions it felt very exessive. I was not doing anything illegal, and I most certainly did not harm anyone else. I was never handcuffed and never deemed a threath to officers or those around me.
He blew it way out of proportion.
It is possible that she did inflate it a bit. Which is why I said "second-hand knowledge" I didn't hear it myself. The officers in question were training, according to the IA.
Anyway, when they pulled up I was already shaken. I don't like cops. I was understandbly nervous. The way they ask questions is directed specifically to get a certain response. It was a lot of "maybe" I feel that way, "maybe" I don't. Eitherway I still feel the cop was more in the wrong than I. Once he found that my girlfriend was FINE and the family was FINE with me being there he should have apoligized and left. However, he procceeding to grill me about the situation. A situation that existed ONLY IN HIS MIND. The Female police officer was SILENT 80% of the time.
After this expeirence I agree with the pleading the 5th. I WISH I knew this before hand. Lesson learned it's just disheartening. Like I said I understand his initial reaction and stopping me, but after litterally what was an HOUR and 10 minutes of asking me questions it felt very exessive. I was not doing anything illegal, and I most certainly did not harm anyone else. I was never handcuffed and never deemed a threath to officers or those around me.
He blew it way out of proportion.
Understood - but it's good you at least learned from the experience. As the video states, it's the 5th all the way in your situation, and almost all, if not absolutely all situations. There just isn't a good reason for a cop to root about in your life - nothing good can come of it.
The problem is that just like you, most people are simply not aware of how the legal system works, they don't know their rights, or don't exercise them - and it ends in disaster, should they be unlucky enough to be in the wrong situation. This should be mandatory teaching at school - life 101, together with education on finances, debt, credit cards etc. But as with so much more, schools often don't teach the important stuff. Every kid should have it drilled into their heads: the friendly LEO is not your friend, he has an adversarial relationship with you. Know your rights, and exercise them.
The other side of the coin is that many cops will f**** with you even when you exercise your rights correctly - but you can't help that, there will always be bad cops, just as there will be bad whatever. Such is life.
As to cops - stay off their radar. Don't make eye contact when they pass you - as you learned, the fewer reasons they have to take an interest in you, the better. Good luck!
The problem is that just like you, most people are simply not aware of how the legal system works, they don't know their rights, or don't exercise them - and it ends in disaster, should they be unlucky enough to be in the wrong situation. This should be mandatory teaching at school - life 101, together with education on finances, debt, credit cards etc. But as with so much more, schools often don't teach the important stuff. Every kid should have it drilled into their heads: the friendly LEO is not your friend, he has an adversarial relationship with you. Know your rights, and exercise them.
The other side of the coin is that many cops will f**** with you even when you exercise your rights correctly - but you can't help that, there will always be bad cops, just as there will be bad whatever. Such is life.
As to cops - stay off their radar. Don't make eye contact when they pass you - as you learned, the fewer reasons they have to take an interest in you, the better. Good luck!
ullanta
Veteran
Keeping the record straight: I don't think anyone here is saying you did anything wrong! We're just letting our imaginations run loose with everyone's possible motivations, etc.
But all that we have to go on is your description, and that does sound a little creepy and weird. You were "shaken", making eye contact with the cops, trying to leave right after the cops pass by (right after this weird eye contact), sitting outside someone's house when that person didn't want to see you, telling the cops you were sad and disappointed...
Nothing wrong, but a little suspicion-raising. Sounds like they indeed over-reacted. But not so badly that I'd stop talking to cops. It all worked out pretty well, no? Not as bad as the time I was dragged out of bed to the police station three nights in a row at 4am on false harassment charges... but that was kinda fun...
But all that we have to go on is your description, and that does sound a little creepy and weird. You were "shaken", making eye contact with the cops, trying to leave right after the cops pass by (right after this weird eye contact), sitting outside someone's house when that person didn't want to see you, telling the cops you were sad and disappointed...
Nothing wrong, but a little suspicion-raising. Sounds like they indeed over-reacted. But not so badly that I'd stop talking to cops. It all worked out pretty well, no? Not as bad as the time I was dragged out of bed to the police station three nights in a row at 4am on false harassment charges... but that was kinda fun...
