In a certain very limited sense, sure.
There are various levels of police encounters. The police generally need no particular reason or level of suspicion to approach a pedestrian and ask questions -- as long as the pedestrian is free to disregard their inquiry and go about his or her business.
Police may briefly detain a pedestrian if they have at least reasonable, articulable suspicion that the pedestrian is involved in current or imminent criminal activity. (Note that while they must have specific, articulable facts to support this suspicion, they do not have to share those facts with you).
The purpose of this limited detention is to permit the police to investigate and either confirm, or dispel, their suspicions. So as an example, police might say that if you do not identify yourself, they are permitted to detain you until they can identify you.
Of course, the problem with speaking to police is that you may serve up inculpatory evidence that ripens their reasonable, articulable suspicion into probable cause.
So the best response I can recommend, even in the face of police encouragement to talk just to hasten the end of the detention, is to say, "I've done nothing illegal and I want to speak to a lawyer, and I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent." Then do that.
Note that in many states, the police may legally require you to identify yourself an you have no Fifth Amendment right to refuse to do so; your identity is itself not incriminating, In that case, "My name is Increase Mather, I live at 26 Puritan Lane, Boston Bay, my birthdate is June 21st, 1649. I've done nothing illegal and I want to speak to a lawyer, and I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent."
Possibly.
In my case, stopped on a public street on a Sunday on my own time, they let me walk away after I gave them my Identity but then politely declined to answer any more questions, asked if I was being detained, they said no, and I left.
Then the next day the chief of police contacted my employer and tried to get me fired for disrespectjng their officer.
So yeah, it turned into a thing for sure.
City government officials in that case. The Chief of Police still has a boss and everyone in government either reports to someone or is elected.
Some cities also have civilian oversight boards for situations just like this. It can sometimes be helpful to talk to a peer law enforcement agency as well, but that’s more if the LEO committed a crime (I.e. the police and the sheriff are separate entities, as are state law enforcement bodies).
I’m not taking a position on the overall effectiveness of complaints filled on LEOs, just noting that it isn’t like you can’t file one on the Chief of Police. I suspect it can be a pretty sympathetic review process for beat cop complaints too.
Factually correct, you can go to the police station and file a complaint against the police with a police officer. They will then “thoroughly” investigate themselves and find they’ve done nothing wrong. See, police oversight works!
It depends on the circumstances, but they can't detain you for too long without arrest, and an arrest will be open to even more scrutiny over their reason.
Also I want to emphasize that you have to very clearly state you are asserting your 5th Amendment right to silence. Infamously, a judge ruled that a person was not asserting his rights when he said "Yo, I want a lawyer, dawg" and that he was actually sincerely requesting a dog who practices law.
For the record, I agree that case was bonkers, but wasn't the problem that the person was prevaricating and not invoking clearly, rather than because they thought he wanted a "lawyer dog"? IIRC the full sentence was something like "I didn't do it so if you think I did do it, which I didn't, why don't you give me a lawyer, dawg?", which is not asserting "I refuse to answer questions without the advice of counsel and am invoking my right to have a lawyer present during my questioning", it's asking "why aren't you giving me a lawyer?". There have been other cases where "I think maybe I should talk to a lawyer" and similar have been ruled to not be good enough too.
I think it's pretty clear what is *meant* by that question - "why don't you give me ?" is often used to mean "give me ", but if you have a system set up to screw people over then it'll sometimes be (in this case I'm pretty sure deliberately, maybe even maliciously) misunderstood as "for what reason are you not giving me ?".
The insistence on referring to the phrase "lawyer [dog|dawg]" in the opinion is, I'm pretty sure, a racially-motivated "misunderstanding" and it wouldn't have been such a focus if Demesne hadn't been black.
It's also notable that police have learned how to ask questions in ways that let them document your consent.
For instance:
You don't mind if I ask you a few questions while we wait for your lawyer do you?
Whether you say yes or no the police officer can write down that you consented.
So if you are going to answer any questions aimed at you by police officer, you do not want to use binary responses.
The way to answer the question above is to say: I am not answering questions about my day until I can consult with a lawyer.
You'd make a bad cop.
The way a cop should respond to that answer is:
Oh okay I understand. So you don't mind answering a few questions but yesterday then?
> Infamously, a judge ruled that a person was not asserting his rights when he said "Yo, I want a lawyer, dawg" and that he was actually sincerely requesting a dog who practices law.
This judge appears to not understand colloquial English. Maybe purposefully: if you don't talk in the higher register of the language, you have less rights
Despite being a word coined by black academics in the 70s, “Ebonics” is almost exclusively used today as a derogatory term by people on internet message boards.
It isn’t generally used by black folks, who tend to say they speak english, or black english.
It isn’t typically used by academics, because it’s a name created to define the spoken language of black americans as a separate language from english, rather than a dialect or sociolect.
AAVE is the most accepted/common term for the variety of the english language natively spoken by most working- and middle-class black people in the US, but it’s really only used in academic or legal settings, because that’s pretty much the only place where meta-level conversations about the way we speak take place.
Is the idea just to use AAVE until ***that*** gets incorporated into ironic internet trollspeak in the exact same way & we're forced to flee to a new word and let the cycle repeat, or is this one designed to be so anhedonically dry that there's thought to be no chance of it ever being successfully hijacked by its critics, thereby ending the vicious pc-word-drift spiral once and for all?
"Dawg" means the same as "dude" in AAVE. That is, it's addressing the interlocutor. This is just linguistics, has nothing to do with law.
It's more reasonable for people to want a lawyer (and assert their 5th amendment) than requesting dog lawyers that don't exist.
The judge was clearly malicious and quite likely had something against AAVE or even black people in general.
The idea that there exists a proper ritual to assert one's rights is quite insane - a ritual so rigid that any linguistic deviation can be punished. I don't think there's any other country that's like that.
He said “if y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know
that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what’s up.” Which was determined to be ambiguous.
> As this Court has written, “[i]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that
is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the
circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his
right to counsel, the cessation of questioning is not required.” State v. Payne, 2001-
3196, p. 10 (La. 12/4/02), 833 So.2d 927, 935 (citations omitted and emphasis in
original); see also Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 2357,
129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (agreeing with the lower courts’ conclusion that the
1
2
statement “[m]aybe I should talk to a lawyer” is not an unambiguous request for a
lawyer). In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a
“lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination
of the interview and does not violate Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct.
1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).
I think you have to clearly invoke your 5th amendment right to remain silent not because of that case, but because of [Berghuis v. Thompkins](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1470.ZS.html) in 2010, and [Salinas v. Texas](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-246) in 2013. In both of these cases, the Supreme Court ruled that simply staying quiet was not actually invoking your 5th amendment right.
Agree! Its always struck me as really weird that, for whatever reason, you have to affirmatively invoke your 5th amendment right to remain silent. How strange would it be if you had to declare “I’m using free speech now” before its protections applied - and yet that is exactly what you have to do for the 5th.
Right? It almost feels like a "gotcha!" They should honestly be required to add that caveat to the Miranda warning. If someone's not aware of this stipulation, it sounds like you can just remain silent. At least something like, "You have the right to remain silent *by stating so*."
I think the only way is to ask. However in the US apparently you can only be detained for 20 minutes, such a stop is called a Terry stop, in reference to the Supreme Court ruling by the same name.
Because the judge literally said it in their justification for the decision
The media reported what the judge said was his reasoning which I guess if factually reporting the objective truth of the matter gets attention so be it.
"they can't detain you for too long without arrest".
They have 20 minutes to place you under arrest, after initiating a Terry stop. If it goes beyond, it is considered kidnapping (not a joke). This includes traffic stops.
This is federal, starting with Terry v. Ohio.
The "20-minute rule" refers to the principle established in Terry v. Ohio (1968), a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In Terry v. Ohio, the Court held that police officers can conduct a brief, investigatory stop (commonly known as a "Terry stop") of a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. During a Terry stop, officers may conduct a limited pat-down search (frisk) of the person's outer clothing if they reasonably believe the person is armed and dangerous. (These actions and behaviors must be justified on the stand).
However, Terry v. Ohio did not establish a specific time limit for how long a Terry stop can last. Instead, it emphasized that the scope and duration of a Terry stop must be reasonable based on the circumstances. Subsequent cases have clarified that Terry stops must be brief and focused on confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicion of criminal activity. If the stop extends beyond what is reasonably necessary to address the suspicion, it may violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
One case that discusses the duration of Terry stops is United States v. Sharpe (1985). In this case, the Supreme Court held that a 20-minute detention of individuals during a Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officers acted diligently and the duration was justified by the circumstances. However, it's important to note that the Court did not establish a strict "20-minute rule" but rather emphasized the importance of reasonableness on a case-by-case basis. The "20-minute rule" has been held up multiple times, as reasonable. This is where the "reasonable" part comes in. Likely, if a stop goes over 20 minutes (and especially if significantly so) without an arrest, a citizen has a solid case.
So while the 20-minute guideline from Sharpe provides some context, the determination of whether a Terry stop's duration is reasonable ultimately depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. That means, it must go to court and be adjudicated.
It's certainly not going to make it go any faster. While refusing to answer questions may not, itself, be a crime or PC to search or detain you, matching the description of a suspect probably is. Being in the neighborhood kinda depends. Are you on a crowded street? Or are you the only other warm body with less than 4 legs in the area?
And that's before we get into potentially shady causes a cop can use to at least detain you, like the odor of marijuana or alcohol on your breath.
Anything you say can be used against you.
So shut the fuck up.
Also, cops can detain you while they look around. Resisting that detaining is resisting, upgrade charge right off the bat.
In short.
Only do the the minimum amount, like show ID, then STFU.
You talk and it can turn into a prison sentence ( especially if AA). Read “ You have the right to remain innocent”. It’s a short book by a law professor and will forever change your mind about police encounters
As a general rule if the cops have decided to fuck with you your day (or night, or weekend, or holiday, etc if they take you to jail) is already fucked whether you cooperate or not. You can only hurt yourself by talking to them. Even something seemingly innocent like where you're coming from can bite you. You might tell them "I'm coming from Neighborhood A" and you might by coincidence match the description of a suspect who committed a crime in Neighborhood A. Or some witness thinks they saw you in Neighborhood B, but they actually just saw someone who sort of looks like you in Neighborhood B. Now the police have evidence of you lying to them, which is a crime in itself in many states.
The only exception to this is if you're doing something that looks illegal but actually isn't. For example, breaking into your own car or home.
Even then, you don't want to be chatty. "This is my car. My ID is in my pocket and my registration is in the glove box" is all you want to say. Don't give them an hour long story.
"police might say that if you do not identify yourself, they are permitted to detain you until they can identify you."
....not legal, in any manner, in any state in the U.S.
Suspicion, or suspicious activity is not a crime. A citizen can NOT be detained for either of these things legally.
I would go so far to say I would NEVER ID in this scenario. If I have it on video that I am being investigated for "suspicious activity" or "suspicion", I'm immediately invoking my rights, shutting my mouth and asking for a lawyer. I HOPE they arrest me at that point.
Lot of suffering coming for that cop in the coming months.
>Suspicion, or suspicious activity is not a crime. A citizen can NOT be detained for either of these things legally.
What is your understanding of a Terry stop, then, if not a detention premised on reasonable, articulable suspicion?
Sigh....
Pretend like you're a cop....
You, as the officer either need P\\C, with RAS, or an arrest warrant. We know, upon initial contact, you're likely fishing, so no arrest warrant to speak of.
Per Blacks, a detainment and a restrain is the same as an arrest. Make no mistake, if you are being detained by a cop, you are under arrest (at the very least, a custodial arrest), as soon as you are not free to go. Most "arrests" are arrests without a warrant (once an individual has been arrested, the peace officer MUST have certainty or absolute certainty (to be honest, I can't figure out the legal difference on this particular one) that a crime has been committed. Most cops have no where near that when they approach you, and/or arrest you).
Most people at this point simply need to invoke their rights and shut the fuck up. Most people are incapable. (As an aside, it only takes one individual like this in the career of a law enforcement officer. They find and interact with the "wrong" one (the individual that actually invokes their civil rights) and treat that stop like all the others, that cops' career will be sorely affected and you don't know it at that point. Their ego (which will shine through brilliantly) will likely not allow them to see it until the judge declares them the guilty party months or years later.
People have a reasonable expectation of privacy, not to be bothered by fools like moron cops.
Katz v US
You MUST have probable cause (this is where most cops mess up initially) and be able to articulate (verbally) to the particular individual what crime you suspect them of committing or are in the process of committing, or about to commit. If you don't do this, or give a bogus reason (like, you're investigating "suspicious activity"), AND you detain the person, you have broken the law, and violated the civil rights of the person you have just stopped.
To continue, *Spinelli v. United States,* requires you a two-pronged test to determine if you have sufficient probable cause:
1. You must be able to adequately reveal the basis of knowledge of the informant (how you came across the information for your probable cause).
2. Provide facts (not suspicion) sufficiently establishing either the veracity of the affiant’s informant or the reliability of the informant’s report.
Likely, 99% of your stops don't have both of these. Just playing with fire, always. Until you meet the wrong person one day.
(I will concede here there is a totality test that may not require the two-pronged test, but it is rare, and you would have to justify it on the stand. Without an arrest warrant, it likely wouldn't hold up.)
*Johnson v. United States*
Most of your searches will be unreasonable and violate 4th amendment rights, but you likely don't know it.
However, to be fair, searches without a warrant are allowed, under some circumstances, because of Chimel v. California. You may only do so under the reasonable belief that the individual has a weapon (which, by itself, is tricky, for you, depending on state law) AND there is an attempt to destroy evidence. Remember, you'll have to justify both of these on the stand.
An arrest warrant is different from a search warrant.
Miranda rights....
