Pixiq

I never had an encounter with the police because I have never broken the law. I did not know things can go so wrong if you are innocent. I would have done everything the police told me if I ever had an encounter with them. Now I realize how dumb that could be. Hopefully I never have to be in a police situation ever. Thanks for the info.

“I never had an encounter with the police because I have never broken the law.” Being born black is not against the law but it is a “reason” for an encounter.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/26/watch-it-here-10-rules-for-dea...

Here’s the whole thing demoed at the Cato Institute with a discussion at the end of the film.

All excellent advice.

The biggest key to all of it is to always stay calm and be respectful.

Another thing I would add is that if you’re talking to police, try to stand in front of their dash cam to make sure the incident is recorded.

Police can and will use anything you say against you whether you’re innocent or not. A bust looks good on their record and if they can make it look like a reasonable bust, they’ll do it and they don’t care about your innocence at all.

Did you all catch the part where it’s legal for the police to lie to you to get you to cooperate?

I’ve thought about designing and selling a camera system that people can activate in their cars in case of a police encounter. Since a cop standing outside your car is in public and has no expectation of privacy, you are allowed to photograph without their knowledge.

i had an idea for a car stereo that started recording at the push of a button for the same reason.

If you have the time: I highly recommend watching the following two videos. It takes the concept above to a whole new level to explain why you should _never_ talk to police. Ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related

Excellent! Well worth the time time.

Just one criticism: In two parts the police uses the “menace” of guns as a excuse to search. This is not questioned at all; in fact, the video seems to accept that this is a true issue that gives the police an excuse. This is not so, and I’m disappointed that this was not treated more explicitly.

Remember: They will first go for your guns and then they will take your cameras.

A video camera that records through a fish-eye, sends all video via the cell network at the touch of a button to a safe place (not your computer, but a corporate server), and informs the police officer via a recording that they are being recorded and the driver of the car has no power to stop it.

As a former cop, I can say this was a very good video, but it’s a bit misinformed. The courts have established that your car does not afford you the same protection against searches as your home because contraband and weapons can easily be hidden and transported within.

That being the case, the police do not necessarily need probable cause. Renmember when the officer told the driver he looked nervous? There is a supreme court case called Michigan vs. Long which establishes the officer’s right to safety over the right of searches. It’s an extension of a Terry stop (terry vs. ohio, giving the right to police to search a person for weapons without probable cause).

The courts decision was that the officer did NOT need probable cause to search the vehicle because he could articulate he was concerned about the defendant being in close proximity to weapons during the encounter. This is reasonable – if you go back to issue a citation to someone for speeding, you don’t want the guy to get a gun out of the glove box and shoot you.

So, Michigan vs. Long allows an officer who has reasonable concerns for officer safety to search the interior of a vehicle immediately accessible to the occupants for weapons. If any other contraband, such as narcotics, are found during the course of this search, it’s a good search. This search does NOT need to be done with probable cause… just a reasonable suspicion.

Otherwise, it’s an awesome video.

Sorry J. Mark, but “This is reasonable – if you go back to issue a citation to someone for speeding, you don’t want the guy to get a gun out of the glove box and shoot you.” is not reasonable suspicion just because a cop feels there may be guns or a pillow to smother him with will not fly.

Reasonable suspicion would be some evidence less then probable cause, such as the cop saw a knife on the floorboard of the car. Not illegal to have a knife but enough to do the protective search.

I understand that cops have spidey senses and all, but you may want to look at an even newer decision that opines once you are removed from the auto they have no need for a protective search.

Of course people act nervous when stopped by cops just go to the Injustice Everywhere, or The Agitator sites to see that cops are among the worst criminals in society today.

Here is a link for Michigan vs Long.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_1032_ZS.html

Here is a link for Arizona vs Gant.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html

Michigan v. Long requires a little explanation, though. First, Long was Terry-searched based on the Officers seeing something in plain view. This series of videos didn’t go into the plain view rule, but FlexYourRight’s earlier traffic stop video did. Long story short, Officers don’t need anything to look into your car windows to see what they can see. Don’t leave things in plain view.

