A high school friend of mine made the mistake of doing that because in the past he had cooperated with the arresting officer (i.e. snitched). However, what he didn't realize is that may have no bearing on what the officer might do but even more importantly, it's the prosecutor who decides if he's going to pursue the case and they did not care about his past history with that particular officer. The police are not your friends but more importantly they aren't the ones who do the prosecution. They interrogate and they have a job to do.
You can talk to the police during normal goings on just fine. They are not going to interrogate you just for asking for directions. It's during an investigation that you should lawyer up.
A friend was an LAPD detective for 30 something years. Now retired. Extremely nice person.
He emphatically told me I should never, ever, ever talk to the Police. Even if I witness a hit and run and just happen to be standing there and they walk over to me. Any one of 10,000 scenarios where the Police ask me for something, or want me to give information about something (even if I wasn't there).
They are actively searching for someone to blame, and if you happen to say the wrong words while trying your utmost to be helpful, they'll happily pin it on you.
That example is pretty bunk. I've literally been that person talking to the police after a traffic accident dozens of times. They have never asked for an ID, 90% of the time they don't even ask for your name, and maybe 50% of the time they ask for a phone number (they have never called back).
There are absolutely police officers who are lazy or will power trip or love busting perps. But each officer is not starting dozens of investigations every day. Especially the beat cops you are most likely to run into.
I think the deal is that it only takes once to ruin your life. The chances are low, but if you win the lottery the risk is personally devastating. if they try to pin a felony on you and even if it all comes up as bunkem, you'll forever be on the internet as someone charged with a felony without a conviction, the same will come up in your criminal background search.
How are they going to pin something on me if they don't even get my name or address?
People are conflating two things in this thread - "talking with the police" (aka voluntarily consenting with questioning) and literally just having a conversation with a police officer.
If you have a moral directive to slight the police, I can understand. But just asking for directions or telling them what you saw is not going to increase your chances of having a felony pinned on you more than showing up in random security footage.
Dozens might be an exaggeration, but at least a dozen. I had a job that required me to drive a lot in urban environments, and I regularly pulled over for good Samaritan stops.
I also briefly worked at a motel in the middle of nowhere and you better believe that regular conversations with police officers is a critical aspect of the job.
Experience with law enforcement is 100% affected by the biases the officer you are talking to suffers from.
If you're the middle class, middle American, nicely dressed, and got that harmless look. Well, expect things to go pretty well. Business owners of non-sus businesses generally have it pretty good too.
Are you a minority? Not dressed well? A youth? Well, things can go sideways for you quick.
> in a way that can't be meaningfully predicted. The stakes are incredibly high, too.
If we're talking about giving people advice for the police, I don't think people are going to need help with "Oh, you're being stabbed as we speak, should you call 911?" That's not the question people need help with. You're not boosting anyone's judgment here by leading with that argument.
However, if police want to ask what you're doing on your property in a friendly way, should you respond or should you say that you want to contact your lawyer? Or if you feel like striking up a conversation with the police to develop warmth, should you?
The right answer might come down to whether you're black, Native American, Asian, man, woman, etc., but without knowing more, don't talk to police is solid advice which has developed through a long relationship between citizenry and police. Even if you're just a witness, it would be naive to think you have nothing to fear. Even when you are the person who needs help, it would be naive to think you have nothing to fear.
If the police of America want to turn around their reputation, that's totally on them. The ball is in their court.
This is how you persuade citizens to accept widespread surveillance.
If people know that if they get hit by a car or robbed or something like that none of the witness will talk to the police they are going to be way more inclined to support more surveillance.
Ok, so you know society breaks down at the limit of what you are saying, right?
Also the example is ludicrous, you're saying the cops would try to blame someone for a hit and run that isn't even in a car. No, the cops are not that cartoonishly bad. Some cops in some departments may be, and I can almost guess the cities, but the average cop is not a monster, they're just some person like you or me.
> the average cop is not a monster, they're just some person like you or me.
The average person like you or me who becomes a cop gets chased out of the profession because they wouldn't turn a blind eye to the crimes their fellow officers commit against the public. Everyone left is most likely either just as guilty or complicit and enabling.
"Chased out" is the mildest version, even. There was a case of police whistleblower who ended up with no backup each time they were responding to a dangerous call, for example. Or that guy in NYC who was forcibly institutionalized by his fellow cops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
I would say you should pay attention to who you're talking to. Some cops are that cartoonishly bad. My wife worked retail at TMobile and had cops come into the store at times trying to get information about customers. Most of them would accept the corporate policy and go talk to legal about the information they needed. One police officer started having a meltdown, sweating profusely, got visibly angry, and made her present her ID whereupon he wrote down her driver's license number, address, full legal name, etc.. She spent the next month or so dreading what he was going to do in retaliation. All because she redirected him to their legal department for information about a customer.
It sure does. So we better make it so that cops behave in ways that actually make people trust them, and fast. Anecdotally, I feel that most people my age or younger already treat the law in general, and law enforcement in particular, as some kind of mostly destructive force of nature that you do your best to stay out of the way of.