I very respectfully disagree. I urge everyone to watch that video carefully and more importantly, try to understand the issues. Just because it appeared to "work out", does not, emphatically does not mean that it was right to talk to the cops. The advice is still valid: NO, do NOT talk to the cops. Just because you didn't end up arrested or in some kind of deep trouble, doesn't mean it was smart to utterly disregard legal advice the best legal minds have given (Supreme Court Justices etc.). It's like saying, "well, I jogged on the autobahn, and guess what, nothing happened - some violent braking, screeching tires and curses, but hey, I'm alive and fine". Talking voluntarily to the cops is equivalent to jogging on the autobahn in this example: you may survive, nothing bad may happen - it is still HIGLY INADVISABLE and why take the risk? Again, everyone watch the video and ponder the lessons: NEVER EVER talk to LEOs, period - other than state your name and address of residence. If this didn't concern people's lives, fine - but wrong advice here, like "don't worry, jog happily", can be disastrous, and so, warnings must be issued.
Nektonic
Veteran
It took him an hour and 10 minutes to question you and determine that you were not causing any trouble or breaking any laws and that your girlfriend was fine?:huh:
Seriously, I hope this officer doesn't ever attempt to make detective, cause his chances don't sound very good. I can understand that at first they were just doing their job by asking you why you were there, but beyond that it sounds absolutely ridiculous as to how far they took the situation.
Yes, whatever floats your boat - with the proviso that while we are all entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to our "facts". Either the risks in the American legal system are stacked against those who choose to speak to cops, or they are not - that's a factual legal matter, not a question of opinion. Not knowing the law, or ignoring it, is not an excuse - as has been affirmed repeatedly. Anyone should feel free to do as they wish, but be aware that there are always consequences to your actions. Personally, I choose to listen to the advice of some of the finest legal minds in this country. Watch that video and make up your own mind. And as for opposing views - I have not seen any from a legal authority or source... and I have welcomed being shown otherwise. The choice is up to each of us.
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
I don't know which way to go with this one. I'm a 36 year old black man living in Chicago, yet I have only had one negative incident with a cop in my whole life. He asked to search my bag (and a friend's) without probable cause. I refused and we walked away. So far cops have always been helpful or at worst simply left me alone. I've had more problems with security guards. But if I ever get into trouble I think I would take this advice. It makes sense.
There have been cases of people calling cops then being taken to jail when they were the victim.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0Oqa-oHoOo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te-xtddgL_s&feature=related
-Nate
Last edited:
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
The exception, not the rule.
This of course is plain wrong. Talking to "ANYONE" is emphatically not the same as talking to a LEO. A police officer can provide evidence against you, but cannot provide evidence in your favor. That's the way our system is set up. Really, folks should watch that video for educational purposes - that point is made very clearly. Just "anyone" is not going to have the same power to turn your words against you - a LEO is in a unique position under our legal system.
The fact that cops are "tasked with protecting us" is a non-sequitur. Sure. And a machine gun is used for protection - but you must understand how to handle a machine gun. Or a police officer. You don't stick the gun to your own temple and pull the trigger. And you don't talk to a police officer. Both have their function - "protection", as long as they are used appropriately.
This is not a matter of opinion. You put yourself in jeopardy from a legal point of view when you talk to a LEO. That's why the 5th exists, and that's why legal authorities take the position that you lose rights when you talk to a LEO, and that you should not do so if you wish to protect your own interests. It's not a matter of opinion - it is a matter of law.
Now, you may get away with it - just as you may get away with shooting up heroin. But you are putting yourself at risk of an overdose or other adverse consequences. That's not a matter of opinion, but of medical science. Same with talking to LEOs - you are playing with fire. Don't do it. "But I know many who talked to cops and it was all OK". Sure - and I know junkies who shot up heroin and survived. That still doesn't make either advisable.
