It's a fair point, but I'm kind of getting tired of responding to it. I think that such an absolutist stance can be more harmful than helpful in some situations, and that view is backed by my anecdotal but not-insignificant experience.
Some officers do not care about your rights or the law, and if you demand a lawyer when they ask how much cash is in the vehicle after they pull you over for doing 37 in a 35 zone, then you and your lawyer are going to spend a little while dealing with the matter.
Whereas if you give nothing away while remaining polite and courteous and aware that you are probably being lied to, you might drive off with a warning. You might still need to fall back to "am I being detained", but you might not. Sometimes you simply can't completely avoid a conversation, especially when the other party can physically compel you and make up an excuse later.
There is no universal good advice for such difficult and varied situations, and acting as though there is doesn't do anyone any favors. That's why I like this article and commented on it; the author provides useful knowledge and references without being overly prescriptive.
And incidentally, the absolutist "never speak at all" part of the James Duane talk comes with the caveat, "if you are being suspected of a serious crime". The article seems to be more about officer-knocks-on-your-door or traffic stop sort of situations.
I wonder if they go fishing for a big catch sometimes.
I was pulled over for expired tags a couple weeks ago by city police. They asked for IDs for my wife and friend in the back seat. Our 2 year old was with us as well, in his car seat. We are all quite caucasian, in case anyone is wondering.
I have no idea why we were asked this, but I declined the request. We got a warning for the tags.
Slightly more complicated, but not by much. It's not clear to me whether not talking versus explaining the situation would help or hurt your chances of keeping your money, but Civil Asset Forfeiture seems counter to the rest of the ideals of the US judicial system.
They need to be able to say it is "more likely than not" related to a crime. If there is a hint of weed in the air, the officer claims your pupils are slightly dilated, and they notice a lighter and a generic plastic baggie in the car, that might be enough to be able to confiscate the cash in your vehicle and the vehicle itself. The "hint of weed in the air" and "dilated pupils" are subjective and leave no physical evidence. The lighter+baggie aren't exclusive to marijuana, but they are considered paraphernalia. Also, having more than a few hundred/thousand USD cash has been considered more evidence of a crime in past cases (although I don't see how it could be).
And remember that there's probably a reason why you were approached by the officer, so they (or a prosecutor, if you've been arrested) will likely threaten you with more charges if you don't sign a waiver[1] or just lighten your charge sheet if you agree not to challenge the forfeiture.
And cash+vehicle confiscations usually happen to people driving through other states, so it's hard to get legal representation and it's usually pretty difficult to coordinate a legal case from out of state.
> When out-of-town drivers who felt victimized by a Tenaha forfeiture called local lawyers for help, their business wasn’t always welcomed. “That’d be like kicking a basket of rattlesnakes,” one defense lawyer warned a forfeiture target.[1]
Everything about Civil Asset Forfeiture has a bad smell. I wish we would just roll it back. It's a perversion of justice to allow the same government organizations who confiscate property to profit from the confiscations.
At least as of a few years ago, when police in Ohio stop you they seem to like asking you if you have any firearms in the car, just as the stop is wrapping up. I never figured that one out, either.
Depending on the state, you must inform a police officer that you are carrying a gun at the beginning of the stop. It could be a trap or a pretense to search your car.
"It's a fair point, but I'm kind of getting tired of responding to it. I think that such an absolutist stance can be more harmful than helpful in some situations, and that view is backed by my anecdotal but not-insignificant experience."
If you do not admit anything, your statements cannot be used against you in court since you did not admit anything. And how do you tell in advance when your purported exculpatory statements will be helpful? Answer: you cannot. Hence you do not make statements.
"Some officers do not care about your rights or the law, and if you demand a lawyer when they ask how much cash is in the vehicle after they pull you over for doing 37 in a 35 zone, then you and your lawyer are going to spend a little while dealing with the matter."
If you are dealing with law enforcement that does not respect the law, why would you not want an attorney to present your side of the argument?
"Whereas if you give nothing away while remaining polite and courteous and aware that you are probably being lied to, you might drive off with a warning. You might still need to fall back to "am I being detained", but you might not. Sometimes you simply can't completely avoid a conversation, especially when the other party can physically compel you and make up an excuse later."
What you are describing is unlawful behaviour on the part of the law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer cannot "compel" you to make a statement, as that would be inadmissible in a court of law as a statement made under unlawful duress.
"There is no universal good advice for such difficult and varied situations, and acting as though there is doesn't do anyone any favors."
Yes, there is under the U.S. criminal justice system. You do not make statements to law enforcement officers who are investigating a crime.
"And incidentally, the absolutist "never speak at all" part of the James Duane talk comes with the caveat, "if you are being suspected of a serious crime". The article seems to be more about officer-knocks-on-your-door or traffic stop sort of situations."
Whether it is a criminal offense or a civil wrong, e.g. a parking ticket, the same logic applies. Do not make statements to law enforcement.
I always say politely "I respectfully decline to answer questions." I never make it a machismo contest or get upset, but sometimes I have to repeat that a few times. Also super important "I decline a search of my vehicle and person as a matter of principal."
Some officers do not care about your rights or the law, and if you demand a lawyer when they ask how much cash is in the vehicle after they pull you over for doing 37 in a 35 zone, then you and your lawyer are going to spend a little while dealing with the matter.
Whereas if you give nothing away while remaining polite and courteous and aware that you are probably being lied to, you might drive off with a warning. You might still need to fall back to "am I being detained", but you might not. Sometimes you simply can't completely avoid a conversation, especially when the other party can physically compel you and make up an excuse later.
There is no universal good advice for such difficult and varied situations, and acting as though there is doesn't do anyone any favors. That's why I like this article and commented on it; the author provides useful knowledge and references without being overly prescriptive.
And incidentally, the absolutist "never speak at all" part of the James Duane talk comes with the caveat, "if you are being suspected of a serious crime". The article seems to be more about officer-knocks-on-your-door or traffic stop sort of situations.