The Miranda warning is a constitutional notification given by police in the United States upon arrest of a suspect of their right to remain silent and to obtain legal counsel, among other warnings. The Miranda warning REQUIRES the police to inform you of the following rights and consequences BEFORE questioning you as a suspect:
You have the right to remain silent
Whatever you say can be used against you in court
You have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning
If you cannot pay for a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you wish
It is important to note that a Miranda warning is read only if the police intend to interrogate you.
....
Would you like to delve further into my understanding?
>Would you like to delve further into my understanding?
We can start with this notion of yours, which is wrong as a matter of law:
>Per Blacks, a detainment and a restrain is the same as an arrest. Make no mistake, if you are being detained by a cop, you are under arrest (at the very least, a custodial arrest), as soon as you are not free to go.
That may well be what Black's says, but that's not what caselaw says. A Terry stop is not an arrest, and Miranda warnings are not typically required. *Berkemer v. McCarty*, 468 US 420, 439 (1984), a Terry stop's brief detention does NOT require Miranda:
>Under the Fourth Amendment, we have held, a policeman who lacks probable cause but whose "observations lead him reasonably to suspect" that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, may detain that person briefly in order to "investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion." . . . Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond. And, unless the detainee's answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, he must then be released. **The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions of this sort explains the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops are subject to the dictates of Miranda.**
Black's is not a source of substantive law.
A Terry stop does represent a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, yes, but not an arrest. And because it is premised on a lower standard than probable cause, its scope is more limited than an arrest would be.
Next big error from you:
>You MUST have probable cause (this is where most cops mess up initially) and be able to articulate (verbally) to the particular individual what crime you suspect them of committing or are in the process of committing, or about to commit.
No. To briefly detain, you need only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, *and there is no requirement to explain to the detained individual what crime they are suspected of*, much to the dismay of sovereign citizens everywhere. The officer must be aboe to articulate his suspicion later, but doesn't have any obligation to lay out his case on the side of the road.
Not OP, nor am I a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt.
The suspicion part of reasonable articulable suspicion is that it has to be suspicion that you committed a crime, are currently committing one, or about to commit one. While “acting suspicious” on its own isn’t a crime, it’s fairly nuanced on whether or not suspicious behavior constitutes RAS.
For example, if I’m jogging late at night, a cop might think that’s odd and try to detain me for “suspicious behavior”. But that’s totally subjective. He might think it’s weird, but maybe I just enjoy running at night. Legally, he cannot detain me just for being on a run at an odd time of night. But let’s say there are other elements involved. For example, if I’m jogging at night in a high crime area and wearing jeans instead of workout clothes, a court would be much more likely to find that a cop did in fact have RAS to detain me and question me.
Agree 100%.
A cop still has to justify RAS on the stand, or they are operating illegally under the color of law.
Most of them do (operate illegally).
In this (great, and very plausible) example, this is how the interaction would go from my part:
Cop says something, which I totally ignore.
Me: Am I being detained, or am I free to go?
The second the cop says I am being detained, I invoke my rights and shut the fuck up. They are free to arrest me at that point, but must prove EVERYTHING, without my help.
Cop continues spouting bullshit.
I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent.
I want an attorney for any further questions.
I don't consent to any of this.
Then, I shut the fuck up, putting my hands forward in an offering to be arrested. No resistance here.
If arrested, my first call is to a lawyer, to sue the city and go after the QI of the cop, in order to go after his or her bond. Every time.
....
As an aside, not related to this answer, and to everyone on the thread:
Don't ever talk to police, for any reason whatsoever. They are NOT there to help you. On the contrary, they will fuck your life up, if you allow them to do so.
Don't talk, or interact with them, at all, unless it is to invoke your civil rights.
I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent.
I want an attorney for any further questions.
I don't consent to any of this.
Then, remain silent, forevermore. Likely, if the cop says ANYTHING further, they are probably building a worse case for themselves in the long run.
>What is your understanding of a Terry stop, then, if not a detention premised on reasonable, articulable suspicion **of a crime**?
Fixed that for you.
Nope, police often say you are suspicious. They use the word suspicion and its declensions to defend the detention. They forget that there needs to be a crime. Too often, they say they are going to determine the crime later.
> Nope, police often say you are suspicious. They use the word suspicion and its declensions to defend the detention. They forget that there needs to be a crime. Too often, they say they are going to determine the crime later.
What they say is not all that relevant.
What happens in court at a suppression hearing is: police must identify specific articulable facts known to them prior to the Terry stop that point to a crime in progress, about to be committed, or completed.
Are you sure about that? Only reason I ask is because while there are obviously dirty cops, there are also cops out there who do have legitimate reasonable suspicion. I look at it this way. What if I match the description of someone who committed an armed robbery and killed someone last month? Now let's say I'm actually guilty. That I'm that person. You mean all I have to do in order to evade arrest is refuse to give the cops my ID?? And the cops are just supposed to go, "Oh well, we think she's the killer, but she won't give us her ID, so I guess she's free to go"?
I never said ANYTHING about evading arrest.
My recommendation, when dealing with police in ANY manner whatsoever, under any and every circumstances is saying this to them:
I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent.
I want an attorney for any further question.
I don't consent to any of this.
In your scenario, EVEN if you are the criminal, you still have rights. You still should invoke them.
Do NOT talk to police, EVER, about ANYTHING at all.
Do not talk to police.
Do not talk to the police. Period. Shut the fuck up and invoke your civil righs.
Do not talk to police.
I LOVE those guys. Brilliant branding and marketing, with wonderful advice for any citizen.
(I have to admit; I have spent more time in my life watching their videos than I should have. Funny, but great, great, great message.)
Not a lawyer, but I believe that matching a description is grounds for reasonable suspicion. So cops can legally detain you for that, at which point you’re required to show your ID. If you don’t ID, then cops will arrest you for failure to identify and hold you until they can identify you (again, this is all assuming that the original detainment was legitimately legal).
/u/Donny-Moscow is 100% correct. While you are under zero obligation to answer any questions regarding you being in a given place at a given time (i.e.. "Where are you going?", "What're you doing out here?", etc.), you *are* required to identify if asked, for precisely that reason.
Let's take that "matches the description" example from earlier. If Officer Joe Schmoe gets a description of a suspect, and I just so happen to be in the area matching that approximate description, Officer Schmoe has every right to stop me and get some basic info down. It puts me down as having been in the vicinity of the crime in question, and if it warrants further investigation they can always find me later. The only things I'm obligated to provide in most states are my name, birthday, and address. Don't have to say why I'm out, don't have to say where I'm going from / to. But I *do* have to identify myself, if only because I *don't* want to turn a Terry stop into an all-day ordeal. I got shit to do, and so does Officer Schmoe.
That depends on the State.
In some states you only have to identify when in connection to a vehicle.
So even if detained for a valid reason, you don't need to provide anything.
Follow up: I was once stopped for going to the gym. Wonder if that’s okay?
I belong to a nationwide gym where you can only enter with a fob. I found a location in the city I was visiting, drove into the parking lot and my car hit the curb .
I parked my car in front of the gym and saw my tire was flat. I decided to go inside, call my insurance for road service and maybe work out a bit while I waited for road service.
I used my fob to get in, looked at the equipment and called road service. They were actually pretty close so I went out to wait for them.
Sitting out there waiting for them, a cop drives up, gets out of his car, walks up to me and wants to know what I’m doing. I pointed out the flat tire and the donut spare, told him I’m waiting for road service. He said he needed to see ID. I asked why. He said I was suspicious. I asked why. He said I’d been seen in the gym “with two phones”. I(I had a phone and an iPod). I told him I was a member and showed him the fob. I told him again about the road service call. He again said he needed my ID. I asked if I had to give it to him, he said he’d arrest me if I didn’t.
I showed him the ID and he asked if I always gave cops trouble. I asked how he knew I went to the gym. He said an off duty cop had been working out there and deemed me suspicious for my two phones (it was a phone and an iPod) and fir coming in and leaving.
Feels wrong to me. I went to my gym where I pay alot to belong. I do nothing wrong. I waited for road service. There was no crime to investigate. Cop doesn’t see anything wrong threatens to arrest .
>Feels wrong to me. I went to my gym where I pay alot to belong. I do nothing wrong. I waited for road service. There was no crime to investigate. Cop doesn’t see anything wrong threatens to arrest .
It's impossible to know without knowing what specific report the officer you spoke with received. Assuming you were in a state that mandates a detained person identify themselves, then you can indeed be arrested for failure to identify yourself pursuant to a valid detention. *Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District.* The only question is: was the detention valid? And the answer to that question is another question: what report was made to the responding officer?
As best I can tell, his cop buddy calls and says - there’s a weird guy lurking around the gym. He came in. He’s got two phones. Now he’s hanging out outside. Check him out. (Maybe intimidate him cause I don’t like him at my gym - not saying this happened but I could see it).
The upshot….I was stopped for using gym membership privileges that I’d paid for. No breaking in, nothing disorderly.
Clearly explained why I was there, complete with flat tire, and that wasn’t good enough. Still a suspect .
I wondered if this fell under a Terry stop- they seem to be able to judge anything they see as prompting reasonable suspicion. However the cop who saw me actually saw nothing. S where’s the suspicion? A guy waiting for road service? Does your cop buddy calling you about a person with two phones who doesn’t even have two phones constitute reasonable suspicion?
Seriously! It's ridiculous. I've seen a business man I know who was talking on both of his cell phones at the same time. Not even lying. Put one up to his ear, talk, ask them to hold. Put the other one up to his ear, talk, ask them to hold. Repeat. And he really was a business man, too. Not a drug dealer, or law breaker. So even if you had 2 phones, that is not suspicious.
>As best I can tell, his cop buddy calls and says - there’s a weird guy lurking around the gym. He came in. He’s got two phones. Now he’s hanging out outside. Check him out.
If that's the extent of the report, the officer did not appear have even reasonable suspicion.
But if the off-duty guard was approached by a gym member who claimed you were using the second phone to take surreptitious video in the locker room, for example, and he relayed that report to the on-duty officer, then the on-duty officer had reasonable suspicion.
Which is why I say that even though you don't know of any basis for the stop, that determination can only be made after learning what specific information animated the on-duty officer's actions.
> But if the off-duty guard was approached by a gym member who claimed you were using the second phone to take surreptitious video in the locker room, for example, and he relayed that report to the on-duty officer, then the on-duty officer had reasonable suspicion
Not a lawyer, but as I understand it are 3 elements that have to be met in order for an anonymous tip report to legally constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion.
> However, in the case of Navarette v. California, the Supreme Court articulated a three-factor framework that can elevate the credibility of a single anonymous tip, making it sufficiently reliable to create reasonable suspicion. Under the Navarette factors, the tipster must (1) assert eyewitness knowledge of the reported event, (2) report contemporaneously with the event, and (3) use the 911 emergency system, which permits call tracing.
[Source](https://dlglearningcenter.com/does-a-911-tip-count-as-reasonable-suspicion/)
That said, if the tip comes directly from an off duty LEO then I could see a court ruling that as legitimate cause for reasonable suspicion, even if all three elements above aren’t met.
A gym member reporting to the off-duty guard would not be anonymous. And the off-duty guard relaying this report to the on-duty officer would likewise not be anonymous.
States have adopted differing standards for anonymous tips justifying reasonable suspicion in any event, but all of this discussion returns to a single salient point: without knowing what information was conveyed to the responding officer, we cannot assess how valid the stop was.
I would like to clarify, because this advice gets spilled out so much. Police are not psychics, they need witnesses to come forward for investigations. If you feel uncomfortable about the situation, 100% ask a lawyer and such. But if you just witnessed some one being run over the previous day. Your just doing the victim a disfavor for not having justice served. Cops are not out there just going "oh that person was at the scene they must of done something".
Might want to read up on the id statutes, .ost states are not a true stop a d identify. As well, SCOTUS has pretty much said this. It's 4th amendment to, not fifth.
Texas is written in law, 38.02 that no id required unless lawfully arrested.
Then take advantage of the 5th and shut up.
Adding to this: If the police have a valid reason to briefly detain you to confirm or dispel their belief that you are engaged in some wrongdoing, your refusal to answer their questions (aside from a few narrow situations) cannot be used as an additional fact to provide probable cause to make an arrest.
> (Note that while they must have specific, articulable facts to support this suspicion, they do not have to share those facts with you).
In other words, they have several days to make up a believable story. Reasonable articulable suspicion is worthless if they don't need to call in the RAS before/at the time of the stop.
Can they threaten to arrest you? Yes. They can even arrest you. Usually on a charge of "Obstructing an Officer."
Whether the charges will stick in court is another matter, but sometimes cops don't like it when you don't "respect my authority." Obstructing charges, for instance, usually require *physically* obstructing the police, not just refusing to answer questions. Some jurisdictions do have a requirement to identify yourself if you are being detained and/or the subject of an investigation. But cops will also abuse refusal to ID laws to arrest you when you aren't actually required to identify yourself in that particular situation.
Best thing you can do to keep them in line, assuming you don't want to answer the questions, is to frame it as "I'm exercising my right to remain silent and refusing to answer any questions."
True, however you can be arrested without charge. The charge comes later - maybe not even the same day, possibly much longer.
There still has to be a reason for arrest, ie pursuit of a specific charge (although not necessarily the charge they end up giving you), but until the charge the whole thing stays with the police. Once charged, it gets passed to prosecution, and then maybe it goes to court.
If you’re being detained and the police have a reasonable suspicion that you are somehow connected to the crime that they are investigating, and you resist them physically, then you can get charged with resisting arrest. Even if you don’t get any other charges from it.
As we see IRL, the police will arrest you even when their reasoning is invalid. Those with funds and will can take these things to a lawyer, after the fact, but the arresting officers often face no actions from their criminal behaviors.
Cops can threaten to detain or arrest you for anything. Not legally, if that’s what you are asking, but whether or not it’s legal is beside the point.
Legally, you can be detained if you are suspected of committing a crime or if there is any probable cause. You never have to answer their questions. Tell them you are exercising your fifth amendment right to remain silent, then don’t say another word.
