There are two ways to remain silent - one is to invoke your right to remain silent. The other is to remain silent. Sounds tricky but it makes sense. www.lehtoslaw.com
Part of what Steve is saying here seems to be in conflict with the outcomes of at least one state case. Specifically, simply remaining silent seems to be insufficient in at least the state of Texas. Salinas V. Texas, 570 US 178 from 2013 seems to indicate that you must "claim" your right. Can anyone explain how this ruling and the statements that you can simply remain silent are both correct? I found this case on the channel "Audit the Audit" in the video "Dash Cam Saves Citizen From Lying Trooper",
Traffic stops aside (just cooperate and settle it in court) the best course in a serious criminal matter is to lawyer up fast and hard. No attorney ever said "thank goodness my client talked to the police-it made my job so much easier!"
I'd only add that your right to remain silent doesn't begin with the arrest. It is ever present. A police officer could ask you questions during his "investigation phase" (before you're in custody) while you are simply being detained. Those answers are admissible. Point is don't answer questions to begin with. Period. Answering questions can't help you in court.
@@B_Bodziak It's lawful only if they are investigating something before they detain you. The detainment itself cannot be a reason to investigate. That's like saying you're under arrest for resisting arrest even though you were not under arrest or doing anything wrong before the resisting.
@@aheartoflovecanneverbedefe4596 They're trying to cooperate with a police investigation by providing exculpatory evidence. If you know what you're doing, it can work; but if you don't, shut up.
I once was questioned by police over a misunderstanding. The only word they got out of me was Lawyer and a written phone number for 3 hours. Two very unhappy police officers who found themselves in some trouble for continuing to ask me questions without my lawyer present. When the facts became clear, the police actually came back in and apologized to me, which I accepted due to the circumstances. Then had a hospital employee fired. It does take a great amount of self control to try not to explain your way out of a situation but when the police can lie cheat and steal in an interrogation not saying a word other than lawyer is your best bet. I took a nap till my lawyer showed up. Nothing I would have said would have done me any good, and potentially had me arrested and thrown in jail.
A quote I heard many years ago was "people generally don't go to jail for what they _DIDN'T_ say...." If I were in a "pickle" I'd probably exercise most of my rights after receiving a Miranda warning - first by writing and saying I wish to remain silent and I wish to have legal representation present and all questioning would go through them. The roadside question changes a bit if you are licensed to carry a concealed handgun/weapon. Depending on the state (and you're supposed to know before you go) you may or may not have to obligation to inform an officer when stopped that you are licensed and carrying a firearm (I never use the word "gun" especially if there are two officers - when that word is used their attitude could quickly change). In Ohio you have that obligation in other states such as Indiana you do not. As always great content on a relevant topic.
I met an attorney who was for many years the president of The trial Lawyers association and he told me that 80% of the people in jail are in jail because they didn't remain silent.
@HH AA Notice that nowhere in his statement did he mention actually committing the crime they were convicted of? The old tried, and true method of "throwing everything, and seeing what sticks..." In other words, if you are looking at 5 years, for simply opening your big mouth, one would GLADLY take 6 months of a lesser charge, just to not get the 5 years! Lawyer's wouldn't have to plea %80 of cases, if you STFU! ANYTHING you say to Police( Innocent, or not), will INSTANTLY be twisted into a crime with the most potential time in jail. They then use that as "blackmail", for a lesser charge...If you STFU; They can't blackmail you with ANYTHING!
Except that's not strictly true. In most of those cases what they said *revealed facts* that formed the the basis of their conviction, facts which may have been discovered even if they had remained silent. Merely remaining silence in no guarantees avoiding a criminal conviction. It just prevents the detainee from getting into worse trouble.
@@KeldorDAntrell MANY of those cases, not most. In fact some people are told that there's no point in going to trial because no one believes your story, you're likely to lose, and if you lose in court you'll get 20 years but if you plead guilty you'll get 3-5 years and be out in 2. If you're poor, uneducated, and especially black or Hispanic you'll believe them because you're used to seeing your people getting the shaft from the power structure.
I've heard of people who told police they want to remain silent, but the police continue the interview and the suspects continue to talk to them. The interview isn't over if you verbally invoke your right to be silent...the cops are still going to take a shot. I've advised many people to never speak to the police without a lawyer if under arrest, even if you're completely innocent. Cops are looking for evidence against you and they know how to get it. A lawyer knows how cops work.
Miranda leaves out something I think should be an important part of the process. At the end when they ask "do you understand your rights?" they should have to ask a second question "Do you wish in invoke these rights?" This should serve to greatly decrease the confusion of weather someone has invoked or waved their rights.
@@Rx7man I would think that is understood: i can just not answer something. Nobody would think that in order to remain silent i have to *not* remain silent.
@@miketheyunggod2534 No. Steve has covered this, as well; Anything you say that can prove your guilt, is allowed. Anything you say that proves your innocence, is "hearsay"..."Did my client tell you....?" Objection! Hearsay! "Sustained..." Did the defendant say....? "Yes, he said..." Objection! "Overruled; "Preponderance of evidence" In other words; The courts take the words of an officer, as holding more legitimacy just BECAUSE they are Police...%100 FACT! You need an education! The only thing the court CAN'T use against you, is invoking your right's; "Did the defendant refuse to answer any questions?" Objection! Immaterial! Sustained. The fact that you invoked your rights, has no bearing on your guilt/innocence...It's up to the STATE to prove what you did/did not do; Not the other way around...
@@brentfarvors192 Hearsay can be used to CONVICT you, not to ABSOLVE you. Only negative hearsay evidence is excepted to the hearsay rule. ANOTHER reason to keep your yap shut.
I invoke my right to not be arrested by obeying the law to begin with. Sadly, there are too many idiots who want something for nothing, or have so much hate in their hearts that committing a crime is inevitable, or some other infraction of the law that puts us all in jeopardy of arrest/detainment.
By exercising your right to remain silent, doesn't mean cops are gonna stop trying to get something out of you by keep asking questions. "I want a lawyer" is what stops them from asking questions or at least it should.
It's crazy that even if you ask for a lawyer and stay quiet how much they still try talking to you and then leave you in the room for an hour come back and ask if you want to talk or whatever but it seems like a lot of times cops don't accept your silence and lawyer right away and keep trying to get you to talk
A police officer once told me the best person he ever had to interview that remained silent was a 16 year old girl who just picked a spot on the ceiling and stared at it for 2 hours solid no matter what was said to her.
I'm not sure if this flys in the US but from what I understand in Canada my best answer would be "under the advice of counsel I'm not answering any questions." And just repeat that to every question.
Interesting stuff, as usual. I especially liked your comment "if you want to flee, you might want to go farther, but that's just me". That one made me laugh :-)
Best advice I ever got from a lawyer was when I was going through a divorce. The lawyer was a longtime friend who practiced criminal law in the UK. I asked him how to find a divorce lawyer. He replied, "Steve you don't need a lawyer, you are intelligent enough to sort it yourself. If you can avoid lawyers, remember they are very expensive." I used that argument when someone threatened to sue me, I told them they had no case and that my lawyer was very expensive, they gave up.
I've always said that if you're being questioned by the police and you did something illegal, then invoke your rights and get an attorney. But if you didn't do anything illegal, then invoke your rights and get an attorney.
I used to work for a police department. Trust me when they pull you over. They've already told dispatch the color and type of vehicle and they are running your tag number, which means they have a picture already on their computer. But you still have to show that you have a current operator's license on you
You have the right to remain silent is how the Bill of rights reads. Later the SCOTUS cleared things up by ruling that you had to speak (invoke) first. Amazing the power that word salad can bring to bare.
Police: keep person in a room for three hours attempting to coerce him into a confession. Guy: *gets coerced* Supreme court: this confession is clearly uncoerced.