It doesn't help that whenever police organize in any capacity, denying and covering up abuses always seems one of the goal. Just look at what FOP says every time there's a police shooting.
Yes - society breaks down when cops act dishonestly and people stop trusting them. That is a good reason to fire the dishonest cops and hire honest ones, but in the current climate, that can't happen.
There needs to be prosecution and not just firing. When an engineer lies in a legal setting and consequently gets someone put into jail for years, should they merely be fired?
they won't blame you for the hit and run, but what if a store near there gets robbed an hour after you talk to them, and they decide you're a suspect because you look somewhat like the description and they know you were in the area?
I think you're stretching to make your point here.
You can construct many "what ifs", but they mainly apply if the police are actively subverting the normal rules of law or incompetent.
There are a subset of cops who are corrupt, or racist, or classist, where merely interacting with the police can lead to serious outcomes, but that's sort of a different problem that has to be addressed more systematically.
> You can construct many "what ifs", but they mainly apply if the police are actively subverting the normal rules of law or incompetent.
Cops in the US barely receive training - the average length is 22 weeks, while Germany clocks in at 2.5 years [1]. Of course a lot of police will be incompetent in the first place given the length and priorities of these trainings, made worse by cargo-culting from "senior" officers and by "killology" training [2].
> There are a subset of cops who are corrupt, or racist, or classist, where merely interacting with the police can lead to serious outcomes, but that's sort of a different problem that has to be addressed more systematically.
The fundamental problem is that you don't know whether the police officer you are talking to is good or not, and if you find out, it is too late.
Talking to a police officer is like petting someone else's dog. Don't do so unless you've talked to someone who feeds it first.
there are a multitude of legitimate reasons to talk to police without a lawyer. e.g. you are a victim, you are helping a victim, you are being friendly.
The real advice is not to try to talk your way out of a crime because it rarely works.
If you call them for a break in you 100% are a suspect. They suspect you're up to something. They might even find evidence of another crime while they are investigating the break in.
in several of these situations you may become a suspect by talking to the police. Plenty of instances of people being killed or injured by the police also begin with them calling the police for help.
The huge problem with cops in US is the prevalence and popularity of Dave Grossman's theories about "sheep", "wolves", and "sheepdogs". Some PDs pay big sums of money to have all their officers attend a "killology" training. Look that up and judge for yourself as to what it trains them to do.
Yes it negates any (negligible) utility you might hypothetically get from them.
Here's a different example:
Police have a policy of shooting aggressive dogs, under basically any circumstances. So if you have a pet that is slightly protective of their territory, then any situation that brings the cops within shooting range of you pet can get your pet killed.
I've wired electrical outlets without turning off the breaker, and I'm still here to type this. I would not, however, advise others to do so but rather emphasize the importance of turning off the breaker before doing electrical work.
Other than "nice day, eh?" or "No, as a matter of fact I do NOT know why you pulled me over", don't talk to cops without a lawyer.
In my experience they will phrase it as “Do you know how fast you were going?” or “Do you know what the speed limit is?”, worded in such a way that ANY answer is incriminating.
Can you explain what happens if you answer those? Does that affect the outcome?
Is a cop that pulls you over for what looks like a traffic violation trying to get you to make an incriminating statement (I have no idea, I'm just asking. No agenda)?
In the few situations where I was pulled over for speeding, I asked the cop to show me the reading and also whether the device was calibrated in the past few years, and they've always obliged (after answering "I know how fast I was going" and "I think the speed limit is...". If they have a calibrated device and they show me the reading, I'm not really sure how my answers to those questions affects the decision tree.
What you want to do is avoid creating an unnecessary confrontation by acting adversarial.
This might not be as significant as you think. My understanding is that many models allow them to set that number directly. If I recall correctly, the source for this was "A Speeder's Guide to Avoiding Tickets", written by a former state trooper.
I don't know if it's factually accurate, but the advice in that book has generally been solid.
I don't know if that's accurate either. In any case, his reading corresponded the speed I was going (within the margin of error for a speedometer, which can be large), and it was calibrated, so I signed the citation and paid the fine.
Again, if cops are actually going around setting values to get citations, there are larger systemic problems. Also, many vehicles have GPS and other datalogging showing actual speeds, so if the cop is faking the numbers, that's going to start showing up in court.
answering that you know how fast you were going, combined with data suggesting you were speeding yields the conclusion that you were intentionally breaking the law.
Yes, and? Sorry to be obtuse, but I'm just trying to understand the decision tree here. Of course if I'm speeding I know I'm breaking the law. Does denying that somehow get me out of a ticket?
Look at the base rate of speeding. When I drive on 101 in the bay area in clear traffic, I'm doing around 65 (the limit)-75 in the right lane and the majority of people are passing me on the left (or tailgating me because they want me to go faster or drafting or whatever it is that causes people to drive too close behind me when I drive near the speed limit). From what I can tell, unless a cop is actively trying to be punitive, they typically don't stop a car simply because it's going up to about 15MPH over the freeway limit.
