Slashdot Mirror

I said "why did you even ask?"

Never mess with cops on the street. That's where they have the most power and you have the least (as you found out to your detriment).

There are only four things that you should EVER say to a police officer:

1. Am I being detained, or am I free to go?

2. I do not consent to any searches.

3. I wish to remain silent.

4. I demand to see my attorney.

Source: Flex Your Rights

Anything else you say, can and will be held against you, so STFU.

The best move in the game is to move the encounter from the street to the courtroom.
That's where your lawyer can eat pork chops for breakfast.
Make sure her knife is sharp by following the rules above.

A court does, law enforcement does not. If you are stopped by a cop or fed or other LEO and they ask you for your identity, you are under no obligation to tell them.

You are correct in that they can't just randomly stop you and ask for ID, however they can if they have probable cause to believe that you were involved in illegal activity, which even SCOTUS has upheld:

https://www.flexyourrights.org...

"Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"
"I don't consent to any searches."
"I wish to remain silent."
"I want to speak to my attorney."

These are the only four phrases that you should speak when dealing with Law Enforcement.
Anything else you say will be used against you. (i.e: STFU! For your own sake!)

Source: http://www.flexyourrights.org/

A lawyer from the National Lawyer's Guild once told me to say, "Officer, am I free to go?"

Remember that detentions are voluntary unless you verbally ask to leave. Any time police detain you, it’s a good idea to ask if you’re free to go. If the officer says you may leave, it’s up to you to leave the scene of the encounter. If you choose to stay, the detention is automatically legal.

The evidence was thrown out because a military investigator found the material, not because it was an unconstitutional search.

Nice try but that is not what the fine article says. It says:

The 2-1 majority rejected the government's argument that the military is allowed to monitor and search all computers in a state without prior knowledge that a computer's owner is even in the military.

Even a modicum of common sense should tell you that people in military service do not have the same Constitutional rights as the general public even without the huge hint in the fine article. From Does the Constitution apply to rights of military members?:

But in other respects, even basic rights against unreasonable searches and seizures are virtually non-existent [for military personnel].

The problem was not that a person in the military was conducting a search that would have been Constitutional had a non-military person conducted it. The problem was that the search was performed using the lax (and generally Unconstitutional) standards the military uses for searching its own but it was conducted on an entire state. If the government wins this case then they will have a right to search all of your computers without any warrant or any probable cause just by asking a member of the military to conduct the search and then hand off anything interesting to the police of FBI.

Please stop just making shit up in order to twist a story into fitting your political agenda.

Law enforcement should surely investigate, but unless there is something life threatening a judge would be foolish to give a warrant for here-say accusation.

The requirements for a issuing a warrant are much less stringent, than for a court conviction — they have to be. A warrant is issued over a mere probable cause, whereas a conviction requires "beyond reasonable doubt". In other words, while hearsay is not enough for a trial, the term does not even apply in a non-court setting. Consider the circumstances: whereas your landlord may have planted the drugs in your bedroom to get rid of an inconvenient tenant, there is no incentive for Google (or Microsoft) to falsely implicate one of their users, so if they do report them to police anyway, it is probable, there is something behind the accusation.

But in either case — be it landlord or e-mail service provider — a judge may issue a warrant if he agrees with the police, that probable cause exists, even if they all remain reasonably doubtful.

Obviously a kidnapping (as well as other crimes)

For better or worse, it is generally agreed in this country (and most others), that child pornography is both as vile and urgent, as anything else you can think of.

issue a warrant without an investigation

In the US "investigation" is not something the judge (or the jury) does. Police investigate and then present whatever they found.

certainly rare because they may not hold up in court as Constitutional

Once a judge has issued a warrant, the Constitutional requirements are satisfied. Because, as I said, it does not matter, what arguments were used to convince him to issue it. The 4th Amendment is only there to ensure Judicial oversight of police. And that's enough for decent living because, after all, a search warrant itself does not mean conviction (or even further prosecution) — the ensuing search still has to find something.

I'll need to read more on these proceedings because there is surely a mismatch between your statement and the headline.

Oh, but they are consistent. The e-mail provider finds (what appears to be) criminal material and forwards it to police — the "tip" mentioned in the headline. Police take the material to a judge, who issues a warrant for a search (in Google's case) or arrest (in Microsoft's case). Police arrest the subject and get him to incriminate himself (in Microsoft case) or search the suspect's possessions and find more criminal material. While the originating tips themselves couldn't be used to convict, each was enough to begin an investigation which uncovered more evidence — as is very often happens in criminal prosecutions.

Now, because police could (and did) abuse their powers with malicious prosecutions, an officer's own "hunch" can no longer justify initiation of an investigation — nor even asking for your ID. But an anonymous tip about a "suspicious person" in the neighborhood is still sufficient for them to have a reasonable suspicion and harass such person over nothing more than a glance at some soccer mom's precious daughter.

The highlight of your post was this: "I have this duty because if I agreed to a search, then I further the normalization of pathetic submission, embolden the authorities, and increase for my fellow citizen the expectation that they, too, should needlessly submit to the whims of dangerous thugs."

The more we accept it, the more brazen they get.

Thank you, and I agree with you succinct addendum.