I pulled over in Washington DC to let some business clients see the Jefferson Memorial. I stopped in a bicycle path (no bikes were around) so a cop decided to give me a ticket. (The stop to drop off the passengers took all of 30 seconds, if that.). The cop decided he needed to lecture me... which he did about five times -- approaching my car and lighting me for my "egregious" judgement. I was calm and friend -- one of the guys remained in my car and were joking about the cops demeanor. I figured I'd get a ticket and be on my way. Eventually five or six additional cops pulled up. What the heck??? The cop writing the ticket was on the phone for a good half-hour apparently trying to determine all the charges he could nail me with. By this point my other clients had come back to the car and were as perplexed as I was at all the police for a simple non-moving violation. The cop finally came to my car and once again proceeded to lecture me about my "egregious" decision to stop in a bike lane with no bikes in it -- he was angry, hostile and seemed to want to provoke me to fight back. We were now 45 minutes into the situation. I had had enough -and asked to speak with his supervisor. The officer refused. I had had enough and started to get out of my car when the all the cops moved forward -- I asked them to intervene in this ridiculous situation but they all just stood there. I cooled off a bit, took the ticket, drove off and immediately filed a complaint with the U.S. Park Police (the agency those cops work for). The lesson I learned is that you should never talk to police officers -- I had been respectful up to the point of the fifth lecture. So weird --- I'm 61, a conservative law and order Republican, and I've worked for two U.S. Senators, a governor, and on two U.S. Senate Committees and have never had a problem with the law. I will never view cops the same way -- totally disgusted. Remain silent.
now maybe you seewhy the polar opposite political view of you gets the ideas they have, where they seed from. not to justify either side but, more of food for thought.
So Jeff, I’m sorry that that happened to you in our nation’s Capitol. Let alone anywhere. I don’t know how you will ever honestly forgive them for their actions. Conservatism is most difficult whenever it calls to turn the other cheek. Oh, man you’re in a tough spot today still for sure. Humbly grateful for your comments. KEEP THE FAITH AND DO NOT BE DISCOURAGED BUT ENCOURAGED IN THAT IN YOUR WEAKNESS JESUS IN YOU IS MADE STRONGER!-Bible
Steve, what if you were driving on an expired license, wouldn't showing it to them constitute self-incrimination? Also, in California, they don't prosecute or even ticket illegal aliens for driving without a license or driving without insurance, but they do with citizens and legal residents. Doesn't that constitute impermissible disparate treatment of a different class of people? They don't even prosecute illegal aliens for lack of insurance when they cause an accident, whereas they criminally charge a citizen or legal resident for the same thing? What happened to equality under the law?
I understand that I do not possess the power to change this, but the supreme court IS wrong and their wrongness is not truly debatable. that statement may be debated, lol. I hold the right of freedom of speech, and just talking IS the employment of that right. I have the right to keep and bear arms. My simple ownership of a firearm IS the exercise of said right. At NO POINT MUST I declare that I am exercising ANY right, to exercise that right! The activity explained and recognized to be a right is automatically and ABSOLUTELY established with zero need to do anything else. The RIGHT to remain silent is not abrogated by someone answering some questions or casually using his voice. The person may admit knowing a victim, and not answer questions about the murder of the victim. The right to remain silent is determined by the accused. Remaining silent on select types of questions is still availing one OF that inviolable right. Police do not have the RIGHT to pull people over, they have the license, permission, to do so.
Why is it incumbent on a lay person to be fully versed in law? There is no other realm where we require a non professional to be responsible for knowing as much as the professionals. If you cross a bridge and it crumbles we don't demand that you should have been able to calculate the weight to stress ratio of hybrid steel cables before you walk. In fact in the law it's just the opposite with professionals held to a higher standard. It is so illogical. People die at police stops because officers expect them to act in certain ways they have zero training for and do t think about. The law expects far to much of the average person. I mean just assuming the intellectual or educational level is on its face absurd.
Yes you must invoke. If you show you know your rights you can call on them later. Otherwise they will tell you to shut up about rights in court. Invoke , invoke, invoke always
Whenever I'm pulled over (not very often), I'm Mr. Politeness until I know that I'm getting a ticket. Once I know that I'm getting that expensive piece of paper, I just shut up and don't answer or ask any questions. Here in California, they want to know your phone number as well as your employer's address, and they usually get pissed when they don't get it. One time, the officer told me that I was required to provide that information. He didn't get it.
@@Kauffman578 I just informed him that everything he needed was on my license, registration, and insurance card. He said that he could take me in for not answering questions, at which point I told him that I wouldn't answer any questions at the station either, and that this would just be a waste of time for both of us. I was polite yet firm. He finally decided I wasn't worth the trouble, wrote the ticket and told me to have a nice evening. Always exercise your Constitutional rights when you're able to.
@@gypsygirl9 The citation has places for the officer to list your phone number and place of employment. They say it's there in case they need to reach you. Anyone who discusses a legal matter over the phone, when they don't know who is on the other end, is an idiot anyway. I just tell them they can come to the house or send me a letter on their department letterhead. The main thing is to be polite when asserting your rights. Calling the officer names doesn't help anyone.
@@moeshipley4170 I have never seen a citation that had spaces for phone numbers or employment information. If that in fact exists, I'd like to know who signed off on that change in design.
The fishing they do is what bothers me. Get pulled over for a simple infraction, get a bunch of unrelated questions! Might even try and search your vehicle.
Sometimes there's a damn good reason to search a vehicle. Ever heard of the killer Jeffrey Dahmer? He was stopped by a cop for a minor traffic infraction *while he had the dismembered body of one of his victims in the trunk* ! As it happens, that officer did make a cursory search but didn't find the body because he didn't open any of the refuse sacks but if a cop happens to discover other crimes in the course of their duty, then that's a bonus (and it could save lives).
@@KeldorDAntrell That is still not a reasonable purpose to go fishing on every stop. Jeffrey Dahmer was 1 individual out of a whole country. That is saddling a whole country of people to catch one person by complete chance. That kind of so-called logic only works when percentages are way more significant and their is no data to suggest what the likelihood of evidence of a crime is in vehicles pulled over for some other reason. A car search can take quite a while and if every car that was stopped had a search, that is a lot of time being utilized by cops that will result in nothing. On the other side of the coin, the victims of the search are inconvenienced and with the numbers we are talking country wide, that could potentially effect the GDP and economy. Now you will likely want to come back at me with all the crimes committed throughout the country and the possibility to control it better but cops cant handle the duties they have, let alone giving them more power to go to their heads.
@@dizzydinonysius Moreover the dumb cop didn't even find actual rotting bodyparts in sacks while intentionally looking in the trunk for anything suspicious. So it didn't work the first time either.
The law is ran by people that are aware of their choices. They know the law isn’t always about right or wrong. Yet judges, prosecutors, cops choose to take advantage of such laws to their benefit. Not for a greater good. Just succumb to the temptation to behave in a way because they know a person isn’t even allowed to defend themselves against this armed theft. When these individuals choose to enforce such things they should be removed for being morally corrupt in a job that requires the most honorable type of person. They need held to a higher personal standard to keep the job.
Thank you for a clear and sensible answer to this question. Your videos are always informative. I am grateful that you take the time away from a busy life to share your experience and wisdom. Have an excellent day. 😎
The problem I have is that it seems more often that the thin blue line is not here to serve and protect but to harass and collect. I had a run in with a off duty police officer and her ex cop husband who were clearly breaking the law on their part yet I was harassed detainded accused and had to go through the whole drug and alcohol test simply because they broke the law!
Not necessarily true. I had the misfortune to get pulled over, but I was not sure I could say the reason and that the officer would believe my explanation, so I simply apologized and said it would not happen again. No ticket.
@Becky Elliott I have had good experiences with police when it was one police man, but in this case I realized how they can be. I could have had a case of harassment, but there was no way the on duty police officers would that happen. There was no report, no paperwork or nothing.
Suppose someone being interrogated declared something in the order of, “Separate from any and speech materially pertaining to this and all other related official interactions, for which I invoke my right to remain silent, I retain as separate, my right to common everyday conversation.” I’ve always wondered if that would work.
I have no issue showing license or registration. My issue is the personal questions the officer asks. Not only does he/she not tell me the reason they pulled me over but ask me questions like where am I going or what am I doing here or where did I come from. After I have given my information I dont need to talk or Answer an officers questions. Of course then they ask you to step out of the car and harass you further or try to incite. Cops are criminals that get away with too much period. I've never been arrested but I have had officers infringe on my rights because they know they 'll get away with it.