Second, what they saw in plain view, a hunting knife, is significantly more of a “specific and articulable fact” than “the driver looked nervous”. Big difference.

Thirdly, only the immediately accessible passenger compartment of the vehicle was subject to the protective search. Further searches occurred after Long had been arrested for possession of the marijuana found during the initial protective search.

Finally, the Court ruled in Long that the searches were limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden. (Which, as noted above, it was.) This concept has been further narrowed by Chimel v. California (Officers may only search the area “within the immediate control” of the person arrested) and Arizona v. Gant (protective & evidentiary searches can only occur if there is a reasonable chance that the person arrested can access the area subject to search). In the latter case, Gant was locked in the back of a patrol car and there was no way he could get access to his car’s passenger compartment when the police conducted their search.

Aside from all that, I think your main point is valid and correct. It’s tough to distill forty years of Constitutional law down to a ten minute video. Viewers are well-advised to remember this.

Not all cop cars have those dash cams. I am friends with a police officer in my home town, and we don’t have cars with cameras here.

Fred – yes, Michigan vs. Long happened because of plain view, but it’s where the decision came from. The two other cases you mentioned further reinforce what I stated above – areas immediately accessible to the occupants for weapons.

Now MacK, I know you like to make fun of this thinking these safety concerns are not warranted, but I once had a guy in the back seat of an SUV with a gun and was going to shoot me in the back of the head whe I was talking to the driver. So, I assure you, these case laws are set in place for a reason and not to inconvenience the drivers of vehicles.

I’ll make no defenses for the actions of many officers. Some of the tings that go on are completely shameful and it’s the reason I decided to get out of the occupation; because the honor was tarnished by a some idiots with badges and it always seems that the administration sticks up for these clowns. In a manner, I understand your dislike of officers, especially if you’ve only had encounters with the few I talked about.

Of course, on the other hand, if you are continually having encounters with various police officers, you may have to check yourself and some of the decisions you might be making.

I can vouch for J. Mark because I’ve talked to him several times on the phone.

He is a former Florida cop who moved to Maine to be a cop, only to leave when he realized it was corrupt.

He is also a photographer so he gets what we’re all about.

you can still indicate that you don’t consent to a search even if they start hollering “LONG V USA” and other such garbage at you. saying “i don’t consent” doesn’t bar them from searching, it just gives you a legal foothold should anything come up in the search.

A POSSIBLE legal foothold. I’ve had probably a dozen “motion to suppress” trials over my career and I can’t think of a single one that was sucessful. And, I hate to say it, if you don’t have anything to hide, being polite and consent is the best way to avoid a citation and get off with a verbal warning. The average cop’s attitude is if they didn’t get to search your car, you are probably hiding something and therefore, you are getting at least a citation. I guess that beats going to jail for drugs or weapons, though.

Of course, if you live your life and make good decisions and do the right thing, you don’t have to worry about any of that.

“…I have never broken the law.”

No, you think you have never broken the law, but chances are you break the law every single day and don’t even know it. It is impossible to know all the laws that effect you. Even if you had three lifetimes to devote to studying the laws, you still won’t know them all. Last year alone over 40,000 laws were passed. Read that again….in just one year 40,000 laws were passed.

Alex – I couldn’t agree with you more. I always said the same. There are so many laws on the books that it would be impossible to follow the letter of the law all of the time. Of course, part of commiting a criminal act is intent.

I’ll give you an example: if you live with your girlfriend and you are not married, in Florida, you have committed a misdemeanor. Now, that law has not been enforced in probably a century, but still – it’s on the books and if a cop wanted to be douche about it, you could actually be arrested for it (but the State Attorney would NEVER file the charges, but it would still be a good arrest).

“The average cop’s attitude is if they didn’t get to search your car, you are probably hiding something and therefore, you are getting at least a citation.”

Which works out to punishing people for exercising their rights, especially if they’re innocent of possessing contraband.

“Of course, if you live your life and make good decisions and do the right thing, you don’t have to worry about any of that.”

As long as you’re willing to give up your privacy to prove it.

http://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Better a Bike Pirate

It’s smart to never talk to the police unless absolutely, 100% necessary. And it’s almost never necessary to talk to the police. If they pull you over, don’t do anything other than identify yourself and provide the required paperwork. If they start asking where you’re going, what you’re doing, etc., don’t answer. Just smile and ask if you’re free to leave.

Cops have a job, and that involves arresting people. They aren’t talking to you because they like you, they’re talking to you because they want to arrest you.

It’s probable that calling 911 to request police in emergencies produces more harm than good. When seconds count, cops are minutes away, and afterwards you’ll be subject to their suspicions that you’re not really a victim, etc. Innocent people can be charged because of their foolishness in believing that cops were there to help them instead of just trying to find a convenient stooge to arrest.

I encourage everyone to watch the links that Fred Sands provided on why you should never, ever, under any circumstances, talk to the police.

The problem is that if you are innocent and you consent to search you are allowing police to circumvent the constitution for when they interact with people in the future.

It’s my personal experience that once you get pulled over, you’re getting a ticket no matter what, there’s no way of talking out of it or being cooperative to get the ticket to be torn up.

Everyone do yourself a favor, don’t allow searches and just take the ticket. You can always fight the ticket in court but allowing unconstitutional precedents is a horrible idea.

I’d much rather get a citation than have a cop search and find something:

A. I didn’t know was there.
or
B. I didn’t know was illegal.
or
C. Is not illegal but the cop thinks it is.

As an example of point C, I photograph nudes. Often these images only show parts of a body. Do you think the average police officer is going to be able to tell the difference between the body of a thin petite 25 year old and a 15 year old?

Let’s not be so ignorant as to believe that breaking the law is somehow the only justification/requirement for being stopped by the police.

Sure, there are SOME good cops, but there are a LOT more that let the badge and the power go to their head, and have no problem abusing said power.

If a cop wants to pull you over bad enough, they WILL find a reason. That’s why you need to be informed and know YOUR rights. If you don’t, they are not your friend, they’re not going to help you, and sure as hell won’t do you any favors. No matter what bill of good they may try to sell you, it really does come down to us against them in those situations. Information is your only real power. That, and a good recording device.

It’s a terrible shame you feel that way and it’s an even bigger shame that you are mostly correct in this. I have to tell you, though… the cops in Florida are far better than the ones up north. Want to talk about some lying sacks of shit? Look no further than Maine police. I worked as a cop in Maine for about 6 months and that’s all I could stand. They do nothing but cover up for each other and lie their asses off… making the story fit the crime, not making sure the crime fits the statute.

Many cops, especially in Florida, don’t want to write tickets. I know I sure didn’t… I probably searched 200 cars in 2008 and wrote less than 10 tickets the whole year. I was always fair and cool with anyone I stopped and there are a lot of other cops out there in Florida (especially Palm Beach County0 that are the same.

Not so much Maine. The first time I was joking with someone and shooting the breeze, the officer “training” me told me they don’t socialize with suspects. I had to laugh at him and let him know my experience was about what he would get aftert a century of police work in Maine.

Thank You VERY MUCH for posting this great info. You are great, it is much appreciated: )

For a full, not-chopped-into-10-minute-segments version of the video, you can also go to:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/26/watch-it-here-10-rules-for-dea...

The video is of the Cato Institute’s screening of the movie, so you also get some ceremonial introductory comments at the beginning of the video, and an audience discussion after the movie.

Rule eleven: Run as fast as a bullet from a gun…

Be a good little shee…citizen and submit to rights violations. If you’re not doing anything legal you have nothing to fear, right?

Your attitude is REPULSIVE. i wish there were a stronger word.

Nevermind the fact that artistic nudes of “underage” people is completely legal and protected under our constitution. there’s an image floating around the internet that shows movies, rated by the MPAA for viewing in the united states that have nudity of people under the age of consent.

huh. The cops where i live in rural maine are pretty lenient. (of course this varies place by place.) Most traffic offenses they will just give you warnings for. Also, they are pretty nice people too. Last winter I had to head down the road to a local convenience store to pick some supplies up during a nasty storm. A cop saw me walking and gave me a ride home (front seat). I’ve found personally that the ones in my area are pretty decent people.