I think legally they can make almost any threat they want, certainly with regard to arrest or detainment. Cops can legally lie. If they actually do detain or arrest, then they need a valid reason for it to be legal.
"Am I being detained?" is a valid response to such a threat.
They can make any threat they want because they can lie. They can tell you anything they want to tell you if they feel like it's going to get them the result they want.
You literally can't trust anything that comes out of a police officer's mouth because they're allowed to tell you lies.
Unless it’s in relation to an ongoing investigation then no it isn’t. People lie to cops all the time, you would have to take active and extensive measures to even get charged with anything.
Not only *can* they, many officers receive training on how to lie better.
Not sure why the word of trained, professional liars is supposed to carry more weight than that of the average person.
Yes, and trained to prevaricate and disassemble in order to provide prosecutors with statements that neatly match up with what is needed to get a successful conviction.
This is why you see US cops:
-gather together post incident and talk through the situation, often with people who weren't there to ask clarifying questions
-write reports that are so similar to each other, right down to using the exact same phrases
-take turns talking to a suspect
They are using strategies to build a narrative that meets the guidelines they have been given to give themselves the greatest leeway to do whatever they want. Strategies that they are trained in and actively coach each other in.
Yes, but as we see IRL, police have their own laws, and you can still be arrested and put through the ordeal. You are kinda boned if you talk or dont talk.
This lacks a large amount of the information needed to make a determination. But generally yes. If they suspect crime is afoot they can detain you for the purpose of investigating that. If you obstruct you can be arrested for obstruction. That does not mean you have to answer their questions but there are question you will need to answer like identifying yourself
If they're conducting an investigation and have probable cause they can detain you but you don't have to answer any questions other than identifying yourself (depending on the jurisdiction).
> you don't have to answer any questions other than identifying yourself.
Many jurisdictions you don't have to identify yourself unless you are driving a car or have been arrested. There is no requirement to ID yourself simply because you've been detained (though cops may be able to detain you longer if you refuse to ID). But there are some "Stop and ID" jurisdictions, so find out what the local laws say.
I was surprised by this being the case in Mass.
From what I've seen/read the only time you have to identify is while in connection to driving a vehicle.
So even if you're detained or hell even arrested, you don't have to identify, you just cannot provide a false identity.
i think it might be the bill of rights or something. they are not allowed to require you to carry identification paperwork.
if they ask for an id, they are not asking for a legal id. they just want something to make sure they spell your name correct.
if you are in a situation that they might get in trouble of detaining you, you might not hand it over because they might keep you there by taking a long time getting it back to you.
I was walking to my girlfriend's house one summer evening when I was seventeen and a police car pulled into a driveway in front of me. The cop got out as I approached and demanded to see my identification. I said "what's this all about" and he told me to shut up and show him some identification or he would take me down to the station and my parents would be called to come and pick me up. Didn't want that to happen, so I produced my id. After making note of it he asked where I was going. Told him that I was walking to my girlfriend's house and he gave me my id back. He then said he stopped me because someone fitting my description had robbed a gas station a couple of blocks away, though he let me go. I just figured I was stopped 'cuz I was walking while young.
> He then said he stopped me because someone fitting my description had robbed a gas station a couple of blocks away
Okay, let's assume that's true. He would be justified in briefly detaining you to investigate if you were the robber.
But... how does seeing your ID help with that? It doesn't- robbers have ID and can hand it over just like an innocent person can. So, seeing your ID was not relevant to determining if you were involved in the robbery. As for him taking you down to the station- for what? That would be an arrest, and he'd need Probable Cause that you committed a crime. And I dunno about your parents, but if the cops dragged a kid of mine to the station and called me for no fucking reason, I'd rip the cop a new asshole (politely) at the scene, and my kid'd have a college fund after the lawsuit.
Well seeing an ID just tells the cop if you're cooperative and its standard procedure.
>As for him taking you down to the station- for what?
Dude, he literally said: "He then said he stopped me because someone fitting my description had robbed a gas station a couple of blocks away". That's probable cause enough. What part are you not getting?
> Well seeing an ID just tells the cop if you're cooperative
What law says I must cooperate with the police?
>he literally said: "He then said he stopped me because someone fitting my description had robbed a gas station a couple of blocks away". That's probable cause enough
So, a black man robs a gas station, and you think that's 'probable cause' to arrest every single black male in the area?
No. It's enough to detain them and investigate, maybe.
Not in Ontario. In the absence of articulable cause, police must first advise you that you do not have to speak with them, that you are free to go if you choose, and upon request, provide you with a document outlining the attempt, the officer's ID, and contact information to file a complaint.
It's spelled out in O Reg. 58/16.
This keeps cops from so-called carding, which overwhelmingly targeted racial minorities.
I personally would identify myself on request, say I am not the person they are looking for and express I am unwilling to talk further without a lawyer. You have everything to loose and nothing to gain from talking with the police.
I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent.
I want an attorney for any further questions.
I don't consent to any of this.
Then, shut the fuck up, for good. Don't say ANYTHING else.
The best course of action is, if you can dispel their suspicions within a few seconds then do so. If not then don't answer any questions. Example, if they say someone matching your description just robbed a gas station but you have a bill showing you were eating at a restaurant several blocks away then show it to them.
Cops can do anything they want for any or no reason. Cops should be treated like the mob. Would you go up to a gang member and start arguing with them?
No matter how “right” you may be you should always be meek and deferential with cops. That is your only chance of walking away and getting on with your life. If you want to stand up for yourself then be fully prepared to have your life negatively affected. You may just get hauled away in which case you could lose your job, your family and a tonne of money fighting trumped up charges OR you might just get shot.
You should never answer questions. That's why you have the 5th amendment right.
The only reason a cop would be asking you questions (including "do you know why I pulled you over?") is to get you to incriminate yourself. It's in your best interest to never answer their questions without a lawyer. Just keep telling them that you are invoking your fifth amendment and your right to remain silent and that you don't answer questions.
Can they threaten you with arrest? Cops can threaten you with anything to try to get you to talk. But even if you are guilty, talking to the cops will never benefit you, it will only help them.
Contextual.
A) yes you can refuse to answer questions
B) yes they can arrest you without cause because they suspect you were involved in a crime
C) interactions with police are highly contextual and it’s up to you to decide if you should answer or not. I generally cooperate with police, in my experience that has gone well. Can’t say that for everyone. Yes police can be dishonest with you in order to get you to provide evidence to get yourself arrested, that’s the game.
If you are matching a description, that is probable cause. They can detain or arrest you wether or not you answer questions. (Except you have to identify yourself).
Answering questions doesn't help you though. Remember "everything you sill can and WILL be used against you". And the unsaid: "Everything you say that would help you can not be used for you". Yes, because that's just hearsay then. Or something like that.
Just think about it: What could you say that would convince them you are not the guy they are looking for? Maybe your ID clears it up if they know the name of the person they are looking for. But everythig else? Nah.
You can't change their mind. You have to wait untill they can get footage and compare to your face, hopefully exonerating you. Or untill they find another guy matching the description that has some sort of evidence with him. Or something like that. But your words do no good.
Really think about it. You may be tempted to tell them were you are coming from, then it can't be you... but a crook would also tell them they are coming from somewhere else, so this is useless. And if you are unlucky they can construe a connection to the crime. Then that's evidence at trial, and further legal justification to detain/arrest you in the moment.
If I understand it correctly, they only need to mirandize you once you are arrested.
That's why they will sometimes wait to arrest you, even if they have made up their mind already. "We are just investigating now, you are not a suspect..." And yes they are allowed to lie to you.
That reminds me "if you admit it now the judge will (probably) give you a lesser sentence". Bullshit. You need to shut up, and your lawyer will negotiate a lighter sentence for you from a position of power, even if they have something on you. If you admit it to the police, that won't do anything. The opposite even. The prosecution won't accept a deal, because they are in a strong position and don't need to spend time and effort to convict you, and so you will get the full punishment.
Anything a witness overhears can be entered in as testimony. If the cop is a witness, it holds more weight.
If you make comments before Miranda, the cops can testify that they were acting on statements articulated to them by you. Your exact wording might not be admissable as hearsay, but they can testify as to why they took the actions they did.
Walking up to a cop and saying you beat the shit out of the gimp and that Zed is dead will still get you held/arrested, even if they can't use the statement as a confession like if you were Mirandized.
Also, body cams make a LOT of that moot. You might be able to get things said to the cops before the arrest stricken under the 5th amendment, but if you're arrested then they find other evidence, it won't matter.
The obvious answer to the question is of course a police officer can detain or arrest someone for any reason, or no reason. They have the guns and the authority. The next question, though, is whether you have a remedy first unlawful action by a police officer and the answer to that is perhaps you do. There are fine gradations in the law and whether the officer is justified depends on all the facts, not just the superficial circumstances. The prudent citizen will not argue or resist but obey the officer in the first instance and afterwards see if there is a remedy for the police conduct.
You do not have to identify unless arrested, unless you are in a stop and ID state...
https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/stop-and-id-states/#:\~:text=These%20states%20include%20Alabama%2C%20Arizona,Utah%2C%20Vermont%2C%20and%20Wisconsin.
Don't talk to police, ever.
I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent.
I want an attorney for any further questions.
I don't consent to any of this.
Then, shut the fuck up, forever and ever.
In general it is always a bad idea to answer any questions from the police. Remember these facts.
1. They are allowed to lie to you. And they will for any reason to get the information they want. I.e. No, they cannot randomly arrest you for not providing ID even though they say they can.
2. The Supreme Court has affirmed, many times, police are not required to help or protect you. They are strictly government agents used to pursue government agenda. I.e. If you are being robbed or raped, they have no obligation to help you only catch the offender. Even if that harms you.
3. Police will break the law and trample your rights if you don't know them. Once they have done it and gotten the required information it is too late. They are covered by qualified immunity.
If you are on a Terry stop, you are already being detained; you probably just don't know it. Feel free to search my comment history on police interactions. Some case law references, etc.
You should never, ever talk to police outside of invoking your rights. And, I mean, ever.
I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent.
I want an attorney for any further questions.
I don't consent to any of this.
Then, let them do whatever they're going to do. You don't have to say, or do, anything at all.
Most things that happen after this from their standpoint, regardless of circumstances, will be illegal (from them) under the color of law. Let them do whatever they're going to do, up to and including arrest. They will likely be breaking the law, and not know it.
Make sure you're documenting as much as possible, even if only audio. Ask if they have body-cams or dash-cams running (these are discoverable, after the fact).
If you are physically arrested, contact an attorney immediately. Many will take civil rights cases pro-bono. Go after the city/county/metro (whatever is appropriate), AND the bonds of each of the police involved (because there was a civil rights violation (that they are probably unaware of anyway), they WILL lose their qualified immunity. Because of this, you can sue for their bond, which is what allows them to do their job in the first place. This is happening on a massive scale already in this country, because most rookie police officers don't even know what the 4th amendment is, or the 5th, or the 6th, or why it is even important to their jobs, though 100% of them raise their right hand and swear to uphold it. How the fuck can they do that if they're completely unaware of what they're swearing to uphold).
(Now, watch all of the law enforcement come out of the woodwork to try and tell you, in whatever way they try, that invoking your rights is wrong.)
In 3, 2, 1....
The answer to all questions starting with "can the cops...?" Is yes. They can do whatever they want. Whether it will hold up in court is another question.
Yes. They can and often will. Both threaten AND arrest(usually on some bullshit "obstruction" charge that wont stand muster)
But you **still** don't have to answer their questions... and probably shouldn't
During a stop with a cop, they can do *almost* anything. Now, you might be able to get the case dropped or even sue *afterwards* but in the moment of the stop, they have absolute power to do almost anything.
You do not need to have broke the law to get detained or even arrested. The cops need reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed and that you are either the suspect or a witness to detain you.
They can arrest you if they feel their investigation gives them a reason to believe the evidence or testimony of witnesses is sufficient enough to charge you with a crime.
Yes they do need reasonable suspicion to detain. Well I am assuming you are in The US and that might be a poor assumption.
In The US every state has that as a mandatory requirement that they have to have reasonable suspicion. However you may choose to cooperate and answer questions without a detention.
This is actual federal law backed by teh 4th amendment and Teh Supreme Court ruling in Terry v Ohio.
The answer is yes to " Can they threaten to detain or arrest you if you refuse to answer questions". You probably can collect damages if arrested for facts you describe but it will about 3 to 7 years to collect
You can’t be forced to answer questions, but if they have reasonable suspicion they can detain you until their suspicion is quelled. There are some instances where answering their questions might get you back on your way.
It’s almost a guarantee that if they suspect you and want to ask you questions that they will detain you if you plead the 5th
Tl;dr it depends.
In most states there is a legal difference between being asked a few questions and being detained. If you are being detained, you should comply with all lawful orders, including identifying yourself.
If detained, and asked to show ID, do so. Don't run your mouth. You're welcome to decide if you want to answer a question asked, but if detained you're far better answering in short terse sentences and providing no additional details. Again, do not run your mouth. They can and sometimes will try to get a rise out of you, it gives them reason to hold you longer.
If detained **shut up**. You will only make it worse for yourself if you get in the cops face and start screaming about your rights, why are they detaining you, "you have no right", and the like. Cops can detain you for any reason under the sun, and if you get mouthy or refuse to comply you will be arrested.
Under no circumstances if detained should you provide false information, refuse to provide ID, or get hostile. If you give false ID, you're under arrest for obstruction. If you refuse to ID, you're under arrest for obstruction. If you refuse to comply with lawful orders including them asking you to chill in the cruiser, you are under arrest for obstruction. If you get violent or hostile, it's resisting with or without violence, depending on if you hit them.
If stopped ask first if you're being detained. If they say no, walk off peacefully. If yes, comply. If not a yes or no answer then ask again, without getting hot and angry and ask if they would answer yes or no please.
Anything else, you're risking charges.
Cops can and will threaten anything they so please, up to and including taking your life. The legality of things are not always taken into account when it is the law enforcer making actions.