Agreed, everytime, like shit heres license and insurance, go right whatever and we'll go to court. But other than that, were not friends, so I've got nothing else to tell u stranger. Its ridiculous.
Hate to break it to you but court decisions give officers the right to ask you to exit the vehicle. Also, asking the driver questions is a good way to suss out whether someone is up to something hinky. Most folks can't consistently lie that well. ... It sounds to me like the commenter has had several negative experiences with the police, including multiple arrests.
Thanks brother for your excellent information. God bless you. I think respect from both sides is absolutely necessary. Police don't need to strong arm citizens and talk to them like the cop is speaking to his 7 year old child. Neither should a citizen treat a police officer as though the officer is the enemy and refuse any degree of compliance. To have a civil society, we all must act "reasonable and decent " towards each other. I have a right to "not " be harassed, but likewise the police have a right to "reasonable " questions, in order to do their job.
"I want an attorney." How hard is that for anyone? Everything stops and you shut up until you get one. Amazed how many people don't do this on the police shows on TV.
Follow law abiding Michigander here. I keep two self-made cards in my wallet to reference if needed. One tells me exactly what to say to a cop if I am pulled over. The other tells me exactly what to do, if I am forced into using deadly force to protect mine, or someone else's, life. Both are based on what a few lawyers have advised.
I've had a couple encounters with cops where I was pulled over for a nonsensical reason. My all time favorite one involved my being pulled over by a NY state trooper. I exited from the highway and was waiting at a red light. So the trooper pulls up behind me as I sit at the red light. I intentionally did not turn right on red as I had the feeling it would provide some excuse for the cop to pull me over. So I sat there until the light turned green and I made my turn after making sure I had my turn signal on. I get about 50 ft down the road and he hits his lights to pull me over. He does his licence and registration thing and goes back to his car to check them out. A couple minutes later he returns and asked if I knew why he pulled me over. I of course said no. This idiot then says "You didn't turn right on red". I then tell him that there is no law requiring you to turn right on red,it is merely an option,one I declined. The cop starts getting red in the face when he realised that I wasn't going to simply take it. He mumbled something about the flow of traffic to which I just looked at him like a zoo exhibit. He finally stomped back to his car and lit up his tires as he abandoned his failed fishing expedition. Oh, by the way Steve that's a nice collection of microphones you have. I worked in radio and some of those were still in use in the FM easy listening studio. Nice car models too. Wish I had a real one of any of them.
"I do not consent to any searches, seizures, or questions. If I am not under arrest at this time, allow me to leave immediately. Direct any and all inquiries to my attorney; I will make no further statements at this time."
The right to counsel is the more important right that must be positively invoked. If you are arrested, whether or not you are Mirandized, you should immediately invoke your right to counsel. Remember these five words: "Not without my attorney present."
When I first heard of the case, I got the impression of the officer taking the stand and asserting that the refusal to answer questions was an indicator of guilt -- that is, using silence as incriminating.
I was pulled over the day after Christmas about 6:50pm. Sheriff deputy watched me pull out of my driveway and immediately turned on his lights. I had a front headlight out on my truck. Pulled over, turned my dome light on, pulled my wallet out and grabbed my license, and put my hands on the steering wheel. When the officer walked up I rolled down the window all the way and put my hand back on the wheel. He told me I had a headlight out. He immediately realized that I was sober and asked for my license. I handed it to him and he asked where I was going. Told I was on my way to a meeting. He talked into his mic. I asked if he wanted my registration and insurance cards. He said no, that it came back valid and the info matched up with the drivers license and the address I had just left. He then small talked me a couple of minutes. I asked him if I was free to leave since nothing else was happening. He mentioned that he was waiting to hear back from dispatch about whether or not I had anything pending against me. So we B.S'd for a few minutes and then I heard dispatcher say that I was clear. So the officer released me and I went to the meeting. He must have enjoyed talking with me because he never went back to his cruiser for the entire time I was detained, and it's winter in Ohio. Granted, I had pulled into a parking lot so we weren't on the road. So showing some consideration for the officers may just make there day, and your's too.
Here's a question I've been pondering: when they read you your Miranda warnings, and then ask "do you understand these?" Why is it ever to your advantage to say "yes." Why not say "no. I don't understand them at all." And then stick to that position.
I think when the police want to question you for a crime the best thing to do is say in a *friendly* tone, " Guys, as an American, I want to remain silent and not answer any questions until I consult with a lawyer." That covers all your bases. As for traffic stop, pull over safely, turn on flashers, roll down your window, then keep your hands on the wheel. Be polite and friendly. First tell them if you do or do not have a weapon. Then HAND them what they need to see in the spirit of total cooperation. Appreciate that this is a dangerous part of a cop's job. If you make them feel at ease from the very start most will appreciate it, you will be less likely to get a ticket for any infraction or you might get some other kind of break. If you act like a "sovereign citizen" the cop will be on high alert and not sympathetic in any way. Do you blame them?
Yep. I've found that how you act is reflected back at you. Being an a-hole just because you feel like being one isn't going to get you anywhere. It is entirely possible to be polite, friendly and respectful AND be firmly (and as noted in the video, clearly and verbally) insistent on your rights as required. Also, remember that every ticket a cop write requires they show up for court. Depending on the jurisdiction and the population, this can be a royal PITA for everyone involved, including the cop. In a lot of cases, they don't really WANT to write too many tickets, because it cuts into their time being out doing their "real job", and forces them to spend time twiddling their thumbs waiting for their piddly little traffic ticket case to be called up... usually later than scheduled, because traffic court tends to be full of people with all sorts of long stories and excuses and pleas for merciful treatment. I've gone twice, and it's annoying for everyone involved - even those who work there. So, a good attitude - while still insisting on your rights - is much more likely to get you off with a warning than being a raging dick to the cop just because you're pissed you got lit up.
Steve, There are custodial questions that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence of a crime. There are requests for comfort or food or drink. When did a right to not self-incriminate become a requirement to remain mute? It seems later interpretations of Miranda have gone beyond the scope of the second amendment.
I understand your points, yet I am wondering if the police make the suspect aware that by verbally invoking his right to remain silent that the interrogation will not take place. It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that some could easily interpret this as meaning they simply do not have to answer questions, yet they expect questions will still be asked. Thus in their mind they are invoking their right to remain silent on certain questions, especially pertaining to the case. Yet a question unrelated to the issue at hand may be interpreted by the suspect as not pertaining to the case, and thus their need to remain silent. So I just think that the police should be required, if they are not already, to let the suspect know exactly what the right to remain silent entails. If a question about a peppermint, which has nothing to do with the case, is going to be interpreted as the suspect clearly not wishing to remain silent, then there is something wrong with the logic of the legal system in my opinion.
It's as simple as this, to remain silent is to remain silent. If you answer any question, even one so benign as "would you like a peppermint?" with a simple yes or no, is forfeiture of the right to remain silent. Silence is silence, and speaking is not silence, and this isn't rocket science.
I would think speaking should be material. I don't see how saying yes to a drink, or mentioning that the chair is uncomfortable negates your silence. The silence is obviously surrounding the questions or interrogations relating to guilt or innocence.
There is one thing I do not understand in the "Miranda Rights" it is that "Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law." - Does this mean that it is better not to talk to the police, because what ever you say, may only be used against you in the court of law, and not for you? So in that conclusion, you should never talk to the police, because the outcome will always be used against you?
That's exactly right. Most cops want to exclude you as a suspect and move on but a few will happily charge you based on what you said. How do you know which is which?
First, I like your videos! I do have an issue with you stating that law enforcement have a "right" to anything. Law enforcement have "authority" granted to them by the people. This authority can be modified and/or removed by the will of the people. This is truly not semantics, because a "right" is an inherent element to all people. If you look at the “Bill of Rights”, (just a great example due to it’s notoriety), it is a list of 10 amendments that limit government infringement of the inherent rights we all have, e.g. The right of the people shall not be infringed. It is not a list of “rights” that the government is giving us, it is a limitation on government interference. That’s not to say time hasn’t eroded the original context. Government has definitely encroached into areas not intended to be Federalized, but kept at the State level. Anyway, look forward to your videos! Keep them coming!