Having read many of the comments here ive seen alot of ideas as to how to handle being questioned by the cops. What I do is show them my membership card to Prepaid Legal Services. Now I know many of you may not have even heard of them but let me tell you how it could help in this type of situation. If for some reason you are pulled over or detained for no reason you have only one rite, the rite to call your attorney! Yes your attorney! With my membership I can call them while there with the officer and the officer would have to explain to them why he is pulling me over. Now the responce that I love to here from the officer at that point is “Well Mr McDaniel, Im just going to give you a warning this time!” LOL I have heard alot of those. I drive the way I want, and havine 3 tickets in the last 3 years I have no points against me. My membership with PPL insures traffic defence at no cost other than my monthly membership as long as Im Licensed and insured. So I never worry about getting pulled over no matter what!

Useful information except that a VERY common LEO behavior is to manufacture evidence, and fabricate a narrative BEFORE the stop or “interview” so they don’t have to think quickly to provide a legal pretext. How can one explain a police officer with barely a fifth grade education who has never used a dictionary and uses street slang in formal communciation to say—”…I observed a sudden furtive movement toward the wasteband to an object that appeared to be weapon…” Oh yes! and everyone knows including the judge that it was very improbable that this dummy with badge even knew what he was saying!

I have had many L.E.O.’s over the years brag to me about manufacturing evidence (planting illegal items, or physical evidence such as hair, fibers or blood that was obtained from an incarcerated or detained subject without their knowledge. Many police carry around a battery operated vacuum cleaner pre-loaded with the evidence they intend to “find” on you. Over the years there have been many police who have been found guilty of first d egree murder. When is the last time YOU ever heard they received the death penalty for their murders?

Presently there is a police officer in Northern California on TRIAL (see link) who allegedly hired his two brothers to murder another police officer. The murderers allegely “lied in wait” and shot the police officer in the back as we was preparing to leave for work. In California “lying in wait” and “murder for hire” are death penalty cases. I predict that NOTHING will happen to the police officer if convicted! Why? Because the DA prosecuting the case will most likely make a strategic error in the trial that will allow the charges to be dropped or the police officer to go free and murder again…if that is his desire.

WHY can’t a police officer who, in fact, is a murder, be tried and sentenced just like other murderers ? Because that is the system supported by prosecutors, judges and the publiuc. When we see the first LEO convicted mudrer, with his arm extended for the “needle” (judicial homicide), it will show that we will be ready to treat everyone the same, instead of two laws, one for everyone else and one for bad cops.

POLICEMAN accused of murder for hire—to murder another police officer–who allegedly had an affair with his wife. This cop got caught—but ONLY because he killed another cop.

http://cbs13.com/crime/chu.vue.trial.2.1850127.html

“…Opening arguments began today in the trial of a former Sacramento County Sheriff’s deputy accused of killing a state correctional officer.

Chu Vue, 44, is suspected of killing Steven Lo, 39, in the driveway of his South Sacramento home on October 16, 2008. Today, the District Attorney began by saying that Lo was ambushed and assassinated and that Chu Vue was the architect of his death.

The DA claims Vue wanted Lo dead because he believed Lo was having an affair with his wife. Chu organized and paid for his brothers to carry out the murder, according to the DA.

Vue’s friend and distant cousin, Lang Vue, is also on trial for Lo’s death.

Chu Vue’s brothers, Chong Vue and Gary Vue, were also arrested in March along with Chu and Lang for the alleged homicide.

Note–the story is BURIED by the mainstream press. If this were a homeless bum…it would be a front page story with a hang ‘em jury and a hang ‘em judge. Hundreds of “witnesses” at the behest of cops will come out of the wood work to claim they saw the murder. Not in the case of cop murders cop. Everyone dummies down. WHERE ARE THE CAMERAS? This is an opportunity to test how much freedom we have.

A twenty word “story” from CBS news on page thirty— OR A STORY WORTHY of a Hollywood POP TART with a parking ticket!