I have personally successfully argued in front of a traffic court judge that I could not be aware of the speed limit since the sign was obscured, and it resulted in not having to pay the ticket. I am sure I would not have been successful if I admitted guilt in front of the officer who pulled me over, or participated in his various gotcha games.
Did the cop show up to your court date? Did they provide any information to the judge? Did you truly not know the speed of the road you were on, and was that because the sign was obstructed, or is that the argument you made in court?
It seems like in this situation I could have honestly answered "no, I did not know the speed limit".
I mean, where I said I'd know the speed limit above, if it was truly obscured, I think I would be playing it safe and judge things on what the road looked like, whether there was a school there, and the weather and other ambient conditions.
Yea, the cop showed up, presented his evidence, I argued that absent a posted limit I was following the state's default limit for that type of road, and brought a photograph of the nearest speed limit sign obscured by a tree branch as evidence that I could not have known the posted (lower) limit. Judge found it convincing. I noticed that the branch was trimmed two weeks later.
I did not answer any of the officer's questions during the stop, but did identify myself and hand him all the documents he requested. I figured I wasn't going to avoid the ticket using my mouth, so I saved it for the judge.
OK, fair enough. You acted in good faith during the court date and chose not to answer questions or get adversarial with the cop during the stop. And you were technically correct, with evidence, which is best kind of correct.
How did you proceed past the initial questions, IE how did you refuse to answer in a polite way (I'm curious because there is a whole genre of youtube videos of cops stopping people and the driver getting in an adversarial situation by refusing to talk).
Also, just out of curiosity, what was the default limit for that type of road, and what was the posted speed limit? Are we talking "driving 35 in a 25 zone". Any other contextual information, like weather conditions, nearby school, recently changed limit, etc? The cops that park at the school near me usually don't stop people unless they are driving 45+ in our 25 zone.
I just ignored his question and immediately handed him the documents he required without any resistance. I didn't talk back or question him or even remotely cop an attitude. I'm sure I got lucky that the cop didn't feel like pressing further with his gotcha script. I am white which probably helped immensely too. Unfortunately that still matters--I can acknowledge my privilege.
I watch a lot of those YouTube traffic stop videos (they are addicting), and a lot of suspects in these videos talk themselves into (or attitude themselves into) an arrest. Not to mention incriminating themselves. You know the ones who don't make it onto YouTube? The ones who shut the fuck up and probably end up much better off.
If that traffic stop leads to the cop finding something else in your car, and that leads to a crime, a simple question can make the difference between a legal or an illegal stop in a court of law. Since the best case scenario in a traffic stop is "don't get a ticket" and the worst case is "Be confined to a concrete cell with a serious criminal conviction for the rest of your life" I don't answer any questions whatsoever, no matter how trivial. Happens to innocent people all the time.
Getting a $200 ticket you could have otherwise "talked your way out of" is a small price to pay to vs. the risk.
How sure are you that you know the speed limit and how fast you were going? Your speedometer likely read a different value than the police officer's radar. If you tell them you were going faster than they measured you at, which value do you think is getting written down? Also, even though you were speeding and were pulled over, that doesn't guarantee that you actually got radared. It's entirely possible that you were pulled over for something completely different, but by answering that question, you have just admitted to something else.
I can't be sure of the speed limit and how fast I am going, but having lived in this area I can typically tell the speed limit of any road. Highways are 65MPH, and streets are typically 15 (alley), 25 (residential streets with parking and school areas). In California, speed limits are not required to be posted in some situations, "prima facie", and knowing the mapping from road characteristic to speed limit is required to get a permit.
For how fast I'm going, I'm usually checking my speed every 30 seconds or so, but can also tell how fast I'm going simply by looking, how hard I'm pressing the pedal (my car is in "Eco" mode, which means it's pretty pokey all around).
I never drive more than about 15 miles above the speed limit (and then, only on a freeway where folks are driving fast enough that I don't feel safe driving slower, because people frequently come right up behind me and change lanes at the last second if I drive the speed limit on California highways). So I am not particularly worried about the cases you're describing (speeding like that is a misdemeanor, not a felony). I used to drive faster, but over time I concluded that driving slower has a wide range of benefits, both in accidents, as well as fuel consumption. It's not like driving 10MPH faster on the freeway is going to make a huge difference in your arrival time.
I see a lot of armchair lawyers on places like Hacker News who confabulate all sorts of scenarios to justify their adversarial relationship with the police, other folks who assume all cops are racist/classist/whateverist, and other folks who just don't want to follow laws because they don't like authority. I really don't know what to say to folks like that. Collect telemetry and bring it to court, and good luck with that!
So the last time I talked to a cop was last week, when one knocked on my door. My neighbor's car was stolen overnight, and the officer wanted to know if my security camera was recording and if anything was captured during a certain time frame.
Are you telling me that I should have shut the door in his face, and called my lawyer?
You can also drive without a seat belt several times and likely be ok. It only takes one time to be proven wrong, however, and by then, it may be too late to learn the lesson.