A license is an intangible object comprised of multiple documents. It exists with or without the physical "ID card". Therefore, you can never "display" a license. It exists via multiple records at your state capital.
@@soldat2501 You mean "ID card"/"identification". A "license" is intangible. It doesn't physically exist. You can't hand someone something that doesn't physically exist.
Can you demand the officer return the license after reading? Can you demand the officer not remove the license from your immediate presence? (take back to patrol car) From being parked at the curb, woman pulls out for a U-turn right in front of me and my son (who was driving). Collision, our car is totaled. Police officer arrives, sees no injuries, gives out clipboard for a written statement describing the accident. Some drama as they discover her passenger has outstanding warrants. She (officer) discusses the accident with me, then looks around and says, "Where did that woman go?" I tell her I saw her climb in the tow truck and leave with her car. She shrugs and says, that's why I always collect driver's licenses first thing and hold on to them... Incidentally that driver had no insurance.
Just because you choose to remain silent and/or advise the police you wish to does NOT end interrogations. The cops keep talking and can by law. You MUST ask for an attorney to stop the questions.
Make sure to say "I want an attorney." That's more important than trying to sit there and star without saying anything, which is extremely hard to do. A good explanation for why is in the book by James Duane, "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent."
We've got a whole bunch of lawyers and constitutional experts in here telling Steve how wrong he is. They should have invoked their 5th amendment to not self-incriminate stupidity.
I can say the NCIC will return results of the vehicle registration info and in many states now, also whether there is valid insurance on the vehicle. So honestly, the license is really the only real info needed at the stop......unless the NCIC connection is down at that moment.
There's a lot of Kafka/Heller in this "you have the right to remain silent, but must break silence to assert that right" . I think over here the standard response to questioning is saying "no comment", which makes sense (we also have a different warning, not quite like yours)
In the half dozen times I've been pulled over in my life, the first thing they always ask is, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Only once did I not answer and the cop was a little perturbed at me. When he shouted at me to answer I told him "We both know I don't have to answer that question."" I was flashing my lights to warn others of an upcoming speed trap. I guess this was the cop that was chasing the speeders down. Believe it or not, I only received a warning ticket.
Not saying it was not, but look up the definition of a speed trap. An officer sitting on the shoulder watching traffic or using a radar unit is not a speed trap.
Every time I see an arrestee complain he was not read his rights, I just cringe. The police don't read your rights for your benefit. They read you your rights for theirs. The Miranda Warning was crated after Ernesto Miranda had his criminal conviction overturned after claiming he didn't know he had the option to not answer police questions. The Miranda Warning was created to prevent that from happening again. So if you are ever arrested and the police don't read you your rights, don't remind them. But the truth is, they will not forget. They will read you your rights at the time they are required to read them.
You should invoke your right to remain silent and not just stay silent. The reason is that once you invoke your right, the questioning cannot last for too long. You can invoke harassment if questioning continues, which would play bad for the police. Avoid lengthy questioning, and invoke your right.
Here's the issue I have with the logic of our legal system: I can _implicitly_ waive my Constitutionally enumerated right against self incrimination by politely declining the offer of a mint. But a police officer can cite me for a crime because I followed the letter of the law and he deemed my actions insufficient. Furthermore, police officers are trained to know that things which are normal to everyday personal interactions have far deeper legal repercussions, such as politely declining the offer of a mint, and they know anyone not trained in the law generally doesn't understand those repercussions, so they take full advantage of it. On the other hand, the legal system gives the police immunity for illegal actions unless they were explicitly trained on that exact specifics of that decision.
I agree that his not explicitly including his "right to remain silent" is significant. Having a right does not automatically involve the right. I can't understand how non-substantive comments about mints and chairs means that right was not invoked.
Disagree, Steve. The Miranda warning should include the statement, "If you choose to remain silent, you must make the statement that you invoke your right to remain silent." Otherwise, he is having to feel his way through the procedure, without benefit of counsel to advise him that he needs to vocalize his decision to remain silent. I believe the supreme Court has made this whole thing rather convoluted, but they didn't call me about it first.
Steve- very informative video that confirms legal advice I was given several years ago. "Remember, the Police Officer who stops you is not your friend."'
People are conditioned to answer questions from early on. So, not speaking requires mental effort. Speaking and answering questions has become a habit throughout the whole life of a person and the police take advantage of that.
![NONT TANONT - คลั่งเธอ (Dopamine) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/imr2dwueUxs/mqdefault.jpg)
I didn’t leave a comment. I am staying quiet
You are not very good at staying quiet.
@@normgraham8630 shhhh
I didn’t hear him.
Part of what Steve is saying here seems to be in conflict with the outcomes of at least one state case. Specifically, simply remaining silent seems to be insufficient in at least the state of Texas. Salinas V. Texas, 570 US 178 from 2013 seems to indicate that you must "claim" your right. Can anyone explain how this ruling and the statements that you can simply remain silent are both correct? I found this case on the channel "Audit the Audit" in the video "Dash Cam Saves Citizen From Lying Trooper",
The judge ruled that "I am staying quiet" is inadmissable without corroborating evidence.😁
As I've said for years... "Everyone has the right to remain silent, but most don't have the ability"
Where's the love button?
You may get tortured for a response.
Are you saying we're to stupid to shut-up?..:-)
@@stephenantonicelli7069 yes are you locked in a basement with no interaction with the outside world.
🤣🤣🤣👍👍
Traffic stops aside (just cooperate and settle it in court) the best course in a serious criminal matter is to lawyer up fast and hard. No attorney ever said "thank goodness my client talked to the police-it made my job so much easier!"
Never cooperate... supreme court has said that cops will twist what you said to fit their narrative.
Even in traffic stops, don’t answer questions. They’re trying establish PC.
I'd only add that your right to remain silent doesn't begin with the arrest. It is ever present. A police officer could ask you questions during his "investigation phase" (before you're in custody) while you are simply being detained. Those answers are admissible. Point is don't answer questions to begin with. Period. Answering questions can't help you in court.
@First Amendment Auditors You can be lawfully detained while officers do their investigation, even brief.
@@B_Bodziak It's lawful only if they are investigating something before they detain you. The detainment itself cannot be a reason to investigate. That's like saying you're under arrest for resisting arrest even though you were not under arrest or doing anything wrong before the resisting.
“I had the right to remain silent not the ability.” Ron White
One of my favorite Ron White quotes.
If you don't have the ability to remain silent what are you doing with the right..
@@aheartoflovecanneverbedefe4596 They're trying to cooperate with a police investigation by providing exculpatory evidence. If you know what you're doing, it can work; but if you don't, shut up.
@@joanfregapane8683 "I was not Drunk. In. Public. I was Drunk. In. Private. They threw me into public.".
I have a new pattern now, wake up, watch your video, take shower and then off to work. Love the videos - keep up the great work.
I moved it up a half hour just for you!
I once was questioned by police over a misunderstanding. The only word they got out of me was Lawyer and a written phone number for 3 hours. Two very unhappy police officers who found themselves in some trouble for continuing to ask me questions without my lawyer present. When the facts became clear, the police actually came back in and apologized to me, which I accepted due to the circumstances. Then had a hospital employee fired. It does take a great amount of self control to try not to explain your way out of a situation but when the police can lie cheat and steal in an interrogation not saying a word other than lawyer is your best bet. I took a nap till my lawyer showed up. Nothing I would have said would have done me any good, and potentially had me arrested and thrown in jail.
In the immortal words of Ron "Tater Salad" White: "I had the right to remain silent...but I didn't have the ability"
Same special. "I was not Drunk. In. Public. I was Drunk. In. Private. They threw me into public.".
A quote I heard many years ago was "people generally don't go to jail for what they _DIDN'T_ say...." If I were in a "pickle" I'd probably exercise most of my rights after receiving a Miranda warning - first by writing and saying I wish to remain silent and I wish to have legal representation present and all questioning would go through them. The roadside question changes a bit if you are licensed to carry a concealed handgun/weapon. Depending on the state (and you're supposed to know before you go) you may or may not have to obligation to inform an officer when stopped that you are licensed and carrying a firearm (I never use the word "gun" especially if there are two officers - when that word is used their attitude could quickly change). In Ohio you have that obligation in other states such as Indiana you do not. As always great content on a relevant topic.
I fully expected 19 minutes and 27 seconds of total absence of sound coupled with a dead-ass serial killer stare.
I met an attorney who was for many years the president of The trial Lawyers association and he told me that 80% of the people in jail are in jail because they didn't remain silent.
@HH AA Notice that nowhere in his statement did he mention actually committing the crime they were convicted of? The old tried, and true method of "throwing everything, and seeing what sticks..." In other words, if you are looking at 5 years, for simply opening your big mouth, one would GLADLY take 6 months of a lesser charge, just to not get the 5 years! Lawyer's wouldn't have to plea %80 of cases, if you STFU! ANYTHING you say to Police( Innocent, or not), will INSTANTLY be twisted into a crime with the most potential time in jail. They then use that as "blackmail", for a lesser charge...If you STFU; They can't blackmail you with ANYTHING!
I remained silent during a speeding stop and the cop wrote on the report "subject did not deny speeding".
Except that's not strictly true. In most of those cases what they said *revealed facts* that formed the the basis of their conviction, facts which may have been discovered even if they had remained silent. Merely remaining silence in no guarantees avoiding a criminal conviction. It just prevents the detainee from getting into worse trouble.
@@KeldorDAntrell MANY of those cases, not most. In fact some people are told that there's no point in going to trial because no one believes your story, you're likely to lose, and if you lose in court you'll get 20 years but if you plead guilty you'll get 3-5 years and be out in 2.
If you're poor, uneducated, and especially black or Hispanic you'll believe them because you're used to seeing your people getting the shaft from the power structure.
You didn't believe the lawyer, did you? I'd say 50-50, half incriminate themselves, half their lawyer does it.
I listen to you every day. You make the law interesting and you are entertaining to listen to. Keep up the good work.
Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.
@@stevelehto The same here - before I cam across your channel I had no interest in law, now I look forward to you videos.
I've heard of people who told police they want to remain silent, but the police continue the interview and the suspects continue to talk to them. The interview isn't over if you verbally invoke your right to be silent...the cops are still going to take a shot. I've advised many people to never speak to the police without a lawyer if under arrest, even if you're completely innocent. Cops are looking for evidence against you and they know how to get it. A lawyer knows how cops work.
Miranda leaves out something I think should be an important part of the process. At the end when they ask "do you understand your rights?" they should have to ask a second question "Do you wish in invoke these rights?" This should serve to greatly decrease the confusion of weather someone has invoked or waved their rights.
Don't they say you can invoke these rights at any time?
@@Rx7man They do, but that's not the same as asking if the person wishes to invoke them.
@@IstasPumaNevada yeah, true
@@Rx7man I would think that is understood: i can just not answer something. Nobody would think that in order to remain silent i have to *not* remain silent.
Whether not weather.
"Anything you say can and will be used against you." Not for your benefit.
Not for your benefit if you’re guilty.
@@miketheyunggod2534 No. Steve has covered this, as well; Anything you say that can prove your guilt, is allowed. Anything you say that proves your innocence, is "hearsay"..."Did my client tell you....?" Objection! Hearsay! "Sustained..." Did the defendant say....? "Yes, he said..." Objection!
"Overruled; "Preponderance of evidence" In other words; The courts take the words of an officer, as holding more legitimacy just BECAUSE they are Police...%100 FACT! You need an education! The only thing the court CAN'T use against you, is invoking your right's; "Did the defendant refuse to answer any questions?" Objection! Immaterial! Sustained. The fact that you invoked your rights, has no bearing on your guilt/innocence...It's up to the STATE to prove what you did/did not do; Not the other way around...
That's correct. And if the police make something up, it's just your word against theirs; but if remain silent, then they can't.
@@miketheyunggod2534 OR innocent.
@@brentfarvors192 Hearsay can be used to CONVICT you, not to ABSOLVE you. Only negative hearsay evidence is excepted to the hearsay rule.
ANOTHER reason to keep your yap shut.
Invoke you right to remain silent. Cops: He's not gonna talk, he has something to hide. Cops: Time to plant evidence.
🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯
@@louskunt9798 dig yer name!!!
Okay, let's all practice it together. "I invoke my right to remain silent and I want to speak with an attorney." Then STFU. Simple, right?
Not for the twitterheads that can’t shut the fuck up
I invoke my right to not be arrested by obeying the law to begin with. Sadly, there are too many idiots who want something for nothing, or have so much hate in their hearts that committing a crime is inevitable, or some other infraction of the law that puts us all in jeopardy of arrest/detainment.
By exercising your right to remain silent, doesn't mean cops are gonna stop trying to get something out of you by keep asking questions.
"I want a lawyer" is what stops them from asking questions or at least it should.
This is why they have a cetain amount of time to detain you. If they do not have a reason to detain you, just keep asking, "am I free to go"?
It's crazy that even if you ask for a lawyer and stay quiet how much they still try talking to you and then leave you in the room for an hour come back and ask if you want to talk or whatever but it seems like a lot of times cops don't accept your silence and lawyer right away and keep trying to get you to talk
I've always thought it was really odd that the Fifth Amendment is the only amendment which we've decided you have to be told exists.
😮😮 The Miranda warning was derived from the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. See google. 😅
A police officer once told me the best person he ever had to interview that remained silent was a 16 year old girl who just picked a spot on the ceiling and stared at it for 2 hours solid no matter what was said to her.
I'm not sure if this flys in the US but from what I understand in Canada my best answer would be "under the advice of counsel I'm not answering any questions." And just repeat that to every question.
Its :I invoke the 5th and would like my lawyer please." and then nothing at all.
Interesting stuff, as usual. I especially liked your comment "if you want to flee, you might want to go farther, but that's just me". That one made me laugh :-)
Best advice I ever got from a lawyer was when I was going through a divorce. The lawyer was a longtime friend who practiced criminal law in the UK. I asked him how to find a divorce lawyer. He replied, "Steve you don't need a lawyer, you are intelligent enough to sort it yourself. If you can avoid lawyers, remember they are very expensive." I used that argument when someone threatened to sue me, I told them they had no case and that my lawyer was very expensive, they gave up.
I've always said that if you're being questioned by the police and you did something illegal, then invoke your rights and get an attorney. But if you didn't do anything illegal, then invoke your rights and get an attorney.
I had the right to remain silent but not the ability - Ron White
I used to work for a police department. Trust me when they pull you over. They've already told dispatch the color and type of vehicle and they are running your tag number, which means they have a picture already on their computer. But you still have to show that you have a current operator's license on you
You have the right to remain silent is how the Bill of rights reads. Later the SCOTUS cleared things up by ruling that you had to speak (invoke) first.
Amazing the power that word salad can bring to bare.
I expected this video to be 20 minutes of no talking.
I thought of doing that for a minute or two but then I figured I'd lose everyone before they realized I was going to talk.
@@stevelehto
Slimpotatohead just did a mute video titled Speechless in Ironwood Forest.
@@stevelehto A mime video would have been epic, lol
Ron White-"I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability." Most all people feel the need to speak or respond. Have to control your anxiety.
Yep, ask for lawyer, that requires them to respond accordingly. With the 5th they can talk to you for 40 hours if they want.
Q. "Did you want a small bottle or a large bottle?" A. "I'll take the fifth."
ANYTHING you say WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU!
And they’ll lie and make up a bunch of stuff you didn’t say to use against you as well.
Police: keep person in a room for three hours attempting to coerce him into a confession.
Guy: *gets coerced*
Supreme court: this confession is clearly uncoerced.
LOL, I love the statement "These pretzels are making me thirsty"! A nod to Kramer was well done.
"ANYTHING you say can and will be used against you."
I saw that on the Cheech and Chong movie Up in Smoke, “my license? Its on the back of the car man” Great Video Steve always interesting. Thank you.