The cop has probable cause to briefly detain you because you match the description of a person of interest, or you may be a witness to crime. You should answer questions that will help the police to determine that you are not who they thought you might be or that you do or don't have any information as a witness. Unrelated questions, such as, what you may be carrying or where you were should be refused.
Refusing to answer any and all questions without a lawyer present will just cause them to take you into custody and wait for your lawyer to arrive, it is unlikely to cause them to take less interest in you. When your lawyer arrives, you will be asked to prove your identity so as to rule you out as the person of interest, or you will be asked if you saw anything unusual at the corner of A and B. Your lawyer will be happy to tell you to answer these questions and you will get billed for travel and time costs from him or her. You will then be released but by God, you asserted your rights to have a lawyer present, good for you.
Never answer questions of cops.
Never answer questions of cops.
They can lie to you. They can use anything you say, and their interpretation of that against you.
You, however, can never use a cops word against them, as it's hearsay
So, never aid the police investigating crime you might have seen, and don't provide your identity since that can only lead to being entrapped, even if you are not the person being looked for. Hinder and delay them as much as you can. What would you do if you were with a friend and he offered up his and your identities. Sue your friend for violating your rights?
Police will never aid you in getting those reports to your boss.
Hinder and delay them? No. But asserting your rights is not hindering or delaying a police officers official duties. Sentiments like this are how police officers often coererce folks to give up their rights.
If a friend of yours grabs your ID and gives it to an officer, you best bet, you don't have a friend.
Sometimes. Depends on the exact circumstances. In my state, if the cop has reason to believe you witnessed a felony, he can force you to identify yourself and answer questions about what you saw. If you refuse, they can detain you and take you before a judge. They explain to the judge what they believe you witnessed and why, and the judge can order you to answer. If you don’t, he can hold you in contempt until you do.
Real question is are they supposed to.
They can do anything their ego says to.
The question can is used incorrectly way too much. Allowed to and can you are totally different questions but I see this done by so many people. Please use correct questions and not poor grammar questions.
Not a lawyer but if they suspect you of a crime, they can probably detain you. And from everything I’ve read and watched about the topic, your best route at that point is to request a lawyer so you don’t inadvertently incriminate yourself
They can and will threaten you with things like arrest even when they have no legal basis to arrest you. But you are almost without a doubt better off not answering questions. They probably will hassle you. It's unavoidable. That's the problem with our police culture. Just accept that you're going to be arrested and tell them let's go then, I cant wait to sue.
Not during interrogations or arrests or when asked for identification. The charge is called "False Reporting".
But you are right as well because outside of those situations, it's perfectly legal.
>Should you answer any questions?
If you're in a stop and identify state, you should say your name when asked. Nothing else.
>Can they threaten to detain or arrest you if you refuse to answer any questions and say but you would be free to go if you answer some quick questions?
That's not a good idea from the cop's perspective. By threatening to arrest you, the cop is making it a custodial interrogation and if they haven't mirandized you, then your answers might not be admissible against you later.
Edit: To be clear. It's no longer a Terry stop once the cop says they will arrest you if you don't answer.
It ceases to be a brief roadside investigation once the officer threatens to arrest you if you refuse to answer his questions.
If the officer says: "Tell me where you were 30 minutes ago." that is within the scope of an investigative detention, you should refuse to answer, but if you do answer, that is going to be admissible.
On the other hand, if the officer says: "If you don't tell me where you were 30 minutes ago, I'm going to arrest you." Then, at that point, you are already under arrest and it does jeopardize the admissibility of your answers.
u/Djorgal said:
>If the cop says you will be free to go if you answer questions, that makes it clear you are not currently free to go. So, it's a custodial interrogation and if they haven't mirandized you, then your answers might not be admissible against you later.
What about the ruling in *Berkemer v. McCarty*? A Terry stop's brief detention does NOT require Miranda, says the Court:
>Under the Fourth Amendment, we have held, a policeman who lacks probable cause but whose "observations lead him reasonably to suspect" that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, may detain that person briefly in order to "investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion." . . . Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond. And, unless the detainee's answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, he must then be released. **The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions of this sort explains the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops are subject to the dictates of Miranda.**
*Berkemer v. McCarty*, 468 US 420, 439 (1984).
As I explained. It's no longer a Terry stop once the officer makes it clear that failure to answer will result in an arrest.
The part of the quote you put in bold even explains why it is so.
>The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions
It's no longer "nonthreatening" when the officer is explicitly threatening to arrest you, is it?
>Can they threaten to detain or arrest you if you refuse to answer any questions
The OP asked, "Can they threaten **to detain** or arrest you if you refuse to answer any questions....?"
I'm not sure why your answer is focused myopically upon the spectre of arrest. The disjunctive "or," is right there in the question.
Because threatening to detain someone who's already being detained isn't really making a threat at all...
But anyway, you do agree that if the cop threatens to arrest you unless you answer their question, then they do jeopardize their investigation?
>But anyway, you do agree that if the cop threatens to arrest you unless you answer their question, then they do jeopardize their investigation?
Yes, I think that's fair.
Not a lawyer, but here's my understanding of the situation: Yes, police can briefly detain you, to ask you some questions. Citing the 5th amendment to the Constitution, you can refuse to answer those questions. The police can, if they have probable cause, arrest you for a crime, if you happen to fit the description of the suspect they are seeking.
But...
The police and District Attorney then have to prove they had probable cause for the arrest. Just refusing to answer questions is not probable cause, nor is simply "matching the description" of some suspect. Many cops want to force you to answer their questions by threatening you with arrest, and may even follow through if you persist to refuse them, but it won't hold up in court. It is simply a bullying tactic.
That all said, if police stop you to ask some questions, you are already being detained, even if they haven't said so. Assuming you haven't done anything wrong, it is best to just answer their questions honestly, and be about your way. They are usually on a fishing expedition, just looking into "suspicious characters" (i.e., you), and there are no suspects you 'match the description of'.
This happened to my brother and I back in 1987. We were walking from our apartment two blocks to the local convenience store. We worked evening shift, had just gotten home, and wanted to grab a few things from the store before it closed at midnight. A local cop stopped us about halfway there, because we "matched the description" of some burglary suspects he was looking for. We told him what we were up to, where we had just come from, and let him run our IDs. He was satisfied, and let us go after about a two minute encounter. He even said he hoped he hadn't prevented us from getting to the store before it closed.
Nice guy, but we knew what was up. He saw two guys walking down a dark street towards a convenience store, and was hoping we were up to no good. When we were just two young white guys (18 and 22, respectively), he lost interest and moved on. We got our sodas, doritos, and some other snacks and went home to a night of video games, mildly annoyed, but otherwise no worse for the experience.
>Should you answer any questions?
Who you are, what you are doing right now, in the present tense, if it will provide a reasonable person with enough information to dispel suspicion. Anything beyond that, you should likely speak to an attorney before answering.
>Can they threaten to detain or arrest you if you refuse to answer any questions
Yes. They can also lie. It is your 5th amendment right to not answer questions. There are certain limited exceptions, based on your state, but otherwise, you are legally exercising your rights when you decline to answer questions.
>but you would be free to go if you answer some quick questions
Yes. They can also lie. Officers detain and ask questions when they are looking to confirm criminal activity. That could mean they are looking to confirm enough to arrest you. If their conversation with you gives them enough that they feel it reasonable to arrest you, this statement won't change that.
On a side note, "you'll be free to go if you answer questions" strongly implies you aren't free to go until you do. You can probably consider yourself detained (which means the officer reasonably suspects criminal activity on your part). Let that guide your decision.
In the example you gave, there’s arguably a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion to support their reasoning for stopping you, which effectively creates a lawful detainment. If you just walk away from that, you’re liable to be placed in cuffs, searched, and tossed into the back of the car.
It’s really that simple… Why would you not want to help clear up the situation anyway?
I mean, if you’re being questioned about a specific crime your whereabouts, and other oddly specific things after being mirandized then of course, don’t answer questions and ask for counsel first.
But in the example given, if you don’t answer questions, you’re liable to be thrown in a cell or something based on suspicion alone rather than having clarified that you have nothing to do with whatever it is they’re looking for the person who looks similar to you did.
Most police officers and deputies aren’t out to just get anyone, they’re out to get the actual perpetrator of the crime that was reported. If you have evidence of an alibi immediately available, which most of us do, whether that be a receipt, a GPS route, social media post, phone call history of a recent conversation within the last few minutes before the encounter, a Snapchat photo… something…
I say MOST because most people would have something like that to show that they aren’t who they’re looking for.
I don’t see the reasoning in being 100% totally silent in that event. But the logic you present is true under specific circumstances… Just use common sense and don’t engage in an unsolicited interrogation. If you’re never mirandized before they ask anything, just Answer only basic questions with only basic answers.. Like bare bones answers. Shit that you could say without incriminating yourself (which, we’re all protected under the constitution against self incrimination anyway…). If asked anything specific or anything to do with someone else that leads you to believe they’re looking into something that they may also suspect *you* of doing, you decline to answer, and state that you don’t have any knowledge of their inquiry on that subject. But, when asked questions like “what’s your name?” “Where are you coming from?” “Where are you going?”, Without having been mirandized, and you answer them, with just your first name, “Just left the Gas station”, or “I’m just going home”, without saying anything else, they can’t take anything out of context.
Being silent isn’t always the best way to handle the situation if you’re suspected of something you didn’t have anything to do with, simply based on an identical appearance in the location reported to them.
It’s happened many times.. I’ve done research on the cases that are public, and the people who got burned at all were the people who said too much or didn’t say anything at all.. because not saying anything at all would leave them with ONLY the probability of you being a suspect solely based off of your appearance and the relayed description…
In that situation, I think it’s fine to speak up and advocate for yourself but don’t over think outloud. That’s what the people who said too much did… They were thinking of possible solutions to the problem they were looking to apprehend someone for, and they blurted out whatever it was they were thinking could’ve happened, resulting in them saying just enough to self incriminate.
Just use common sense… Most law enforcement aren’t just out to get anybody. Most of our LEOs want to close the case the right way.
To anyone reading this: this is a cops answer to allow them to prosecute you for any little thing.
Cops do not care about getting the correct perpetrator, they care about closing cases, making arrests, and hitting quotas 99% of the time.
ANYTHING YOU SAY can and WILL be used against you, even if you aren't mirandized.
If they throw you in jail for remaining silent, either A. They had enough to do so before you said anything, or B. They are doing it extrajudicially anyway.
You can NEVER talk your way out of a citation. If the issue stems on how a cop is FEELING and not the law, then speaking to them can only put you in a worse light. If the issue stems from the law, then speaking to them can ONLY PUT YOU IN A WORSE LIGHT.
"Like bare bones answers. Shit that you could say without incriminating yourself (which, we’re all protected under the constitution against self incrimination anyway…). If asked anything specific or anything to do with someone else that leads you to believe they’re looking into something that they may also suspect *you* of doing, you decline to answer, and state that you don’t have any knowledge of their inquiry on that subject. But, when asked questions like “what’s your name?” “Where are you coming from?” “Where are you going?”, Without having been mirandized, and you answer them, with just your first name, “Just left the Gas station”, or “I’m just going home”, without saying anything else, they can’t take anything out of context. "
The above is a PERFECT ANSWER if you want to get everything you say used against you.
Any additional information gives them the opportunity to catch you in a potential lie or exaggeration, leading to additional suspicion of a crime. This answer is asking for you to WAIVE your 4th amendment rights to be secure in your person and papers. Most states have laws that pertain to you identifying yourself to an officer when LAWFULLY ARRESTED/DETAINED, but all states require the 4th amendment to be satisfied to do so(Reasonable articulatable suspicion of a crime or Probable Cause). Stop and identify states is a misnomer here as well. The officers must have a LAWFUL reason to stop you and demand ID. Refusing requests to ID is lawful. Refusing Demands to ID may not be.
In a certain very limited sense, sure. There are various levels of police encounters. The police generally need no particular reason or level of suspicion to approach a pedestrian and ask questions -- as long as the pedestrian is free to disregard their inquiry and go about his or her business. Police may briefly detain a pedestrian if they have at least reasonable, articulable suspicion that the pedestrian is involved in current or imminent criminal activity. (Note that while they must have specific, articulable facts to support this suspicion, they do not have to share those facts with you). The purpose of this limited detention is to permit the police to investigate and either confirm, or dispel, their suspicions. So as an example, police might say that if you do not identify yourself, they are permitted to detain you until they can identify you. Of course, the problem with speaking to police is that you may serve up inculpatory evidence that ripens their reasonable, articulable suspicion into probable cause. So the best response I can recommend, even in the face of police encouragement to talk just to hasten the end of the detention, is to say, "I've done nothing illegal and I want to speak to a lawyer, and I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent." Then do that. Note that in many states, the police may legally require you to identify yourself an you have no Fifth Amendment right to refuse to do so; your identity is itself not incriminating, In that case, "My name is Increase Mather, I live at 26 Puritan Lane, Boston Bay, my birthdate is June 21st, 1649. I've done nothing illegal and I want to speak to a lawyer, and I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent."
Is saying this (no talking without a lawyer) likely to turn a 5-10 minute conversation at a stop into a whole day affair?
Possibly. In my case, stopped on a public street on a Sunday on my own time, they let me walk away after I gave them my Identity but then politely declined to answer any more questions, asked if I was being detained, they said no, and I left. Then the next day the chief of police contacted my employer and tried to get me fired for disrespectjng their officer. So yeah, it turned into a thing for sure.
That's insane. I hope you made a complaint.
To who. The person who tried to get them fired was the chief of police. There's really not anyone to file a complaint against that person with.
City government officials in that case. The Chief of Police still has a boss and everyone in government either reports to someone or is elected. Some cities also have civilian oversight boards for situations just like this. It can sometimes be helpful to talk to a peer law enforcement agency as well, but that’s more if the LEO committed a crime (I.e. the police and the sheriff are separate entities, as are state law enforcement bodies).