Again - watch the video, and address the legal facts, not layman opinion or private fantasies.
ugafan
Looking for a woman
my wife's uncle is in his 60s, he is mentally challenged, and he is nearly deaf. several months ago he was washing his truck on the grass at the apartment complex where he lives. after he was done washing his truck, the ground was muddy and the truck got stuck. he tried driving out of it, but the tires dug into the ground and started flinging mud. seeing the mud flying, someone at the complex called the cops and told them he was driving recklessly. the police show up and start to question the uncle, but he couldn't understand what they were saying because he didn't have his hearing aids. apparently the officers didn't realize that he couldn't understand what they were instructing him to do and they end up trying to arresting him. because the uncle didn't know what was going on, he struggled with the officers and they basically beat the crap out of him to subdue him. he ended up in the hospital with several broken ribs. he was charged with reckless driving and resisting arrest, but fortunately the judge dropped the charges.
all of this started with a senior citizen washing his truck. it's crazy how quickly it can escalate when people overreact and don't assess the situation correctly.
all of this started with a senior citizen washing his truck. it's crazy how quickly it can escalate when people overreact and don't assess the situation correctly.
Evan S
Veteran
I knew once they turned the corner they were going to talk to me. I FULLY understood the situation. I thought great. Here I am sitting in a parked car infront of a house with my window rolled down looking through my phone. I was shaken because I didn't expect them to whip around into a u-turn and psychically block my car from moving. They were going pretty fast and hit their breaks pretty hard when I made eye-contact. This is in a neighboorhood with a lot of young children playing outside. The whole situation is odd. But the fact remains. It's not weird for me to sit in front of my girlfriends house in my car listening to music or on my phone. I've been with her for 3 years and I do this all the time. It's not out of the ordinary. It was a nice night outside and I decided to sit for a moment and relax before I left to go home.
If I had it all to do over again. I WOULD NOT HAVE TALKED TO THE COPS. Like the previous poster has repeated over and over again. It makes sense. It would have saved me a lot of time, effort, and argument. It was pointless. Next time. DO NOT make eye contact DO NOT talk to them, and follow procedure.
If I had it all to do over again. I WOULD NOT HAVE TALKED TO THE COPS. Like the previous poster has repeated over and over again. It makes sense. It would have saved me a lot of time, effort, and argument. It was pointless. Next time. DO NOT make eye contact DO NOT talk to them, and follow procedure.
ullanta
Veteran
OK, I'll jump back in even though I wanted out!
I haven't heard any of what I consider "the finest legal minds in the country" saying never to speak to cops... I have seen many saying don't speak to cops if you are guilty or a suspect. That makes sense.
There's a bigger picture here though. If all innocent people shun the cops, then we lose all checks and balances in the system. We lose the ability to prosecute criminals. We lose any community relations with the cops. We lose the drive to make policing more fair and less corrupt. We lose our protection and the one place we can turn to when we need it.
Sad as it is, historically, it has been through the process of abuses, public reaction, and reformation that policing has improved. We know that well here in Los Angeles; I'm sure you can find signs of it in other places. If noone interacts with the police, their processes will never change, and all kinds of abuses can happen that will never be reported. If all "legally well informed" people avoid the police, and those who "don't know better" are allowed to be abused by the police, the system will spiral downwards. Self-interest that keeps people from standing up as witnesses, from including police officers in the community, and from working with the police when they have problems, is ultimately self-destructive. If there are to be police at all, they must be engaged with the community to be effective and non-abusive.
What good can possibly come of completely isolating the police force from the non-criminal citizenry? Do you think there should be such an isolated police force? How could it possibly be effective?
I haven't heard any of what I consider "the finest legal minds in the country" saying never to speak to cops... I have seen many saying don't speak to cops if you are guilty or a suspect. That makes sense.
There's a bigger picture here though. If all innocent people shun the cops, then we lose all checks and balances in the system. We lose the ability to prosecute criminals. We lose any community relations with the cops. We lose the drive to make policing more fair and less corrupt. We lose our protection and the one place we can turn to when we need it.
Sad as it is, historically, it has been through the process of abuses, public reaction, and reformation that policing has improved. We know that well here in Los Angeles; I'm sure you can find signs of it in other places. If noone interacts with the police, their processes will never change, and all kinds of abuses can happen that will never be reported. If all "legally well informed" people avoid the police, and those who "don't know better" are allowed to be abused by the police, the system will spiral downwards. Self-interest that keeps people from standing up as witnesses, from including police officers in the community, and from working with the police when they have problems, is ultimately self-destructive. If there are to be police at all, they must be engaged with the community to be effective and non-abusive.
What good can possibly come of completely isolating the police force from the non-criminal citizenry? Do you think there should be such an isolated police force? How could it possibly be effective?
