As Scott Greenfield has noted in The Worst Kept Secret: Cops Lie, the lies may be little, or they may be large, but they will lie.

And the most common lie is to make people think they don’t have rights and must do exactly as they are told in every instance. Cop wants to search your car? A scenario like this has been known to evolve:

“I’m going to search your car, okay?”

“No. Why? I didn’t do anything.”

“If you didn’t do anything, then you have nothing to hide, right? So let me search your car. I can search your car. So, okay?”

The poor submitizen says, “Ummm…” and sometimes even, “Ok” in response to the officer’s assertion that he can and will search the car.” However, when it later goes to court, the officer will say that the submitizen “consented” to the search. The officer takes the submitizen’s failure to continue to object, or his use of the word “Ok,” which was meant as “Ok, if you say you can search my car, then I can’t stop you,” and uses that for the basis of the officer’s — not the submitizen’s — decision that the submitizen consented.

I call that “just twist[ing] things as per their whims n fancies as we have no clue of our rights.”

And this is usually the case with unbridled authority. That’s why the Founders of the United States tried to bridle authority.

First off, “Do NOT drive druk”. Come on, you know how drunk you are…despite the fact that you MAY be able to drive or admit to your friends and famly, you still know yourself. Before you get your hands on that wheel ask yourself, Is it worth,
a. getting arrested?
b. paying high insurance premiums for years to come?
c. loosing your license?
d. risking your own life, your family, your own reputation, car apart from other’s?
e. Is it enough challenging (that you can drive normally), to prove yourself wrong utimately?

Here is my experience…

I have been stopped by an officer around 3 AM in the morning. I am night owl and yes, I admit drinking a few beers that night…but it was all before 1 AM that morning…I was very sober…It was 3 AM I am tired and a bit sleepy.

Anyways, I have not read any DUI forums before and didn’t know exactly how to react.

The officer approached me after stopping me and questioned
1. “what are you doing?”. Well, I heard it as how you doing? and responded “I am ok”. In response, the officer became all bossy and he goes, thats not what I asked. Well, “What are you doing?” should not be a question (for you cops reading out there).

I believe 100% that I was all sober and didnt have broken tail lamp or an expired license plate…

I had taken taken 2 breathalyzer tests, one before (where the officer didnt think that I was trying my best to blow into the pipe). I took those tests
1. Looking at the officers fingers while it moves left and right (don’t exactly know what that is called)
2. Standing on one feet and start counting at the officers mercy to stop
3. Walk 9 steps touching foot and toe alternately with my both legs, turn around and do the same.

I tried those tests later on at home and couldnt do it right, without drinking a sip of alchohol and couldn’t do it all correct.

Anyways, the officer was kind enough to let me go by saying “I was little under the acceptable limit” and asked me not to drink anymore and go home directly.

I think, the officer was really doing his mere duty that day. But, I have a few requests to all officers out there,
1.you all have enough experience to determine who is “DRUNK” and who is not…and please do not follow the same old-school insane rules, perform the same unreasonable tests to determine if one is drunk or NOT, unless you have to.
2. Do not be bossy, you may have 101 rights and reasons to believe that, being a cop gives all the supremacy in the world. People have their own rights and deserve them.
3. Never stop no driver (unless, you have to) especially if you are bored patroling.
4. Know that merely 95% of the people are genuinely not drunk, especially when they can drive.
5. Understand, people generally like you all. You keep us safe and sound. Having said that, dont over do your job. Have a heart too. It need not always the old-school rules, be dynamic and judgemental. Its ok, if you stopped a wrong driver…you dont have to prove them, wrong some times you can be too . Ask yourself, how may times you may have drove over legal speed limits, without a compelling reason.
6. Is it worth, challenging defence attorneys to ultimately know that their client is “Not Guilty”?
7. If their license plate tells you, their past. Do NOT stop them unless you have a compelling reason to…, Is it not ok, if they are 5 miles over the posted speed limits
8. Be a good cop, work in the interest of the people, do not judge a person based on their color,race,the type of car they drive. Ofcourse, what they do will tell you the most of it.

My intention with this post is to create a happy medium between the cops and people, where their paths may cross and No offence to any defence attorneys (for any lost business )

Finally, the questions, I had were
1. How do not agitate a cop by not answering a question, which may obviously work against you.
2. How to get a hold of an attorney in the middle of the night (I am guessing 80-90%) of the people may not have a designated attorney if you resist arrest or not admit drinking. (Attorneys out there, please feel free to earn business with this quetion )
3. Does one need to answer, what they do for a living or where they are coming from and going to?
4. Can one tell the officer clearly that i am tired and sleepy and request to let go (When fairly confident that they are sober)?

Well, lets start here and I think this will be a starting point on the debate to come…

later folks,

-Sun

As to your suggestion, that would have been a fantastic title if my goal had been to keep people from reading the article. That not being the goal, I selected a title I thought would attract more readers.

Interesting that you see the dissemination of knowledge as a threat.

I suspect “You have the right to remain silent” also falls into your perception of counterproductive information.

In reality – “The police are permitted to lie to you and will use anything you say or do to convict you” – would be more truthful . . . but you already know that, don’t you. Best thing about being a cop is that you know how to deal with cops.

Think of this site as the moral equivalent to an experienced Sargent telling a new patrolman to wrap his flashlight with tape.

I handed him my DUI stop card – which stated – first line – “I exercise my right to remain silent.”

Got pulled over. Why? We know why.

“Exit the car please. ”

I opened the door and looked down – his foot was right where I expected it to be – where a normal person would place their foot getting out of the car – epxected testimony: “he stumbled getting out of the car”

I avoided that one. Exited the vehicle. Went to the rear so my gait and demeanor was on their camera.

Light shined in eye – eyes closed. Mouth shut – exhale though nose. I could see the little string of lights on the alcohol detector on the flashlight.

Cop then says: “I am going to ask you to perform the “standard field sobriety test, consisting of three tests, yada yada yada”

He is now standing about 6 feet away – as training – then I say – LOUDLY and clearly for the camera: “I am exercising my right to remain silent. I have already told you that. Now I am exercising my right against incrimination – please read the document I handed you.”

He comes up real close and says “Why you talking so loud?” I remained silent. This time staring him down.

“Do this test” I remain mute. “Do this now” No action. “Now this one please” – I remain standing.

“Whats your problem? You got something to hide?” I love that line from cops – well, “if this was not part of an incriminating sequence of events you would not be asking the question – would you?” But then I’d have to say something – and I always remember that case from Connecticut where a guy was too smart to be a cop.

He goes back to his supervisor – who asks him “Whats that all about?” ‘Guy invoking his rights.’ “What?” ‘Yeah, won’t say anything. won’t do the tests’
Why, he drunk?” ‘Don’t think so.’ “So whats his problem.” ‘a guy from up north, probably a lawyer,’ “Well, if he ain’t drunk why you wasting your time?” ‘don’t like people like that.’

And there is was. I tried to get a copy of the tape under FOIA but then claimed it was under a police investagory exception. I then filed a rights violation complaint and used the state case number in the subpeona and less than 30 days later they claimed it was destroyed – yeah, I bet it was. And yeah, neither officer remembered the stop. I find that impossible to believe.

So he comes up to me, hands me back my DL, reg and insurance info and tells me that ‘cooperation is generally the best course down here.” I could not stay silent any longer. “Yes, officer, it usually is until my rights are violated, like they were here tonight. Good night.” He tried to trip me getting back into the car too.

Then, to go on to say that a “free” article educating citizens about their Constitutional rights and the law, to which they will be held in a Court of law, should not be “information out in the open”, is insane. Citizen’s rights and the law should be kept secret from them, so they can be tricked into violating it, or being convicted? A “reflection of the the direction this country is going”? My take on it is the average person has only a foggy or incorrect idea of what his or her rights are, and that law enforcement routinely exploit this lack of knowledge to sidestep virtually every Amendment in the Bill of Rights. For example, Fourth Amendment case law is so riddled with exceptions, especially when vehicles are involved, that the average joe almost always waives them when in the presence of police. My feelings on the matter are that, given the gravity of potential criminal prosecution, everyone should have to pass a civics class in high school that covers practical aspects of the law and one’s Constitutional rights. It’s more a reflection on the direction that the country is going that such education is hard to obtain, and police feel the way portrayed in the comment (if in fact written by a real law-enforcement officer).

Saying that you have not helped yourself at all by refusing to answer questions is relative: maybe with respect to the officer at the scene, it is not helpful, but where it really counts is in Court, and from that perspective you are almost certainly better off not admitting guilt or saying anything. No one wants to be the victim of an impaired driver, but there are so many other reasons someone might be stopped and accused of being impaired when they are not that one should exercise one’s rights. I think the admission by “The Police” that they have generally made up their minds before they actually perform any tests is telling. People who have just broken up with their significant other and have been crying might have glassy, bloodshot eyes, and I know that I am so nervous when I am stopped (because of previous bad interactions) I probably am shaking and acting pretty dumb when I attempt to retrieve my license and registration. These signs do not necessarily mean one is drunk. If an officer has already made up his/her mind, all they will tend to see is “evidence” consistent with that conclusion – I’ve seen it a more than one police report. And what comes to pass when an officer testifies that someone exercised their Constitutional/legal rights?

Rights exist to protect the innocent, even at the cost of hindering proving guilt. It is not the job of law-enforcement at the scene to pass judgment, that is the role of the Courts. Keeping citizens in the dark about the law and their rights in order to facilitate arresting people who might be innocent might make law-enforcement’s job easier, but it is not the principle on which those rights and the Country are founded.

Enough already. Made me think – have to admit.