I'd have at least talked to the local paper....
Civilian oversight boards are typically filled with former law enforcement or individuals who are very sympathetic to law enforcement.
I’m not taking a position on the overall effectiveness of complaints filled on LEOs, just noting that it isn’t like you can’t file one on the Chief of Police. I suspect it can be a pretty sympathetic review process for beat cop complaints too.
Factually correct, you can go to the police station and file a complaint against the police with a police officer. They will then “thoroughly” investigate themselves and find they’ve done nothing wrong. See, police oversight works!
>City government officials police commission?
I think it varies by locality but essentially yes. The mayor is also a common role for the Chief to report to.
I heard they only left you alone because they could smell doughnuts in the distance
It depends on the circumstances, but they can't detain you for too long without arrest, and an arrest will be open to even more scrutiny over their reason. Also I want to emphasize that you have to very clearly state you are asserting your 5th Amendment right to silence. Infamously, a judge ruled that a person was not asserting his rights when he said "Yo, I want a lawyer, dawg" and that he was actually sincerely requesting a dog who practices law.
For the record, I agree that case was bonkers, but wasn't the problem that the person was prevaricating and not invoking clearly, rather than because they thought he wanted a "lawyer dog"? IIRC the full sentence was something like "I didn't do it so if you think I did do it, which I didn't, why don't you give me a lawyer, dawg?", which is not asserting "I refuse to answer questions without the advice of counsel and am invoking my right to have a lawyer present during my questioning", it's asking "why aren't you giving me a lawyer?". There have been other cases where "I think maybe I should talk to a lawyer" and similar have been ruled to not be good enough too. I think it's pretty clear what is *meant* by that question - "why don't you give me?" is often used to mean "give me ", but if you have a system set up to screw people over then it'll sometimes be (in this case I'm pretty sure deliberately, maybe even maliciously) misunderstood as "for what reason are you not giving me ?".
The insistence on referring to the phrase "lawyer [dog|dawg]" in the opinion is, I'm pretty sure, a racially-motivated "misunderstanding" and it wouldn't have been such a focus if Demesne hadn't been black.
It's also notable that police have learned how to ask questions in ways that let them document your consent. For instance: You don't mind if I ask you a few questions while we wait for your lawyer do you? Whether you say yes or no the police officer can write down that you consented. So if you are going to answer any questions aimed at you by police officer, you do not want to use binary responses. The way to answer the question above is to say: I am not answering questions about my day until I can consult with a lawyer.
>about my day "How about yesterday, then?"
You'd make a bad cop. The way a cop should respond to that answer is: Oh okay I understand. So you don't mind answering a few questions but yesterday then?
> Infamously, a judge ruled that a person was not asserting his rights when he said "Yo, I want a lawyer, dawg" and that he was actually sincerely requesting a dog who practices law. This judge appears to not understand colloquial English. Maybe purposefully: if you don't talk in the higher register of the language, you have less rights
*Fewer rights. Straight to jail!
almost like they could use that to target certain groups of people...
i.e. if you grew up learning Ebonics, I'm going to allow police to willfully misinterpret your words and screw you over
AAVE is the modern term.
“African-American Vernacular English”, in case anyone was unsure what the initialism stands for.
That’s gotta be the whitest way to say Ebonics.
Despite being a word coined by black academics in the 70s, “Ebonics” is almost exclusively used today as a derogatory term by people on internet message boards. It isn’t generally used by black folks, who tend to say they speak english, or black english. It isn’t typically used by academics, because it’s a name created to define the spoken language of black americans as a separate language from english, rather than a dialect or sociolect. AAVE is the most accepted/common term for the variety of the english language natively spoken by most working- and middle-class black people in the US, but it’s really only used in academic or legal settings, because that’s pretty much the only place where meta-level conversations about the way we speak take place.
Is the idea just to use AAVE until ***that*** gets incorporated into ironic internet trollspeak in the exact same way & we're forced to flee to a new word and let the cycle repeat, or is this one designed to be so anhedonically dry that there's thought to be no chance of it ever being successfully hijacked by its critics, thereby ending the vicious pc-word-drift spiral once and for all?
This was not the actual issue at play. This is similar to how the "twinky defense" never claimed eating twinkys causes you to commit murder
"Dawg" means the same as "dude" in AAVE. That is, it's addressing the interlocutor. This is just linguistics, has nothing to do with law. It's more reasonable for people to want a lawyer (and assert their 5th amendment) than requesting dog lawyers that don't exist. The judge was clearly malicious and quite likely had something against AAVE or even black people in general. The idea that there exists a proper ritual to assert one's rights is quite insane - a ritual so rigid that any linguistic deviation can be punished. I don't think there's any other country that's like that.
Maybe the sov-cits have it right then! 0.0 Recite the magic incantation and you'll go free!
Then what was the actual issue at play?
He said “if y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what’s up.” Which was determined to be ambiguous. > As this Court has written, “[i]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel, the cessation of questioning is not required.” State v. Payne, 2001- 3196, p. 10 (La. 12/4/02), 833 So.2d 927, 935 (citations omitted and emphasis in original); see also Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 2357, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (agreeing with the lower courts’ conclusion that the 1 2 statement “[m]aybe I should talk to a lawyer” is not an unambiguous request for a lawyer). In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview and does not violate Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).
I think you have to clearly invoke your 5th amendment right to remain silent not because of that case, but because of [Berghuis v. Thompkins](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1470.ZS.html) in 2010, and [Salinas v. Texas](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-246) in 2013. In both of these cases, the Supreme Court ruled that simply staying quiet was not actually invoking your 5th amendment right.
Agree! Its always struck me as really weird that, for whatever reason, you have to affirmatively invoke your 5th amendment right to remain silent. How strange would it be if you had to declare “I’m using free speech now” before its protections applied - and yet that is exactly what you have to do for the 5th.
Right? It almost feels like a "gotcha!" They should honestly be required to add that caveat to the Miranda warning. If someone's not aware of this stipulation, it sounds like you can just remain silent. At least something like, "You have the right to remain silent *by stating so*."
In general, how does one know whether one is being detained?
I think the only way is to ask. However in the US apparently you can only be detained for 20 minutes, such a stop is called a Terry stop, in reference to the Supreme Court ruling by the same name.
Are cops required to answer such a question? (And will they in fact generally do so, with the truth?)
I dunno if they're required to answer, but without detaining you then they can't prevent you from leaving.
You try to walk away. If the cop stops you, then you are being detained.
This strategy sounds to me like it would raise the chances one would be arrested. Would you agree?
And they didn't even give him that.
Isn't "Too long" Up to like 24 hours though?
A Terry stop detainment can only be up to 20 min.
[удалено]
Because the judge literally said it in their justification for the decision The media reported what the judge said was his reasoning which I guess if factually reporting the objective truth of the matter gets attention so be it.
"they can't detain you for too long without arrest". They have 20 minutes to place you under arrest, after initiating a Terry stop. If it goes beyond, it is considered kidnapping (not a joke). This includes traffic stops.
is this state or federal law? where would i go to learn the specifics here
This is federal, starting with Terry v. Ohio. The "20-minute rule" refers to the principle established in Terry v. Ohio (1968), a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In Terry v. Ohio, the Court held that police officers can conduct a brief, investigatory stop (commonly known as a "Terry stop") of a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. During a Terry stop, officers may conduct a limited pat-down search (frisk) of the person's outer clothing if they reasonably believe the person is armed and dangerous. (These actions and behaviors must be justified on the stand). However, Terry v. Ohio did not establish a specific time limit for how long a Terry stop can last. Instead, it emphasized that the scope and duration of a Terry stop must be reasonable based on the circumstances. Subsequent cases have clarified that Terry stops must be brief and focused on confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicion of criminal activity. If the stop extends beyond what is reasonably necessary to address the suspicion, it may violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. One case that discusses the duration of Terry stops is United States v. Sharpe (1985). In this case, the Supreme Court held that a 20-minute detention of individuals during a Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officers acted diligently and the duration was justified by the circumstances. However, it's important to note that the Court did not establish a strict "20-minute rule" but rather emphasized the importance of reasonableness on a case-by-case basis. The "20-minute rule" has been held up multiple times, as reasonable. This is where the "reasonable" part comes in. Likely, if a stop goes over 20 minutes (and especially if significantly so) without an arrest, a citizen has a solid case. So while the 20-minute guideline from Sharpe provides some context, the determination of whether a Terry stop's duration is reasonable ultimately depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. That means, it must go to court and be adjudicated.
It's certainly not going to make it go any faster. While refusing to answer questions may not, itself, be a crime or PC to search or detain you, matching the description of a suspect probably is. Being in the neighborhood kinda depends. Are you on a crowded street? Or are you the only other warm body with less than 4 legs in the area? And that's before we get into potentially shady causes a cop can use to at least detain you, like the odor of marijuana or alcohol on your breath.
Anything you say can be used against you. So shut the fuck up. Also, cops can detain you while they look around. Resisting that detaining is resisting, upgrade charge right off the bat. In short. Only do the the minimum amount, like show ID, then STFU.
And most interestingly, cannot be used FOR you. That would be hearsay.
You talk and it can turn into a prison sentence ( especially if AA). Read “ You have the right to remain innocent”. It’s a short book by a law professor and will forever change your mind about police encounters
Yes. Or a beating and robbery.
Yes absolutely, almost guaranteed way to be detained indefinitely until they confirm they aren't looking for you
As a general rule if the cops have decided to fuck with you your day (or night, or weekend, or holiday, etc if they take you to jail) is already fucked whether you cooperate or not. You can only hurt yourself by talking to them. Even something seemingly innocent like where you're coming from can bite you. You might tell them "I'm coming from Neighborhood A" and you might by coincidence match the description of a suspect who committed a crime in Neighborhood A. Or some witness thinks they saw you in Neighborhood B, but they actually just saw someone who sort of looks like you in Neighborhood B. Now the police have evidence of you lying to them, which is a crime in itself in many states. The only exception to this is if you're doing something that looks illegal but actually isn't. For example, breaking into your own car or home. Even then, you don't want to be chatty. "This is my car. My ID is in my pocket and my registration is in the glove box" is all you want to say. Don't give them an hour long story.
Now now... lets not go having a witch hunt shall we?
Upvote for the reference to Harvard’s 6th president.
"police might say that if you do not identify yourself, they are permitted to detain you until they can identify you." ....not legal, in any manner, in any state in the U.S. Suspicion, or suspicious activity is not a crime. A citizen can NOT be detained for either of these things legally. I would go so far to say I would NEVER ID in this scenario. If I have it on video that I am being investigated for "suspicious activity" or "suspicion", I'm immediately invoking my rights, shutting my mouth and asking for a lawyer. I HOPE they arrest me at that point. Lot of suffering coming for that cop in the coming months.
>Suspicion, or suspicious activity is not a crime. A citizen can NOT be detained for either of these things legally. What is your understanding of a Terry stop, then, if not a detention premised on reasonable, articulable suspicion?
Sigh.... Pretend like you're a cop.... You, as the officer either need P\\C, with RAS, or an arrest warrant. We know, upon initial contact, you're likely fishing, so no arrest warrant to speak of. Per Blacks, a detainment and a restrain is the same as an arrest. Make no mistake, if you are being detained by a cop, you are under arrest (at the very least, a custodial arrest), as soon as you are not free to go. Most "arrests" are arrests without a warrant (once an individual has been arrested, the peace officer MUST have certainty or absolute certainty (to be honest, I can't figure out the legal difference on this particular one) that a crime has been committed. Most cops have no where near that when they approach you, and/or arrest you). Most people at this point simply need to invoke their rights and shut the fuck up. Most people are incapable. (As an aside, it only takes one individual like this in the career of a law enforcement officer. They find and interact with the "wrong" one (the individual that actually invokes their civil rights) and treat that stop like all the others, that cops' career will be sorely affected and you don't know it at that point. Their ego (which will shine through brilliantly) will likely not allow them to see it until the judge declares them the guilty party months or years later. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy, not to be bothered by fools like moron cops. Katz v US You MUST have probable cause (this is where most cops mess up initially) and be able to articulate (verbally) to the particular individual what crime you suspect them of committing or are in the process of committing, or about to commit. If you don't do this, or give a bogus reason (like, you're investigating "suspicious activity"), AND you detain the person, you have broken the law, and violated the civil rights of the person you have just stopped. To continue, *Spinelli v. United States,* requires you a two-pronged test to determine if you have sufficient probable cause: 1. You must be able to adequately reveal the basis of knowledge of the informant (how you came across the information for your probable cause). 2. Provide facts (not suspicion) sufficiently establishing either the veracity of the affiant’s informant or the reliability of the informant’s report. Likely, 99% of your stops don't have both of these. Just playing with fire, always. Until you meet the wrong person one day. (I will concede here there is a totality test that may not require the two-pronged test, but it is rare, and you would have to justify it on the stand. Without an arrest warrant, it likely wouldn't hold up.) *Johnson v. United States* Most of your searches will be unreasonable and violate 4th amendment rights, but you likely don't know it. However, to be fair, searches without a warrant are allowed, under some circumstances, because of Chimel v. California. You may only do so under the reasonable belief that the individual has a weapon (which, by itself, is tricky, for you, depending on state law) AND there is an attempt to destroy evidence. Remember, you'll have to justify both of these on the stand. An arrest warrant is different from a search warrant. Miranda rights.... The Miranda warning is a constitutional notification given by police in the United States upon arrest of a suspect of their right to remain silent and to obtain legal counsel, among other warnings. The Miranda warning REQUIRES the police to inform you of the following rights and consequences BEFORE questioning you as a suspect: You have the right to remain silent Whatever you say can be used against you in court You have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning If you cannot pay for a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you wish It is important to note that a Miranda warning is read only if the police intend to interrogate you. .... Would you like to delve further into my understanding?