What??! That is all sorts of wrong, wrong, and wrong again. First, wrong on legal advice - every attorney will tell you never to speak to cops, regardless of whether you are guilty or not. That is a fact easily ascertained by reference to any legal authority. And regarding not talking only when you are guilty - i.e. taking the 5th - the exact opposite is the case... judges, legal scholars and attorneys state that if the 5th is used only when you are guilty, then it becomes the refuge of the guilty instead of a right of all innocent people, and therefore we are ALL encouraged to take the 5th, especially if we are innocent, so as to preserve the original purpose of the 5th (this exact point, incidentally is made in the video I linked to!). Sorry, but you are providing misinformation from a legal point of view. To reiterate: taking the 5th is advisable regardless of whether you are guilty or innocent. Understand what the 5th is - by NOT taking it, you are voluntarily relinquishing your rights and your protections REGARDLESS OF GUILT - this places you in legal jeopardy no ifs, buts or maybes - that's a legal fact. The law takes the view that you have abandoned your rights by talking to the cops. Never, ever do that, no matter how innocent you may be - please review the video on that point, or consult any defense attorney who is competent to speak to the issue (i.e. passed the bar, lol, since it's law 101).
The exact opposite is true. If all innocent people took the 5th - we would gain checks and balances. That was the exact purpose of the 5th. You don't have "checks and balances" by using your rights - including the 5th - "sparingly", lol! You have them when you use them broadly. In fact, it's an absurd misstatement - because the 5th IS the check and balance against state power!
No we don't! The same scare-mongering was used when Miranda warning rights were asserted by the Supreme Court. Yet, MR had no negative impact on law enforcement - in fact, studies indicate the exact opposite is true - law enforcement became far more effective, far more democratic and far more fair. Why? Because by preventing abuse of power, by excluding illegally obtained or coerced evidence, we compelled LEOs to actually pursue the true guilty, instead of the easily railroaded, or the tortured or the abused who were used to "solve" crimes while the truly guilty went free. That brought law enforcement to a higher standard with much better results.
Again - the exact opposite is true, as I've said above. We get less corruption in PD - because they have to answer to a higher standard, instead of manufacturing "evidence". Now they actually have to prove the case, instead of relying on "testimony" they've beaten out of some unfortunate. Here's one little fact to ponder. In all countries where the law stands at a low level, and where cop corruption is high, they rely on "confessions" - not on proof gathered through investigation. It is only in "protected" societies, where the standards of protection for the accused are high, where rights of citizens (such as the 5th) are prominent, that we get good law enforcement and minimal corruption. Funny how that works, huh? Same as with the right against unreasonable searches - which applies to innocent bystanders - we gain in less corruption of cops.
Right - that's exactly how we got the 5th and other protections in the first place, lol! Police abuses.
What??! Come again? Yes, there's plenty of interaction with police - should they violate your rights, including the 5th, you sue them! File a lawsuit. That's exactly how reform happens - never through "talking" to a random LEO, lol! Commissions are established, and if necessary reforms and new rights and regulations come about - through federal lawsuits of massive proportions.
Err... no. When we all exercise our rights, we are all better off. The system is healthier for that, not "spiraling downwards". You got it exactly backwards. The problem is not with the people who are well informed legally exercising their rights. The problem is with the ones who are not educated and who give up their rights voluntarily. The way to stop police abuse is by vigorous enforcement of rights, not through abandoning them. Including the 5th - DO NOT talk to cops.
I'm afraid you don't get how the system works. It's adversarial. That's the system we have. That's not the system the French have. Both work. I prefer the American system. And the adversarial system depends on your consciously asserting your rights against the powers of the state - there's a separation of powers, and checks and balances - we don't sit down with LEOs in our system. We set them up with powers, and ourselves with rights against those powers in a system of checks and balances. It works, and yes, it is effective. Again, every system has it's pluses and minuses. Regardless, under our system, we MUST hold onto our rights, including the 5th. It's like a 3 legged stool - remove any one leg (like the 5th), and the system falls. So you are exactly wrong. In order to make it effective, under our system you MUST assert your rights and exercise them vigorously.
Never talk to any LEO for any reason - beyond stating your name and residential address when compelled to.
I again recommend for everyone to review the video carefully. It's a good primer on that issue.
Last edited: