LOL’s! How naive are you? The police have no duty at all to “protect.” The USSC decided that a good long while ago. As far as serve, well, we can debate. You go on and forfeit your rights. Me? I’ll hang onto mine.
2 Likes
Aside from the tow lot fees being waved I’n pretty sure she’ll get whatever she charges clients for representing them for the time spent in Police custody as an out of court settlement. Should she have answered, yes but did she have to answer, no.
Really? So, in this case she was speeding. Let’s say she said “No, I don’t”. That means the driver has either admitted to driver inattention or is operating a vehicle without a working speedometer. How could it possibly help the driver to say that?
1 Like
One’s mileage will vary depending on the officer in question. Some of them merely are asking the driver to explain themselves and will react accordingly (give a warning, issue ticket, etc). While others already have in mind that they are going to issue a ticket and are looking for excuses to do so from whatever the driver says/does.
I actually got pulled over yesterday and the officer knew i knew that i was speeding, but i was upfront and honest that i just was not paying attention to my speed. I knew i was speeding but didn’t realize how fast i was going. He let me off with a warning and was quite cordial about it.
1 Like
Until the extra-judicial murder of suspects has ended, the courts demonstrate that they feel the police are subject to the same laws as the rest of the U.S., and the rule of law has been restored I feel it’s best to assume the worst about the police and behave defensively.
4 Likes
Definitely. I don’t disagree, but i’m not going to display hostility to a police officer by refusing to answer questions. If someone wants to do so it’s their right, i don’t fault them for it, but i’m not going to do that.
1 Like
Be very careful with any line of thought which views exercising your right to not speak as hostility. That’s exactly the same king of reasoning that gets people arrested like this woman or worse.
2 Likes
How the hell could anyone prove I knew why they pulled me over, regardless of me doing anything wrong. In my case, I answer, “Because you had a fight with your wife last night and lost?”
I never get out of tickets.
4 Likes
Well isn’t refusing to answer questions to an officer inherently seen as being hostile? I can’t think of an instance where it doesn’t end in someone being arrested. If someone wants to do that to prove a point then cool for them, i don’t have time for that kind of nonsense.
2 Likes
You may be right. The current atmosphere is one of authoritarian apology where if one does not display slave like defference to a cop, they are seen as hostile. In my mind, that’s a serious social and legal issue that needs addressing ASAP. Just remember, if you reinforce the idea that exercising your protected rights is grounds for arrest, you are likely contributing to the problem.
4 Likes
Hmmm, how do you know the police officer is not also a federal officer? After all, it’s not like they have to tell you the truth if you ask.
Some cops and soldiers are bad.
Some cops and soldiers are good.
The cops and soldiers who ignore, hide, lie about, or otherwise enable bad cops and soldiers are themselves also bad cops and soldiers.
15 Likes
Hi, person who is a lawyer on the Internet 
Can shed some light on the questions I asked upthread?
And thanks for your other thread inputs.
1 Like
You’ve asserted this several times in several posts so I’ll ask you to back this statement up with some facts.
What law of the land states that you have the right to refuse to answer any questions asked of you by the police when you’re not in police custody?
I’ll be eagerly awaiting your response.
I would have to look at the statute, but my guess is that it contains the adverb “knowingly.”
1 Like
I think this helps to provide some background to why a lawyer might take the stance this one did…
Curbing Aggressive Police Tactics during Routine
Traffic Stops in Illinois
http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1212&context=luclj
It’s from 2005 but the general gist is there.
And of course this classic: Jay-Z’s 99 Problems, Verse 2: A Close Reading with Fourth Amendment Guidance for Cops and Perps
1 Like
Good for this and other lawyers. I don’t have time to get my ass arrested and taken to court.
2 Likes
Well, that’s fair enough.
I don’t understand why you (and others, not intending to single you out) get hot under the collar when someone else does.
As other people have pointed out (along with the papers I linked to), there appears to be an increasing trend for police officers to use traffic stops in ways that push if not exceed the boundaries of what US law says the police are entitled to do.
So for example, the classic “Do you know why I’ve pulled you over?” is the start of a slippery slope of police misconduct.
They are supposed to tell you why they’ve pulled you over because if it turns out the reason they claim to have pulled you over was bogus, you have rights and protections.
If you answer, " Yes officer, I guess I was speeding" then you have immediately justified the stop. You are doing their job for them.
It’s the same with asking you to leave the vehicle. As I understand it they are entitled to order you to leave the vehicle. By asking you nicely, they are not just being polite, they condition you to comply with their wishes.
That eventually leads up to “Are you carrying anything you shouldn’t be?”, “No, well then I guess you won’t mind if I search the vehicle?”
There are rules governing when and how a police officer can search a vehicle. If you give consent, all those fly out of the window.
The police are asking the people they interact with to waive their rights. Without telling them that is what they are doing. That appears to be deliberate policy and part of their training.
Some people feel strongly that that is wrong. They protest about it.
One way a lawyer can protest is by sticking to their rights and getting arrested (whether this lawyer got the details right is irrelevant for the purpose of discussing why she might have done it).
It certainly generates publicity for a cause.
Do I have time to get arrested for protesting?
No, but I’m glad that other people do.
7 Likes
[quote=“L0ki, post:123, topic:103381”]
I don’t understand why you (and others, not intending to single you out) get hot under the collar when someone else does.
[/quote] Frankly i don’t have an issue with it. I don’t fully understand why someone would want to do so, but i am keenly aware that they’re fully within their right to not cooperate. It also helps that she’s a lawyer.
Police misconduct is somewhat related but honestly i can’t imagine an even headed police officer thinking that someone refusing to answer questions isn’t hiding something. Doing so is not going to end up in high fives with the officer and selfies. Seems more like a tactic to legally antagonize a police officer, and if that’s this lawyer’s prerogative then more power to them.
2 Likes
I guess I think that a police officer is not entitled to get antagonised by someone exercising their rights (or at all really given that they are armed and have the force of the state at their back).
They have significant power and responsibility vested in them. They have various controls on how and when they are entitled to exercise those powers. Those controls are there for reasons which presumably seemed good to the US people at some time.
If the police are going to consider people requiring them to stick to the rules as inherently suspicious (and act on that suspicion) then you might as well not have the rules in the first place. That’s fine too but it’s not the current US system.
As I say, I wouldn’t do it personally but I do find it concerning that society is at a point where a common reaction to this sort of story is basically, “well, what was she expecting, that’s what happens when you poke a bear with a stick”.
5 Likes