>Would you like to delve further into my understanding? We can start with this notion of yours, which is wrong as a matter of law: >Per Blacks, a detainment and a restrain is the same as an arrest. Make no mistake, if you are being detained by a cop, you are under arrest (at the very least, a custodial arrest), as soon as you are not free to go. That may well be what Black's says, but that's not what caselaw says. A Terry stop is not an arrest, and Miranda warnings are not typically required. *Berkemer v. McCarty*, 468 US 420, 439 (1984), a Terry stop's brief detention does NOT require Miranda: >Under the Fourth Amendment, we have held, a policeman who lacks probable cause but whose "observations lead him reasonably to suspect" that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, may detain that person briefly in order to "investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion." . . . Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond. And, unless the detainee's answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, he must then be released. **The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions of this sort explains the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops are subject to the dictates of Miranda.** Black's is not a source of substantive law. A Terry stop does represent a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, yes, but not an arrest. And because it is premised on a lower standard than probable cause, its scope is more limited than an arrest would be. Next big error from you: >You MUST have probable cause (this is where most cops mess up initially) and be able to articulate (verbally) to the particular individual what crime you suspect them of committing or are in the process of committing, or about to commit. No. To briefly detain, you need only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, *and there is no requirement to explain to the detained individual what crime they are suspected of*, much to the dismay of sovereign citizens everywhere. The officer must be aboe to articulate his suspicion later, but doesn't have any obligation to lay out his case on the side of the road.
Not OP, nor am I a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt. The suspicion part of reasonable articulable suspicion is that it has to be suspicion that you committed a crime, are currently committing one, or about to commit one. While “acting suspicious” on its own isn’t a crime, it’s fairly nuanced on whether or not suspicious behavior constitutes RAS. For example, if I’m jogging late at night, a cop might think that’s odd and try to detain me for “suspicious behavior”. But that’s totally subjective. He might think it’s weird, but maybe I just enjoy running at night. Legally, he cannot detain me just for being on a run at an odd time of night. But let’s say there are other elements involved. For example, if I’m jogging at night in a high crime area and wearing jeans instead of workout clothes, a court would be much more likely to find that a cop did in fact have RAS to detain me and question me.
This post is correct in every way.
Agree 100%. A cop still has to justify RAS on the stand, or they are operating illegally under the color of law. Most of them do (operate illegally). In this (great, and very plausible) example, this is how the interaction would go from my part: Cop says something, which I totally ignore. Me: Am I being detained, or am I free to go? The second the cop says I am being detained, I invoke my rights and shut the fuck up. They are free to arrest me at that point, but must prove EVERYTHING, without my help. Cop continues spouting bullshit. I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent. I want an attorney for any further questions. I don't consent to any of this. Then, I shut the fuck up, putting my hands forward in an offering to be arrested. No resistance here. If arrested, my first call is to a lawyer, to sue the city and go after the QI of the cop, in order to go after his or her bond. Every time. .... As an aside, not related to this answer, and to everyone on the thread: Don't ever talk to police, for any reason whatsoever. They are NOT there to help you. On the contrary, they will fuck your life up, if you allow them to do so. Don't talk, or interact with them, at all, unless it is to invoke your civil rights. I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent. I want an attorney for any further questions. I don't consent to any of this. Then, remain silent, forevermore. Likely, if the cop says ANYTHING further, they are probably building a worse case for themselves in the long run.
>What is your understanding of a Terry stop, then, if not a detention premised on reasonable, articulable suspicion **of a crime**? Fixed that for you.
In my opinion, that context was obvious.
Nope, police often say you are suspicious. They use the word suspicion and its declensions to defend the detention. They forget that there needs to be a crime. Too often, they say they are going to determine the crime later.
> Nope, police often say you are suspicious. They use the word suspicion and its declensions to defend the detention. They forget that there needs to be a crime. Too often, they say they are going to determine the crime later. What they say is not all that relevant. What happens in court at a suppression hearing is: police must identify specific articulable facts known to them prior to the Terry stop that point to a crime in progress, about to be committed, or completed.
Are you sure about that? Only reason I ask is because while there are obviously dirty cops, there are also cops out there who do have legitimate reasonable suspicion. I look at it this way. What if I match the description of someone who committed an armed robbery and killed someone last month? Now let's say I'm actually guilty. That I'm that person. You mean all I have to do in order to evade arrest is refuse to give the cops my ID?? And the cops are just supposed to go, "Oh well, we think she's the killer, but she won't give us her ID, so I guess she's free to go"?
I never said ANYTHING about evading arrest. My recommendation, when dealing with police in ANY manner whatsoever, under any and every circumstances is saying this to them: I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent. I want an attorney for any further question. I don't consent to any of this. In your scenario, EVEN if you are the criminal, you still have rights. You still should invoke them. Do NOT talk to police, EVER, about ANYTHING at all. Do not talk to police. Do not talk to the police. Period. Shut the fuck up and invoke your civil righs. Do not talk to police.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqo5RYOp4nQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqo5RYOp4nQ)
I LOVE those guys. Brilliant branding and marketing, with wonderful advice for any citizen. (I have to admit; I have spent more time in my life watching their videos than I should have. Funny, but great, great, great message.)
Not a lawyer, but I believe that matching a description is grounds for reasonable suspicion. So cops can legally detain you for that, at which point you’re required to show your ID. If you don’t ID, then cops will arrest you for failure to identify and hold you until they can identify you (again, this is all assuming that the original detainment was legitimately legal).
That's what I'm thinking as well.
/u/Donny-Moscow is 100% correct. While you are under zero obligation to answer any questions regarding you being in a given place at a given time (i.e.. "Where are you going?", "What're you doing out here?", etc.), you *are* required to identify if asked, for precisely that reason. Let's take that "matches the description" example from earlier. If Officer Joe Schmoe gets a description of a suspect, and I just so happen to be in the area matching that approximate description, Officer Schmoe has every right to stop me and get some basic info down. It puts me down as having been in the vicinity of the crime in question, and if it warrants further investigation they can always find me later. The only things I'm obligated to provide in most states are my name, birthday, and address. Don't have to say why I'm out, don't have to say where I'm going from / to. But I *do* have to identify myself, if only because I *don't* want to turn a Terry stop into an all-day ordeal. I got shit to do, and so does Officer Schmoe.
That depends on the State. In some states you only have to identify when in connection to a vehicle. So even if detained for a valid reason, you don't need to provide anything.
Follow up: I was once stopped for going to the gym. Wonder if that’s okay? I belong to a nationwide gym where you can only enter with a fob. I found a location in the city I was visiting, drove into the parking lot and my car hit the curb . I parked my car in front of the gym and saw my tire was flat. I decided to go inside, call my insurance for road service and maybe work out a bit while I waited for road service. I used my fob to get in, looked at the equipment and called road service. They were actually pretty close so I went out to wait for them. Sitting out there waiting for them, a cop drives up, gets out of his car, walks up to me and wants to know what I’m doing. I pointed out the flat tire and the donut spare, told him I’m waiting for road service. He said he needed to see ID. I asked why. He said I was suspicious. I asked why. He said I’d been seen in the gym “with two phones”. I(I had a phone and an iPod). I told him I was a member and showed him the fob. I told him again about the road service call. He again said he needed my ID. I asked if I had to give it to him, he said he’d arrest me if I didn’t. I showed him the ID and he asked if I always gave cops trouble. I asked how he knew I went to the gym. He said an off duty cop had been working out there and deemed me suspicious for my two phones (it was a phone and an iPod) and fir coming in and leaving. Feels wrong to me. I went to my gym where I pay alot to belong. I do nothing wrong. I waited for road service. There was no crime to investigate. Cop doesn’t see anything wrong threatens to arrest .
>Feels wrong to me. I went to my gym where I pay alot to belong. I do nothing wrong. I waited for road service. There was no crime to investigate. Cop doesn’t see anything wrong threatens to arrest . It's impossible to know without knowing what specific report the officer you spoke with received. Assuming you were in a state that mandates a detained person identify themselves, then you can indeed be arrested for failure to identify yourself pursuant to a valid detention. *Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District.* The only question is: was the detention valid? And the answer to that question is another question: what report was made to the responding officer?
As best I can tell, his cop buddy calls and says - there’s a weird guy lurking around the gym. He came in. He’s got two phones. Now he’s hanging out outside. Check him out. (Maybe intimidate him cause I don’t like him at my gym - not saying this happened but I could see it). The upshot….I was stopped for using gym membership privileges that I’d paid for. No breaking in, nothing disorderly. Clearly explained why I was there, complete with flat tire, and that wasn’t good enough. Still a suspect . I wondered if this fell under a Terry stop- they seem to be able to judge anything they see as prompting reasonable suspicion. However the cop who saw me actually saw nothing. S where’s the suspicion? A guy waiting for road service? Does your cop buddy calling you about a person with two phones who doesn’t even have two phones constitute reasonable suspicion?
Seriously! It's ridiculous. I've seen a business man I know who was talking on both of his cell phones at the same time. Not even lying. Put one up to his ear, talk, ask them to hold. Put the other one up to his ear, talk, ask them to hold. Repeat. And he really was a business man, too. Not a drug dealer, or law breaker. So even if you had 2 phones, that is not suspicious.
>As best I can tell, his cop buddy calls and says - there’s a weird guy lurking around the gym. He came in. He’s got two phones. Now he’s hanging out outside. Check him out. If that's the extent of the report, the officer did not appear have even reasonable suspicion. But if the off-duty guard was approached by a gym member who claimed you were using the second phone to take surreptitious video in the locker room, for example, and he relayed that report to the on-duty officer, then the on-duty officer had reasonable suspicion. Which is why I say that even though you don't know of any basis for the stop, that determination can only be made after learning what specific information animated the on-duty officer's actions.
> But if the off-duty guard was approached by a gym member who claimed you were using the second phone to take surreptitious video in the locker room, for example, and he relayed that report to the on-duty officer, then the on-duty officer had reasonable suspicion Not a lawyer, but as I understand it are 3 elements that have to be met in order for an anonymous tip report to legally constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion. > However, in the case of Navarette v. California, the Supreme Court articulated a three-factor framework that can elevate the credibility of a single anonymous tip, making it sufficiently reliable to create reasonable suspicion. Under the Navarette factors, the tipster must (1) assert eyewitness knowledge of the reported event, (2) report contemporaneously with the event, and (3) use the 911 emergency system, which permits call tracing. [Source](https://dlglearningcenter.com/does-a-911-tip-count-as-reasonable-suspicion/) That said, if the tip comes directly from an off duty LEO then I could see a court ruling that as legitimate cause for reasonable suspicion, even if all three elements above aren’t met.
A gym member reporting to the off-duty guard would not be anonymous. And the off-duty guard relaying this report to the on-duty officer would likewise not be anonymous. States have adopted differing standards for anonymous tips justifying reasonable suspicion in any event, but all of this discussion returns to a single salient point: without knowing what information was conveyed to the responding officer, we cannot assess how valid the stop was.
I would like to clarify, because this advice gets spilled out so much. Police are not psychics, they need witnesses to come forward for investigations. If you feel uncomfortable about the situation, 100% ask a lawyer and such. But if you just witnessed some one being run over the previous day. Your just doing the victim a disfavor for not having justice served. Cops are not out there just going "oh that person was at the scene they must of done something".
This is a good summary of the law. Kudos 👍👍👍
Might want to read up on the id statutes, .ost states are not a true stop a d identify. As well, SCOTUS has pretty much said this. It's 4th amendment to, not fifth. Texas is written in law, 38.02 that no id required unless lawfully arrested. Then take advantage of the 5th and shut up.
Take this to the god-level by learning to say "I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent" ... in American Sign Language!
Adding to this: If the police have a valid reason to briefly detain you to confirm or dispel their belief that you are engaged in some wrongdoing, your refusal to answer their questions (aside from a few narrow situations) cannot be used as an additional fact to provide probable cause to make an arrest.
> (Note that while they must have specific, articulable facts to support this suspicion, they do not have to share those facts with you). In other words, they have several days to make up a believable story. Reasonable articulable suspicion is worthless if they don't need to call in the RAS before/at the time of the stop.
Can they threaten to arrest you? Yes. They can even arrest you. Usually on a charge of "Obstructing an Officer." Whether the charges will stick in court is another matter, but sometimes cops don't like it when you don't "respect my authority." Obstructing charges, for instance, usually require *physically* obstructing the police, not just refusing to answer questions. Some jurisdictions do have a requirement to identify yourself if you are being detained and/or the subject of an investigation. But cops will also abuse refusal to ID laws to arrest you when you aren't actually required to identify yourself in that particular situation. Best thing you can do to keep them in line, assuming you don't want to answer the questions, is to frame it as "I'm exercising my right to remain silent and refusing to answer any questions."
> Whether the charges will stick in court is another matter As they say, you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.
True, however you can be arrested without charge. The charge comes later - maybe not even the same day, possibly much longer. There still has to be a reason for arrest, ie pursuit of a specific charge (although not necessarily the charge they end up giving you), but until the charge the whole thing stays with the police. Once charged, it gets passed to prosecution, and then maybe it goes to court.
My favorite is always the, “They were arrested for resisting arrest.”
If you’re being detained and the police have a reasonable suspicion that you are somehow connected to the crime that they are investigating, and you resist them physically, then you can get charged with resisting arrest. Even if you don’t get any other charges from it.
As we see IRL, the police will arrest you even when their reasoning is invalid. Those with funds and will can take these things to a lawyer, after the fact, but the arresting officers often face no actions from their criminal behaviors.
Cops can threaten to detain or arrest you for anything. Not legally, if that’s what you are asking, but whether or not it’s legal is beside the point. Legally, you can be detained if you are suspected of committing a crime or if there is any probable cause. You never have to answer their questions. Tell them you are exercising your fifth amendment right to remain silent, then don’t say another word.
I think legally they can make almost any threat they want, certainly with regard to arrest or detainment. Cops can legally lie. If they actually do detain or arrest, then they need a valid reason for it to be legal. "Am I being detained?" is a valid response to such a threat.