I pulled over in Washington DC to let some business clients see the Jefferson Memorial. I stopped in a bicycle path (no bikes were around) so a cop decided to give me a ticket. (The stop to drop off the passengers took all of 30 seconds, if that.). The cop decided he needed to lecture me... which he did about five times -- approaching my car and lighting me for my "egregious" judgement. I was calm and friend -- one of the guys remained in my car and were joking about the cops demeanor. I figured I'd get a ticket and be on my way.
Eventually five or six additional cops pulled up. What the heck???
The cop writing the ticket was on the phone for a good half-hour apparently trying to determine all the charges he could nail me with. By this point my other clients had come back to the car and were as perplexed as I was at all the police for a simple non-moving violation. The cop finally came to my car and once again proceeded to lecture me about my "egregious" decision to stop in a bike lane with no bikes in it -- he was angry, hostile and seemed to want to provoke me to fight back. We were now 45 minutes into the situation. I had had enough -and asked to speak with his supervisor. The officer refused. I had had enough and started to get out of my car when the all the cops moved forward -- I asked them to intervene in this ridiculous situation but they all just stood there. I cooled off a bit, took the ticket, drove off and immediately filed a complaint with the U.S. Park Police (the agency those cops work for). The lesson I learned is that you should never talk to police officers -- I had been respectful up to the point of the fifth lecture. So weird --- I'm 61, a conservative law and order Republican, and I've worked for two U.S. Senators, a governor, and on two U.S. Senate Committees and have never had a problem with the law. I will never view cops the same way -- totally disgusted. Remain silent.
now maybe you seewhy the polar opposite political view of you gets the ideas they have, where they seed from. not to justify either side but, more of food for thought.
So Jeff, I’m sorry that that happened to you in our nation’s Capitol. Let alone anywhere. I don’t know how you will ever honestly forgive them for their actions. Conservatism is most difficult whenever it calls to turn the other cheek. Oh, man you’re in a tough spot today still for sure. Humbly grateful for your comments. KEEP THE FAITH AND DO NOT BE DISCOURAGED BUT ENCOURAGED IN THAT IN YOUR WEAKNESS JESUS IN YOU IS MADE STRONGER!-Bible
_"These pretzels are making me thirsty"_ - George 😂
Steve, what if you were driving on an expired license, wouldn't showing it to them constitute self-incrimination? Also, in California, they don't prosecute or even ticket illegal aliens for driving without a license or driving without insurance, but they do with citizens and legal residents. Doesn't that constitute impermissible disparate treatment of a different class of people? They don't even prosecute illegal aliens for lack of insurance when they cause an accident, whereas they criminally charge a citizen or legal resident for the same thing? What happened to equality under the law?
You cannot talk yourself OUT of being arrested, but you CAN talk yourself INTO being arrested.
I understand that I do not possess the power to change this, but the supreme court IS wrong and their wrongness is not truly debatable. that statement may be debated, lol.
I hold the right of freedom of speech, and just talking IS the employment of that right.
I have the right to keep and bear arms. My simple ownership of a firearm IS the exercise of said right.
At NO POINT MUST I declare that I am exercising ANY right, to exercise that right!
The activity explained and recognized to be a right is automatically and ABSOLUTELY established with zero need to do anything else.
The RIGHT to remain silent is not abrogated by someone answering some questions or casually using his voice.
The person may admit knowing a victim, and not answer questions about the murder of the victim.
The right to remain silent is determined by the accused. Remaining silent on select types of questions is still availing one OF that inviolable right.
Police do not have the RIGHT to pull people over, they have the license, permission, to do so.
At NO POINT MUST I declare that I am exercising ANY right, to exercise that right!
=========
Spot on.
Why is it incumbent on a lay person to be fully versed in law? There is no other realm where we require a non professional to be responsible for knowing as much as the professionals. If you cross a bridge and it crumbles we don't demand that you should have been able to calculate the weight to stress ratio of hybrid steel cables before you walk. In fact in the law it's just the opposite with professionals held to a higher standard. It is so illogical. People die at police stops because officers expect them to act in certain ways they have zero training for and do t think about. The law expects far to much of the average person. I mean just assuming the intellectual or educational level is on its face absurd.
I thought we had rights whether we Invoke them or not. So I have no rights unless I invoke them like a magic spell?
I agree. The constitution gives you the right. It does not say that you have signal that you are Invoking it.
Yes you must invoke. If you show you know your rights you can call on them later. Otherwise they will tell you to shut up about rights in court. Invoke , invoke, invoke always
SCOTUS has ruled that when it comes to the 5th Amendment, yes you must explicitly invoke the right.
Whenever I'm pulled over (not very often), I'm Mr. Politeness until I know that I'm getting a ticket. Once I know that I'm getting that expensive piece of paper, I just shut up and don't answer or ask any questions. Here in California, they want to know your phone number as well as your employer's address, and they usually get pissed when they don't get it. One time, the officer told me that I was required to provide that information. He didn't get it.
How did you handle the situation so he did not get the other info?
@@Kauffman578 I just informed him that everything he needed was on my license, registration, and insurance card. He said that he could take me in for not answering questions, at which point I told him that I wouldn't answer any questions at the station either, and that this would just be a waste of time for both of us. I was polite yet firm. He finally decided I wasn't worth the trouble, wrote the ticket and told me to have a nice evening. Always exercise your Constitutional rights when you're able to.
Why do they ask that? Is that even legal? Seems like privacy violation. That's not public information per se.
@@gypsygirl9 The citation has places for the officer to list your phone number and place of employment. They say it's there in case they need to reach you. Anyone who discusses a legal matter over the phone, when they don't know who is on the other end, is an idiot anyway. I just tell them they can come to the house or send me a letter on their department letterhead. The main thing is to be polite when asserting your rights. Calling the officer names doesn't help anyone.
@@moeshipley4170 I have never seen a citation that had spaces for phone numbers or employment information. If that in fact exists, I'd like to know who signed off on that change in design.
The fishing they do is what bothers me. Get pulled over for a simple infraction, get a bunch of unrelated questions! Might even try and search your vehicle.
Sometimes there's a damn good reason to search a vehicle. Ever heard of the killer Jeffrey Dahmer? He was stopped by a cop for a minor traffic infraction *while he had the dismembered body of one of his victims in the trunk* ! As it happens, that officer did make a cursory search but didn't find the body because he didn't open any of the refuse sacks but if a cop happens to discover other crimes in the course of their duty, then that's a bonus (and it could save lives).
@@KeldorDAntrell That is still not a reasonable purpose to go fishing on every stop. Jeffrey Dahmer was 1 individual out of a whole country. That is saddling a whole country of people to catch one person by complete chance.
That kind of so-called logic only works when percentages are way more significant and their is no data to suggest what the likelihood of evidence of a crime is in vehicles pulled over for some other reason.
A car search can take quite a while and if every car that was stopped had a search, that is a lot of time being utilized by cops that will result in nothing. On the other side of the coin, the victims of the search are inconvenienced and with the numbers we are talking country wide, that could potentially effect the GDP and economy.
Now you will likely want to come back at me with all the crimes committed throughout the country and the possibility to control it better but cops cant handle the duties they have, let alone giving them more power to go to their heads.
@@dizzydinonysius Moreover the dumb cop didn't even find actual rotting bodyparts in sacks while intentionally looking in the trunk for anything suspicious. So it didn't work the first time either.
The law is ran by people that are aware of their choices. They know the law isn’t always about right or wrong. Yet judges, prosecutors, cops choose to take advantage of such laws to their benefit. Not for a greater good. Just succumb to the temptation to behave in a way because they know a person isn’t even allowed to defend themselves against this armed theft. When these individuals choose to enforce such things they should be removed for being morally corrupt in a job that requires the most honorable type of person. They need held to a higher personal standard to keep the job.
Thank you for a clear and sensible answer to this question. Your videos are always informative. I am grateful that you take the time away from a busy life to share your experience and wisdom. Have an excellent day. 😎
The problem I have is that it seems more often that the thin blue line is not here to serve and protect but to harass and collect.
I had a run in with a off duty police officer and her ex cop husband who were clearly breaking the law on their part yet I was harassed detainded accused and had to go through the whole drug and alcohol test simply because they broke the law!
Not necessarily true. I had the misfortune to get pulled over, but I was not sure I could say the reason and that the officer would believe my explanation, so I simply apologized and said it would not happen again. No ticket.
@Becky Elliott I have had good experiences with police when it was one police man, but in this case I realized how they can be. I could have had a case of harassment, but there was no way the on duty police officers would that happen. There was no report, no paperwork or nothing.
Rhetorical question, WHY were you being detained? Did they stop you for funsies? Unlikely.
@@derekwalker4622 more than likely they got off on it
Suppose someone being interrogated declared something in the order of, “Separate from any and speech materially pertaining to this and all other related official interactions, for which I invoke my right to remain silent, I retain as separate, my right to common everyday conversation.”
I’ve always wondered if that would work.
I have no issue showing license or registration. My issue is the personal questions the officer asks. Not only does he/she not tell me the reason they pulled me over but ask me questions like where am I going or what am I doing here or where did I come from. After I have given my information I dont need to talk or Answer an officers questions. Of course then they ask you to step out of the car and harass you further or try to incite. Cops are criminals that get away with too much period. I've never been arrested but I have had officers infringe on my rights because they know they 'll get away with it.
Agreed, everytime, like shit heres license and insurance, go right whatever and we'll go to court. But other than that, were not friends, so I've got nothing else to tell u stranger. Its ridiculous.
Yep
Hate to break it to you but court decisions give officers the right to ask you to exit the vehicle.
Also, asking the driver questions is a good way to suss out whether someone is up to something hinky. Most folks can't consistently lie that well.
... It sounds to me like the commenter has had several negative experiences with the police, including multiple arrests.
Was so hoping this video would be just you staring at the camera.
Thanks brother for your excellent information. God bless you. I think respect from both sides is absolutely necessary. Police don't need to strong arm citizens and talk to them like the cop is speaking to his 7 year old child. Neither should a citizen treat a police officer as though the officer is the enemy and refuse any degree of compliance. To have a civil society, we all must act "reasonable and decent " towards each other. I have a right to "not " be harassed, but likewise the police have a right to "reasonable " questions, in order to do their job.
"I want an attorney." How hard is that for anyone? Everything stops and you shut up until you get one. Amazed how many people don't do this on the police shows on TV.
Duh…key word there is “TV”…..
Follow law abiding Michigander here. I keep two self-made cards in my wallet to reference if needed. One tells me exactly what to say to a cop if I am pulled over.
The other tells me exactly what to do, if I am forced into using deadly force to protect mine, or someone else's, life. Both are based on what a few lawyers have advised.
And these cards say what, exactly?
I've had a couple encounters with cops where I was pulled over for a nonsensical reason. My all time favorite one involved my being pulled over by a NY state trooper.
I exited from the highway and was waiting at a red light.
So the trooper pulls up behind me as I sit at the red light.
I intentionally did not turn right on red as I had the feeling it would provide some excuse for the cop to pull me over.
So I sat there until the light turned green and I made my turn after making sure I had my turn signal on.
I get about 50 ft down the road and he hits his lights to pull me over.
He does his licence and registration thing and goes back to his car to check them out.
A couple minutes later he returns and asked if I knew why he pulled me over.
I of course said no. This idiot then says "You didn't turn right on red".
I then tell him that there is no law requiring you to turn right on red,it is merely an option,one I declined.
The cop starts getting red in the face when he realised that I wasn't going to simply take it.
He mumbled something about the flow of traffic to which I just looked at him like a zoo exhibit.
He finally stomped back to his car and lit up his tires as he abandoned his failed fishing expedition.
Oh, by the way Steve that's a nice collection of microphones you have. I worked in radio and some of those were still in use in the FM easy listening studio. Nice car models too. Wish I had a real one of any of them.
Kind of funny to tell a person they have the right to remain silent and then tell them, "well you should have SAID you want to remain silent"
4:22 “These pretzels are making me thirsty.”😆😆Subscribed.
That was good.
Just because a person may have the RIGHT to remain silent does not mean that they also have the ABILITY to remain silent ! ! ! !
If you’re gonna steal from Ron White give credit.
"I do not consent to any searches, seizures, or questions. If I am not under arrest at this time, allow me to leave immediately. Direct any and all inquiries to my attorney; I will make no further statements at this time."
@@emjl3932 Force them to make that mistake. Dog "testimony" is easy to destroy in court, any half-competent expert witness can do it.
That’s when you get the plant bag.
The right to counsel is the more important right that must be positively invoked. If you are arrested, whether or not you are Mirandized, you should immediately invoke your right to counsel. Remember these five words: "Not without my attorney present."
"Why did you pull me over?"
"I will not be discussing my day."
"Am I being detained?"
"I invoke my 5th ammendment right."
When I first heard of the case, I got the impression of the officer taking the stand and asserting that the refusal to answer questions was an indicator of guilt -- that is, using silence as incriminating.
I like how you are practical. Basically your saying...be smart. You can do what you want, but don't shutdown for the sake of shutting down.
Everyone has the the right to remain silent, few have the ability.
My wife has always encouraged me to remain silent in the nicest possible way.
I was pulled over the day after Christmas about 6:50pm. Sheriff deputy watched me pull out of my driveway and immediately turned on his lights. I had a front headlight out on my truck. Pulled over, turned my dome light on, pulled my wallet out and grabbed my license, and put my hands on the steering wheel. When the officer walked up I rolled down the window all the way and put my hand back on the wheel. He told me I had a headlight out. He immediately realized that I was sober and asked for my license. I handed it to him and he asked where I was going. Told I was on my way to a meeting. He talked into his mic. I asked if he wanted my registration and insurance cards. He said no, that it came back valid and the info matched up with the drivers license and the address I had just left. He then small talked me a couple of minutes. I asked him if I was free to leave since nothing else was happening. He mentioned that he was waiting to hear back from dispatch about whether or not I had anything pending against me. So we B.S'd for a few minutes and then I heard dispatcher say that I was clear. So the officer released me and I went to the meeting. He must have enjoyed talking with me because he never went back to his cruiser for the entire time I was detained, and it's winter in Ohio. Granted, I had pulled into a parking lot so we weren't on the road. So showing some consideration for the officers may just make there day, and your's too.
Here's a question I've been pondering: when they read you your Miranda warnings, and then ask "do you understand these?" Why is it ever to your advantage to say "yes." Why not say "no. I don't understand them at all." And then stick to that position.
I think when the police want to question you for a crime the best thing to do is say in a *friendly* tone, " Guys, as an American, I want to remain silent and not answer any questions until I consult with a lawyer." That covers all your bases. As for traffic stop, pull over safely, turn on flashers, roll down your window, then keep your hands on the wheel. Be polite and friendly. First tell them if you do or do not have a weapon. Then HAND them what they need to see in the spirit of total cooperation. Appreciate that this is a dangerous part of a cop's job. If you make them feel at ease from the very start most will appreciate it, you will be less likely to get a ticket for any infraction or you might get some other kind of break. If you act like a "sovereign citizen" the cop will be on high alert and not sympathetic in any way. Do you blame them?
Yep. I've found that how you act is reflected back at you. Being an a-hole just because you feel like being one isn't going to get you anywhere. It is entirely possible to be polite, friendly and respectful AND be firmly (and as noted in the video, clearly and verbally) insistent on your rights as required.
Also, remember that every ticket a cop write requires they show up for court. Depending on the jurisdiction and the population, this can be a royal PITA for everyone involved, including the cop. In a lot of cases, they don't really WANT to write too many tickets, because it cuts into their time being out doing their "real job", and forces them to spend time twiddling their thumbs waiting for their piddly little traffic ticket case to be called up... usually later than scheduled, because traffic court tends to be full of people with all sorts of long stories and excuses and pleas for merciful treatment. I've gone twice, and it's annoying for everyone involved - even those who work there.
So, a good attitude - while still insisting on your rights - is much more likely to get you off with a warning than being a raging dick to the cop just because you're pissed you got lit up.
I would argue the “miranda notices” should also come with the addendum: nothing you say will be used to help your case.
Steve, There are custodial questions that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence of a crime. There are requests for comfort or food or drink. When did a right to not self-incriminate become a requirement to remain mute? It seems later interpretations of Miranda have gone beyond the scope of the second amendment.