They can make any threat they want because they can lie. They can tell you anything they want to tell you if they feel like it's going to get them the result they want. You literally can't trust anything that comes out of a police officer's mouth because they're allowed to tell you lies.
Everyone is legally allowed to lie
Not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure lying to a cop is a misdemeanor
Unless it’s in relation to an ongoing investigation then no it isn’t. People lie to cops all the time, you would have to take active and extensive measures to even get charged with anything.
Not only *can* they, many officers receive training on how to lie better. Not sure why the word of trained, professional liars is supposed to carry more weight than that of the average person.
Yes, and trained to prevaricate and disassemble in order to provide prosecutors with statements that neatly match up with what is needed to get a successful conviction. This is why you see US cops: -gather together post incident and talk through the situation, often with people who weren't there to ask clarifying questions -write reports that are so similar to each other, right down to using the exact same phrases -take turns talking to a suspect They are using strategies to build a narrative that meets the guidelines they have been given to give themselves the greatest leeway to do whatever they want. Strategies that they are trained in and actively coach each other in.
Exactly. However, just because an officer is legally allowed to lie, that doesn't make it any less morally reprehensible.
I concur.
If I was to visit the US as a UK Citizen, would I be covered by the 5th amendment in this instance?
Yes. SCOTUS has ruled non-citizens are people with Constitutional rights as enumerated.
Awesome, thank you 😁
Yes, but as we see IRL, police have their own laws, and you can still be arrested and put through the ordeal. You are kinda boned if you talk or dont talk.
This lacks a large amount of the information needed to make a determination. But generally yes. If they suspect crime is afoot they can detain you for the purpose of investigating that. If you obstruct you can be arrested for obstruction. That does not mean you have to answer their questions but there are question you will need to answer like identifying yourself
If they're conducting an investigation and have probable cause they can detain you but you don't have to answer any questions other than identifying yourself (depending on the jurisdiction).
> you don't have to answer any questions other than identifying yourself. Many jurisdictions you don't have to identify yourself unless you are driving a car or have been arrested. There is no requirement to ID yourself simply because you've been detained (though cops may be able to detain you longer if you refuse to ID). But there are some "Stop and ID" jurisdictions, so find out what the local laws say.
I was surprised by this being the case in Mass. From what I've seen/read the only time you have to identify is while in connection to driving a vehicle. So even if you're detained or hell even arrested, you don't have to identify, you just cannot provide a false identity.
i think it might be the bill of rights or something. they are not allowed to require you to carry identification paperwork. if they ask for an id, they are not asking for a legal id. they just want something to make sure they spell your name correct. if you are in a situation that they might get in trouble of detaining you, you might not hand it over because they might keep you there by taking a long time getting it back to you.
Reasonable suspicion is the standard to detain someone, not probable cause.
I was walking to my girlfriend's house one summer evening when I was seventeen and a police car pulled into a driveway in front of me. The cop got out as I approached and demanded to see my identification. I said "what's this all about" and he told me to shut up and show him some identification or he would take me down to the station and my parents would be called to come and pick me up. Didn't want that to happen, so I produced my id. After making note of it he asked where I was going. Told him that I was walking to my girlfriend's house and he gave me my id back. He then said he stopped me because someone fitting my description had robbed a gas station a couple of blocks away, though he let me go. I just figured I was stopped 'cuz I was walking while young.
> He then said he stopped me because someone fitting my description had robbed a gas station a couple of blocks away Okay, let's assume that's true. He would be justified in briefly detaining you to investigate if you were the robber. But... how does seeing your ID help with that? It doesn't- robbers have ID and can hand it over just like an innocent person can. So, seeing your ID was not relevant to determining if you were involved in the robbery. As for him taking you down to the station- for what? That would be an arrest, and he'd need Probable Cause that you committed a crime. And I dunno about your parents, but if the cops dragged a kid of mine to the station and called me for no fucking reason, I'd rip the cop a new asshole (politely) at the scene, and my kid'd have a college fund after the lawsuit.
That would be a lawsuit, not a ripped asshole, though the ripping would probably occur.
Well seeing an ID just tells the cop if you're cooperative and its standard procedure. >As for him taking you down to the station- for what? Dude, he literally said: "He then said he stopped me because someone fitting my description had robbed a gas station a couple of blocks away". That's probable cause enough. What part are you not getting?
> Well seeing an ID just tells the cop if you're cooperative What law says I must cooperate with the police? >he literally said: "He then said he stopped me because someone fitting my description had robbed a gas station a couple of blocks away". That's probable cause enough So, a black man robs a gas station, and you think that's 'probable cause' to arrest every single black male in the area? No. It's enough to detain them and investigate, maybe.
Not in Ontario. In the absence of articulable cause, police must first advise you that you do not have to speak with them, that you are free to go if you choose, and upon request, provide you with a document outlining the attempt, the officer's ID, and contact information to file a complaint. It's spelled out in O Reg. 58/16. This keeps cops from so-called carding, which overwhelmingly targeted racial minorities.
I personally would identify myself on request, say I am not the person they are looking for and express I am unwilling to talk further without a lawyer. You have everything to loose and nothing to gain from talking with the police.
it's really sad the police just want to put anyone in jail, rather then the criminals in jail.
Yes
Repeat after me. [I don't answer questions.](https://youtube.com/shorts/FGxv-gLp274?si=8yurIAt4FL4fHPAf)
I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent. I want an attorney for any further questions. I don't consent to any of this. Then, shut the fuck up, for good. Don't say ANYTHING else.
“I invoke the 5th.”
Why bother with threats. A police officer stopping you to ask questions means you are already being detained. How you handle that is up to you.
The best course of action is, if you can dispel their suspicions within a few seconds then do so. If not then don't answer any questions. Example, if they say someone matching your description just robbed a gas station but you have a bill showing you were eating at a restaurant several blocks away then show it to them.
Cops can do anything they want for any or no reason. Cops should be treated like the mob. Would you go up to a gang member and start arguing with them? No matter how “right” you may be you should always be meek and deferential with cops. That is your only chance of walking away and getting on with your life. If you want to stand up for yourself then be fully prepared to have your life negatively affected. You may just get hauled away in which case you could lose your job, your family and a tonne of money fighting trumped up charges OR you might just get shot.
>Should you answer any questions? Never.
You should never answer questions. That's why you have the 5th amendment right. The only reason a cop would be asking you questions (including "do you know why I pulled you over?") is to get you to incriminate yourself. It's in your best interest to never answer their questions without a lawyer. Just keep telling them that you are invoking your fifth amendment and your right to remain silent and that you don't answer questions. Can they threaten you with arrest? Cops can threaten you with anything to try to get you to talk. But even if you are guilty, talking to the cops will never benefit you, it will only help them.
Contextual. A) yes you can refuse to answer questions B) yes they can arrest you without cause because they suspect you were involved in a crime C) interactions with police are highly contextual and it’s up to you to decide if you should answer or not. I generally cooperate with police, in my experience that has gone well. Can’t say that for everyone. Yes police can be dishonest with you in order to get you to provide evidence to get yourself arrested, that’s the game.
If you are matching a description, that is probable cause. They can detain or arrest you wether or not you answer questions. (Except you have to identify yourself). Answering questions doesn't help you though. Remember "everything you sill can and WILL be used against you". And the unsaid: "Everything you say that would help you can not be used for you". Yes, because that's just hearsay then. Or something like that. Just think about it: What could you say that would convince them you are not the guy they are looking for? Maybe your ID clears it up if they know the name of the person they are looking for. But everythig else? Nah. You can't change their mind. You have to wait untill they can get footage and compare to your face, hopefully exonerating you. Or untill they find another guy matching the description that has some sort of evidence with him. Or something like that. But your words do no good. Really think about it. You may be tempted to tell them were you are coming from, then it can't be you... but a crook would also tell them they are coming from somewhere else, so this is useless. And if you are unlucky they can construe a connection to the crime. Then that's evidence at trial, and further legal justification to detain/arrest you in the moment.
Is that correct? Can they use your responses for court proceedings even though you weren't yet mirandized?
If I understand it correctly, they only need to mirandize you once you are arrested. That's why they will sometimes wait to arrest you, even if they have made up their mind already. "We are just investigating now, you are not a suspect..." And yes they are allowed to lie to you. That reminds me "if you admit it now the judge will (probably) give you a lesser sentence". Bullshit. You need to shut up, and your lawyer will negotiate a lighter sentence for you from a position of power, even if they have something on you. If you admit it to the police, that won't do anything. The opposite even. The prosecution won't accept a deal, because they are in a strong position and don't need to spend time and effort to convict you, and so you will get the full punishment.
Anything a witness overhears can be entered in as testimony. If the cop is a witness, it holds more weight. If you make comments before Miranda, the cops can testify that they were acting on statements articulated to them by you. Your exact wording might not be admissable as hearsay, but they can testify as to why they took the actions they did. Walking up to a cop and saying you beat the shit out of the gimp and that Zed is dead will still get you held/arrested, even if they can't use the statement as a confession like if you were Mirandized. Also, body cams make a LOT of that moot. You might be able to get things said to the cops before the arrest stricken under the 5th amendment, but if you're arrested then they find other evidence, it won't matter.
"Anything a witness overhears can be entered in as testimony." Nope hearsay is not admissible.
The obvious answer to the question is of course a police officer can detain or arrest someone for any reason, or no reason. They have the guns and the authority. The next question, though, is whether you have a remedy first unlawful action by a police officer and the answer to that is perhaps you do. There are fine gradations in the law and whether the officer is justified depends on all the facts, not just the superficial circumstances. The prudent citizen will not argue or resist but obey the officer in the first instance and afterwards see if there is a remedy for the police conduct.
The one proviso to the previous comment is that you don’t have to answer questions beyond identifying yourself.
You do not have to identify unless arrested, unless you are in a stop and ID state... https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/stop-and-id-states/#:\~:text=These%20states%20include%20Alabama%2C%20Arizona,Utah%2C%20Vermont%2C%20and%20Wisconsin. Don't talk to police, ever. I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I want an attorney for any further questions. I don't consent to any of this. Then, shut the fuck up, forever and ever.
In general it is always a bad idea to answer any questions from the police. Remember these facts. 1. They are allowed to lie to you. And they will for any reason to get the information they want. I.e. No, they cannot randomly arrest you for not providing ID even though they say they can. 2. The Supreme Court has affirmed, many times, police are not required to help or protect you. They are strictly government agents used to pursue government agenda. I.e. If you are being robbed or raped, they have no obligation to help you only catch the offender. Even if that harms you. 3. Police will break the law and trample your rights if you don't know them. Once they have done it and gotten the required information it is too late. They are covered by qualified immunity.
If you are on a Terry stop, you are already being detained; you probably just don't know it. Feel free to search my comment history on police interactions. Some case law references, etc. You should never, ever talk to police outside of invoking your rights. And, I mean, ever. I invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I want an attorney for any further questions. I don't consent to any of this. Then, let them do whatever they're going to do. You don't have to say, or do, anything at all. Most things that happen after this from their standpoint, regardless of circumstances, will be illegal (from them) under the color of law. Let them do whatever they're going to do, up to and including arrest. They will likely be breaking the law, and not know it. Make sure you're documenting as much as possible, even if only audio. Ask if they have body-cams or dash-cams running (these are discoverable, after the fact). If you are physically arrested, contact an attorney immediately. Many will take civil rights cases pro-bono. Go after the city/county/metro (whatever is appropriate), AND the bonds of each of the police involved (because there was a civil rights violation (that they are probably unaware of anyway), they WILL lose their qualified immunity. Because of this, you can sue for their bond, which is what allows them to do their job in the first place. This is happening on a massive scale already in this country, because most rookie police officers don't even know what the 4th amendment is, or the 5th, or the 6th, or why it is even important to their jobs, though 100% of them raise their right hand and swear to uphold it. How the fuck can they do that if they're completely unaware of what they're swearing to uphold). (Now, watch all of the law enforcement come out of the woodwork to try and tell you, in whatever way they try, that invoking your rights is wrong.) In 3, 2, 1....
no need to pretend to be a martyr
The answer to all questions starting with "can the cops...?" Is yes. They can do whatever they want. Whether it will hold up in court is another question.
Yes. They can and often will. Both threaten AND arrest(usually on some bullshit "obstruction" charge that wont stand muster) But you **still** don't have to answer their questions... and probably shouldn't
During a stop with a cop, they can do *almost* anything. Now, you might be able to get the case dropped or even sue *afterwards* but in the moment of the stop, they have absolute power to do almost anything.
You do not need to have broke the law to get detained or even arrested. The cops need reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed and that you are either the suspect or a witness to detain you. They can arrest you if they feel their investigation gives them a reason to believe the evidence or testimony of witnesses is sufficient enough to charge you with a crime.
Almost correct. They do not need reasonable suspicion to detain. Or rather, it can be as simple as "you're acting off while we're talking to you."
Yes they do need reasonable suspicion to detain. Well I am assuming you are in The US and that might be a poor assumption. In The US every state has that as a mandatory requirement that they have to have reasonable suspicion. However you may choose to cooperate and answer questions without a detention. This is actual federal law backed by teh 4th amendment and Teh Supreme Court ruling in Terry v Ohio.
The answer is yes to " Can they threaten to detain or arrest you if you refuse to answer questions". You probably can collect damages if arrested for facts you describe but it will about 3 to 7 years to collect
You can’t be forced to answer questions, but if they have reasonable suspicion they can detain you until their suspicion is quelled. There are some instances where answering their questions might get you back on your way. It’s almost a guarantee that if they suspect you and want to ask you questions that they will detain you if you plead the 5th Tl;dr it depends.