I understand your points, yet I am wondering if the police make the suspect aware that by verbally invoking his right to remain silent that the interrogation will not take place. It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that some could easily interpret this as meaning they simply do not have to answer questions, yet they expect questions will still be asked. Thus in their mind they are invoking their right to remain silent on certain questions, especially pertaining to the case. Yet a question unrelated to the issue at hand may be interpreted by the suspect as not pertaining to the case, and thus their need to remain silent. So I just think that the police should be required, if they are not already, to let the suspect know exactly what the right to remain silent entails. If a question about a peppermint, which has nothing to do with the case, is going to be interpreted as the suspect clearly not wishing to remain silent, then there is something wrong with the logic of the legal system in my opinion.
It's as simple as this, to remain silent is to remain silent. If you answer any question, even one so benign as "would you like a peppermint?" with a simple yes or no, is forfeiture of the right to remain silent. Silence is silence, and speaking is not silence, and this isn't rocket science.
@@derekwalker4622 Not complicated, but utterly stupid and immoral
I would think speaking should be material. I don't see how saying yes to a drink, or mentioning that the chair is uncomfortable negates your silence. The silence is obviously surrounding the questions or interrogations relating to guilt or innocence.
Then again remember the lawyer dog incident. What value does the right to silence or a lawyer matter if they can just intentionally misunderstand you.
There is one thing I do not understand in the "Miranda Rights" it is that "Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law." - Does this mean that it is better not to talk to the police, because what ever you say, may only be used against you in the court of law, and not for you? So in that conclusion, you should never talk to the police, because the outcome will always be used against you?
That's exactly right. Most cops want to exclude you as a suspect and move on but a few will happily charge you based on what you said. How do you know which is which?
So the Miranda warning must be amended to say you must verbally invoke your right to remain silent😏
I was kinda hoping Steve would just stare at us for 19 minutes.
First, I like your videos! I do have an issue with you stating that law enforcement have a "right" to anything. Law enforcement have "authority" granted to them by the people. This authority can be modified and/or removed by the will of the people. This is truly not semantics, because a "right" is an inherent element to all people. If you look at the “Bill of Rights”, (just a great example due to it’s notoriety), it is a list of 10 amendments that limit government infringement of the inherent rights we all have, e.g. The right of the people shall not be infringed. It is not a list of “rights” that the government is giving us, it is a limitation on government interference. That’s not to say time hasn’t eroded the original context. Government has definitely encroached into areas not intended to be Federalized, but kept at the State level.
Anyway, look forward to your videos! Keep them coming!
A license is an intangible object comprised of multiple documents. It exists with or without the physical "ID card". Therefore, you can never "display" a license. It exists via multiple records at your state capital.
Or you could save yourself a lot of time and ass pain and just give the cop your driver's license when asked.
@@soldat2501 You mean "ID card"/"identification". A "license" is intangible. It doesn't physically exist. You can't hand someone something that doesn't physically exist.
@@piousminion7822 Cool story Bro.
Can you demand the officer return the license after reading?
Can you demand the officer not remove the license from your immediate presence? (take back to patrol car)
From being parked at the curb, woman pulls out for a U-turn right in front of me and my son (who was driving).
Collision, our car is totaled. Police officer arrives, sees no injuries, gives out clipboard for a written statement describing the accident.
Some drama as they discover her passenger has outstanding warrants.
She (officer) discusses the accident with me, then looks around and says, "Where did that woman go?" I tell her I saw her climb in the tow truck and leave with her car.
She shrugs and says, that's why I always collect driver's licenses first thing and hold on to them...
Incidentally that driver had no insurance.
Don't ever sit with police for three hours!I want an attorney.Interview over!
Just because you choose to remain silent and/or advise the police you wish to does NOT end interrogations. The cops keep talking and can by law. You MUST ask for an attorney to stop the questions.
Make sure to say "I want an attorney." That's more important than trying to sit there and star without saying anything, which is extremely hard to do. A good explanation for why is in the book by James Duane, "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent."
We've got a whole bunch of lawyers and constitutional experts in here telling Steve how wrong he is. They should have invoked their 5th amendment to not self-incriminate stupidity.
Even a fish would stay out of trouble if he could keep his mouth shut.
Thank you so much for doing us a public service by providing clear legal information without a fee.
An indication that you have not invoked your right to remain silent is when they keep questioning you....so invoke it.
I can say the NCIC will return results of the vehicle registration info and in many states now, also whether there is valid insurance on the vehicle. So honestly, the license is really the only real info needed at the stop......unless the NCIC connection is down at that moment.
There's a lot of Kafka/Heller in this "you have the right to remain silent, but must break silence to assert that right" . I think over here the standard response to questioning is saying "no comment", which makes sense (we also have a different warning, not quite like yours)
Everyone needs to read the book or listen to the audio book "you have the right to remain innocent" by James Duane.
Downloaded and listening now.
Thank you.
@@Milpower If I've reached 1 person, then I've done my good deed for the month. Which is handy since there's only a few days left!
Once you are pulled over and try that, suddenly the Officer smells Cannabis?
Pretty much, the cops are enforcers in our broken and corrupt system. You've already lost the moment you have an encounter with them.
He can smell a dead body in the trunk but arguing won't stop them from using a dog to give a false read and searching.
Say nothing.
As Ron White said, "Turns out that while I had the RIGHT to remain silent, I utterly lacked the ABILITY."
In the half dozen times I've been pulled over in my life, the first thing they always ask is, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Only once did I not answer and the cop was a little perturbed at me. When he shouted at me to answer I told him "We both know I don't have to answer that question."" I was flashing my lights to warn others of an upcoming speed trap. I guess this was the cop that was chasing the speeders down. Believe it or not, I only received a warning ticket.
Not saying it was not, but look up the definition of a speed trap. An officer sitting on the shoulder watching traffic or using a radar unit is not a speed trap.
@@scottmansfield1486 so..what would be a speed trap?
@@scottmansfield1486 OK, let's agree to call it a Targeted Enforcement Area.
Every time I see an arrestee complain he was not read his rights, I just cringe.
The police don't read your rights for your benefit. They read you your rights for theirs.
The Miranda Warning was crated after Ernesto Miranda had his criminal conviction overturned after claiming he didn't know he had the option to not answer police questions.
The Miranda Warning was created to prevent that from happening again. So if you are ever arrested and the police don't read you your rights, don't remind them.
But the truth is, they will not forget. They will read you your rights at the time they are required to read them.
You should invoke your right to remain silent and not just stay silent. The reason is that once you invoke your right, the questioning cannot last for too long. You can invoke harassment if questioning continues, which would play bad for the police. Avoid lengthy questioning, and invoke your right.
Here's the issue I have with the logic of our legal system: I can _implicitly_ waive my Constitutionally enumerated right against self incrimination by politely declining the offer of a mint. But a police officer can cite me for a crime because I followed the letter of the law and he deemed my actions insufficient.
Furthermore, police officers are trained to know that things which are normal to everyday personal interactions have far deeper legal repercussions, such as politely declining the offer of a mint, and they know anyone not trained in the law generally doesn't understand those repercussions, so they take full advantage of it. On the other hand, the legal system gives the police immunity for illegal actions unless they were explicitly trained on that exact specifics of that decision.
I was hoping so much that this was just going to be you staring at the camera for 20 straight minutes of deafening silence.
I agree that his not explicitly including his "right to remain silent" is significant. Having a right does not automatically involve the right. I can't understand how non-substantive comments about mints and chairs means that right was not invoked.
Disagree, Steve. The Miranda warning should include the statement, "If you choose to remain silent, you must make the statement that you invoke your right to remain silent." Otherwise, he is having to feel his way through the procedure, without benefit of counsel to advise him that he needs to vocalize his decision to remain silent. I believe the supreme Court has made this whole thing rather convoluted, but they didn't call me about it first.
I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability - Ron White
Steve- very informative video that confirms legal advice I was given several years ago. "Remember, the Police Officer who stops you is not your friend."'
People are conditioned to answer questions from early on. So, not speaking requires mental effort. Speaking and answering questions has become a habit throughout the whole life of a person and the police take advantage of that.