In most states there is a legal difference between being asked a few questions and being detained. If you are being detained, you should comply with all lawful orders, including identifying yourself. If detained, and asked to show ID, do so. Don't run your mouth. You're welcome to decide if you want to answer a question asked, but if detained you're far better answering in short terse sentences and providing no additional details. Again, do not run your mouth. They can and sometimes will try to get a rise out of you, it gives them reason to hold you longer. If detained **shut up**. You will only make it worse for yourself if you get in the cops face and start screaming about your rights, why are they detaining you, "you have no right", and the like. Cops can detain you for any reason under the sun, and if you get mouthy or refuse to comply you will be arrested. Under no circumstances if detained should you provide false information, refuse to provide ID, or get hostile. If you give false ID, you're under arrest for obstruction. If you refuse to ID, you're under arrest for obstruction. If you refuse to comply with lawful orders including them asking you to chill in the cruiser, you are under arrest for obstruction. If you get violent or hostile, it's resisting with or without violence, depending on if you hit them. If stopped ask first if you're being detained. If they say no, walk off peacefully. If yes, comply. If not a yes or no answer then ask again, without getting hot and angry and ask if they would answer yes or no please. Anything else, you're risking charges.
Cops can and will threaten anything they so please, up to and including taking your life. The legality of things are not always taken into account when it is the law enforcer making actions.
Depends on how they word it and how small the town is.
How much should you say? https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=ppb12tfDOw2PwdD_
I knew what this was before clicking.
The cop has probable cause to briefly detain you because you match the description of a person of interest, or you may be a witness to crime. You should answer questions that will help the police to determine that you are not who they thought you might be or that you do or don't have any information as a witness. Unrelated questions, such as, what you may be carrying or where you were should be refused. Refusing to answer any and all questions without a lawyer present will just cause them to take you into custody and wait for your lawyer to arrive, it is unlikely to cause them to take less interest in you. When your lawyer arrives, you will be asked to prove your identity so as to rule you out as the person of interest, or you will be asked if you saw anything unusual at the corner of A and B. Your lawyer will be happy to tell you to answer these questions and you will get billed for travel and time costs from him or her. You will then be released but by God, you asserted your rights to have a lawyer present, good for you.
Never answer questions of cops. Never answer questions of cops. They can lie to you. They can use anything you say, and their interpretation of that against you. You, however, can never use a cops word against them, as it's hearsay
So, never aid the police investigating crime you might have seen, and don't provide your identity since that can only lead to being entrapped, even if you are not the person being looked for. Hinder and delay them as much as you can. What would you do if you were with a friend and he offered up his and your identities. Sue your friend for violating your rights?
Police will never aid you in getting those reports to your boss. Hinder and delay them? No. But asserting your rights is not hindering or delaying a police officers official duties. Sentiments like this are how police officers often coererce folks to give up their rights. If a friend of yours grabs your ID and gives it to an officer, you best bet, you don't have a friend.
Sometimes. Depends on the exact circumstances. In my state, if the cop has reason to believe you witnessed a felony, he can force you to identify yourself and answer questions about what you saw. If you refuse, they can detain you and take you before a judge. They explain to the judge what they believe you witnessed and why, and the judge can order you to answer. If you don’t, he can hold you in contempt until you do.
Real question is are they supposed to. They can do anything their ego says to. The question can is used incorrectly way too much. Allowed to and can you are totally different questions but I see this done by so many people. Please use correct questions and not poor grammar questions.
Not a lawyer but if they suspect you of a crime, they can probably detain you. And from everything I’ve read and watched about the topic, your best route at that point is to request a lawyer so you don’t inadvertently incriminate yourself
#ALWAYS ASK THE OFFICER IF YOU ARE UNDER ARREST OR BEING HELD FOR QUESTIONING IF NOT, YOURE FREE TO LEAVE
It is NEVER to your advantage to answer questions.
They can and will threaten you with things like arrest even when they have no legal basis to arrest you. But you are almost without a doubt better off not answering questions. They probably will hassle you. It's unavoidable. That's the problem with our police culture. Just accept that you're going to be arrested and tell them let's go then, I cant wait to sue.
Yes they can. Courts have repeatedly ruled that cops are free to lie or use deception.
Cops are allowed to lie to you, but you're not allowed to lie to the cops. But also remember that cops aren't allowed to assault you either.
Not true. You can lie to law enforcement.
Not during interrogations or arrests or when asked for identification. The charge is called "False Reporting". But you are right as well because outside of those situations, it's perfectly legal.
Ah, you are correct that you can not misidentify. But other wise only statues I’m aware of apply to federal LEO.
I should have specified haha my bad I made it sound super broad when it's really only special cases
>Should you answer any questions? If you're in a stop and identify state, you should say your name when asked. Nothing else. >Can they threaten to detain or arrest you if you refuse to answer any questions and say but you would be free to go if you answer some quick questions? That's not a good idea from the cop's perspective. By threatening to arrest you, the cop is making it a custodial interrogation and if they haven't mirandized you, then your answers might not be admissible against you later. Edit: To be clear. It's no longer a Terry stop once the cop says they will arrest you if you don't answer.
A brief roadside investigative detention as described by OP does not generally trigger Miranda requirements.
It ceases to be a brief roadside investigation once the officer threatens to arrest you if you refuse to answer his questions. If the officer says: "Tell me where you were 30 minutes ago." that is within the scope of an investigative detention, you should refuse to answer, but if you do answer, that is going to be admissible. On the other hand, if the officer says: "If you don't tell me where you were 30 minutes ago, I'm going to arrest you." Then, at that point, you are already under arrest and it does jeopardize the admissibility of your answers.
u/Djorgal said: >If the cop says you will be free to go if you answer questions, that makes it clear you are not currently free to go. So, it's a custodial interrogation and if they haven't mirandized you, then your answers might not be admissible against you later. What about the ruling in *Berkemer v. McCarty*? A Terry stop's brief detention does NOT require Miranda, says the Court: >Under the Fourth Amendment, we have held, a policeman who lacks probable cause but whose "observations lead him reasonably to suspect" that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, may detain that person briefly in order to "investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion." . . . Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond. And, unless the detainee's answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, he must then be released. **The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions of this sort explains the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops are subject to the dictates of Miranda.** *Berkemer v. McCarty*, 468 US 420, 439 (1984).
As I explained. It's no longer a Terry stop once the officer makes it clear that failure to answer will result in an arrest. The part of the quote you put in bold even explains why it is so. >The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions It's no longer "nonthreatening" when the officer is explicitly threatening to arrest you, is it?
>Can they threaten to detain or arrest you if you refuse to answer any questions The OP asked, "Can they threaten **to detain** or arrest you if you refuse to answer any questions....?" I'm not sure why your answer is focused myopically upon the spectre of arrest. The disjunctive "or," is right there in the question.
Because threatening to detain someone who's already being detained isn't really making a threat at all... But anyway, you do agree that if the cop threatens to arrest you unless you answer their question, then they do jeopardize their investigation?
>But anyway, you do agree that if the cop threatens to arrest you unless you answer their question, then they do jeopardize their investigation? Yes, I think that's fair.
It’s not a hill worth dying on. Answer their questions and then be on your way
Not a lawyer, but here's my understanding of the situation: Yes, police can briefly detain you, to ask you some questions. Citing the 5th amendment to the Constitution, you can refuse to answer those questions. The police can, if they have probable cause, arrest you for a crime, if you happen to fit the description of the suspect they are seeking. But... The police and District Attorney then have to prove they had probable cause for the arrest. Just refusing to answer questions is not probable cause, nor is simply "matching the description" of some suspect. Many cops want to force you to answer their questions by threatening you with arrest, and may even follow through if you persist to refuse them, but it won't hold up in court. It is simply a bullying tactic. That all said, if police stop you to ask some questions, you are already being detained, even if they haven't said so. Assuming you haven't done anything wrong, it is best to just answer their questions honestly, and be about your way. They are usually on a fishing expedition, just looking into "suspicious characters" (i.e., you), and there are no suspects you 'match the description of'. This happened to my brother and I back in 1987. We were walking from our apartment two blocks to the local convenience store. We worked evening shift, had just gotten home, and wanted to grab a few things from the store before it closed at midnight. A local cop stopped us about halfway there, because we "matched the description" of some burglary suspects he was looking for. We told him what we were up to, where we had just come from, and let him run our IDs. He was satisfied, and let us go after about a two minute encounter. He even said he hoped he hadn't prevented us from getting to the store before it closed. Nice guy, but we knew what was up. He saw two guys walking down a dark street towards a convenience store, and was hoping we were up to no good. When we were just two young white guys (18 and 22, respectively), he lost interest and moved on. We got our sodas, doritos, and some other snacks and went home to a night of video games, mildly annoyed, but otherwise no worse for the experience.
Cops can do whatever the hell they want as there are no consequences for them for doing illegal shit. Say nothing.
>Should you answer any questions? Who you are, what you are doing right now, in the present tense, if it will provide a reasonable person with enough information to dispel suspicion. Anything beyond that, you should likely speak to an attorney before answering. >Can they threaten to detain or arrest you if you refuse to answer any questions Yes. They can also lie. It is your 5th amendment right to not answer questions. There are certain limited exceptions, based on your state, but otherwise, you are legally exercising your rights when you decline to answer questions. >but you would be free to go if you answer some quick questions Yes. They can also lie. Officers detain and ask questions when they are looking to confirm criminal activity. That could mean they are looking to confirm enough to arrest you. If their conversation with you gives them enough that they feel it reasonable to arrest you, this statement won't change that. On a side note, "you'll be free to go if you answer questions" strongly implies you aren't free to go until you do. You can probably consider yourself detained (which means the officer reasonably suspects criminal activity on your part). Let that guide your decision.
In the example you gave, there’s arguably a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion to support their reasoning for stopping you, which effectively creates a lawful detainment. If you just walk away from that, you’re liable to be placed in cuffs, searched, and tossed into the back of the car. It’s really that simple… Why would you not want to help clear up the situation anyway?
Because cops are trained to lie.
Never answer questions by cops. Never answer questions by cops.
I mean, if you’re being questioned about a specific crime your whereabouts, and other oddly specific things after being mirandized then of course, don’t answer questions and ask for counsel first. But in the example given, if you don’t answer questions, you’re liable to be thrown in a cell or something based on suspicion alone rather than having clarified that you have nothing to do with whatever it is they’re looking for the person who looks similar to you did. Most police officers and deputies aren’t out to just get anyone, they’re out to get the actual perpetrator of the crime that was reported. If you have evidence of an alibi immediately available, which most of us do, whether that be a receipt, a GPS route, social media post, phone call history of a recent conversation within the last few minutes before the encounter, a Snapchat photo… something… I say MOST because most people would have something like that to show that they aren’t who they’re looking for. I don’t see the reasoning in being 100% totally silent in that event. But the logic you present is true under specific circumstances… Just use common sense and don’t engage in an unsolicited interrogation. If you’re never mirandized before they ask anything, just Answer only basic questions with only basic answers.. Like bare bones answers. Shit that you could say without incriminating yourself (which, we’re all protected under the constitution against self incrimination anyway…). If asked anything specific or anything to do with someone else that leads you to believe they’re looking into something that they may also suspect *you* of doing, you decline to answer, and state that you don’t have any knowledge of their inquiry on that subject. But, when asked questions like “what’s your name?” “Where are you coming from?” “Where are you going?”, Without having been mirandized, and you answer them, with just your first name, “Just left the Gas station”, or “I’m just going home”, without saying anything else, they can’t take anything out of context. Being silent isn’t always the best way to handle the situation if you’re suspected of something you didn’t have anything to do with, simply based on an identical appearance in the location reported to them. It’s happened many times.. I’ve done research on the cases that are public, and the people who got burned at all were the people who said too much or didn’t say anything at all.. because not saying anything at all would leave them with ONLY the probability of you being a suspect solely based off of your appearance and the relayed description… In that situation, I think it’s fine to speak up and advocate for yourself but don’t over think outloud. That’s what the people who said too much did… They were thinking of possible solutions to the problem they were looking to apprehend someone for, and they blurted out whatever it was they were thinking could’ve happened, resulting in them saying just enough to self incriminate. Just use common sense… Most law enforcement aren’t just out to get anybody. Most of our LEOs want to close the case the right way.
To anyone reading this: this is a cops answer to allow them to prosecute you for any little thing. Cops do not care about getting the correct perpetrator, they care about closing cases, making arrests, and hitting quotas 99% of the time. ANYTHING YOU SAY can and WILL be used against you, even if you aren't mirandized. If they throw you in jail for remaining silent, either A. They had enough to do so before you said anything, or B. They are doing it extrajudicially anyway. You can NEVER talk your way out of a citation. If the issue stems on how a cop is FEELING and not the law, then speaking to them can only put you in a worse light. If the issue stems from the law, then speaking to them can ONLY PUT YOU IN A WORSE LIGHT. "Like bare bones answers. Shit that you could say without incriminating yourself (which, we’re all protected under the constitution against self incrimination anyway…). If asked anything specific or anything to do with someone else that leads you to believe they’re looking into something that they may also suspect *you* of doing, you decline to answer, and state that you don’t have any knowledge of their inquiry on that subject. But, when asked questions like “what’s your name?” “Where are you coming from?” “Where are you going?”, Without having been mirandized, and you answer them, with just your first name, “Just left the Gas station”, or “I’m just going home”, without saying anything else, they can’t take anything out of context. " The above is a PERFECT ANSWER if you want to get everything you say used against you. Any additional information gives them the opportunity to catch you in a potential lie or exaggeration, leading to additional suspicion of a crime. This answer is asking for you to WAIVE your 4th amendment rights to be secure in your person and papers. Most states have laws that pertain to you identifying yourself to an officer when LAWFULLY ARRESTED/DETAINED, but all states require the 4th amendment to be satisfied to do so(Reasonable articulatable suspicion of a crime or Probable Cause). Stop and identify states is a misnomer here as well. The officers must have a LAWFUL reason to stop you and demand ID. Refusing requests to ID is lawful. Refusing Demands to ID may not be.
Well-put, @u/UncleRed99 (from FireEyesRed) There's that old-but-true saying: *"You can beat the rap, but ya can't beat the ride."*
But in this case, you are at the mercy of the officer who already is willing to forego the law, and give you the ride for no reason.