If you (or someone you know might) want help overcoming intimidation by cops, I recommend Flex Your Rights and especially their online video series (produced in conjunction with ACLU) — their video scenarios use pretty realistic (albeit non-violent) cops that try to be belligerent, verbally coercive, and using threatening body language (at least, as realistic as you'd expect from low-budget actors). I think their videos have more practical/frequent daily utility than the "Don't Talk to Cops" video we've all seen.

You shut the fuck up.. if they try to detain you, ask if you're under arrest.. if not, shut the fuck up, except to ask if you're free to go.

Remember this:

The police are not your friend.
There are quite a few asshole cops.
There are quite a few crooked cops.
You very well might be smarter than they are; in my neck of the woods most of them are associate degree wielding ex-jock types.. but.. they are practiced in this game whereas you are not.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

I'll respect your concerns about police oppressing people instead of protecting them, but if you go so far as to call them "bad guys" per se I'm not convinced that you're not just bringing a pre-existing political prejudice to the table...

You may find this useful: 10 Rules for Dealing with Police

Flexyourrights.org has some excellent videos (I think you can find them all on youtube) about how to exercise your protection against illegal searches in the US. I made my kids watch them. Unfortunately, this thing with the dogs is a really nasty loophole. I know someone whose teenage son was pulled over by the cops for some minor traffic violation. (When they pulled him over, he didn't know what he'd done wrong.) They tell him they want to search his car, and he says no. (Most likely he didn't do it the way the flexyourrights videos suggest, which is very politely and respectfully: "I'm sorry, officer, I know you're just trying to do your job, but I don't consent to a search.") So these small-town cops get all bent out of shape, bring in the drug-sniffing dog, and encourage the dog like crazy to get all worked up. "Come on, boy, do you smell anything? Do you? Come on...good dog!" They then use that as probable cause to basically rip the car apart searching for drugs. They found a soda straw from McDonald's, which they claimed was drug paraphernalia. Now the kid has a court date.

Well maybe I was misinformed. Here's one source that I used for what I stated:
http://www.flexyourrights.org/faq/41

Start here: http://www.flexyourrights.org/

Misleading. You'll note that the man was arrested on minor charges; not failure to present identification. You are not required to carry or provide identification in America unless you are driving a vehicle or flying a commercial airline. A few municipalities have enacted very controversial and constitutionally grey laws that require you to identify yourself if an officer believes you are engaging in a criminal activity and you are of course always required to provide identification if you have been *arrested*.

Now, can an overzealous cop say "you were sitting on this park bench reading a book and you refused to provide me with your papers when I asked you for them" and decide to arrest you on that alone? Sure. A cop can also decide that you being a bit mouthy is justification to hit you in the head with a baton or taze you. That doesn't make it a legal action on the cop's part. That's what the legal system is for (never *ever* fight or debate with an officer, even if your rights are being violated. Just shot the fuck up and deal with that when you speak with a lawyer so you don't make things worse for yourself).

But, what they can do and what is legal and right is not the same thing.

http://flexyourrights.org/faq/When_do_I_have_to_show_ID

1. "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"
2. "I don't consent to any searches."
3. "I wish to remain silent."
4. "I wish to speak to my lawyer."

When dealing with the police, these are the only four statements one should speak.

Source: How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters

Now immigration status by itself is sufficient to ask for papers.

According to federal law, they are required to have those on them anyways. Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 264(e):

(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

As far as racial profiling: Yes, technically this law and the governors executive order prohibit racial profiling. In reality it's impossible to enforce this law without relying heavily on racial considerations. We know that driving-while-black is still a real problem in this country, and you want me to believe that the police won't interpret this law to give them license (or even require them to) profile?

Based on my own experience, most of the people claiming to have been "profiled" have, by their own conduct (and not skin color) already drawn attention to themselves. People who are not taught how to behave in stressful situations, especially the 10 basic rules, seem to crop up more in the latino, black, and "white-trash" communities - indicating it's an economic, not racial, thing.

You will note that the video I link above begins with a kid claiming he was "profiled", and maybe he was, BUT his own conduct made the situation much worse.

What we're going to have, most likely, is some dumbass who happens to be latino, may or may not be an illegal alien, will try to start a fight with the cops and then his lawyer will later scream "profiling" anyways. And when that happens, I'll have little sympathy in the matter, because I prefer that to watching the cops get gunned down by illegal aliens.

"Do you really think that the cop who pulls you over for a traffic violation really needs to call a judge to get approval to ask you if he can search your vehicle? That's ridiculous."

In the US? Yes, he does.

NO, he does not.

Of course the cop doesn't need a permission from a judge to ask. The cop can always ask, but you don't have to agree to the search. In fact you are best off to explicitly state that you do not consent to a search. They can still do an involuntary search in some circumstances like probable cause, open view, etc.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/54988/know_when_police_can_search_your_vehicle.html?cat=17
http://flexyourrights.org/faq/74

You would probably be hard-pressed to find any officer who would answer "no" to that question, even though the answer is no.

I am tempted to answer that my source is the U.S. Constitution, and 200+ years of court precedent, but that still really isn't much of an answer. Here are a couple of good places for info on that sort of thing:

The Flex Your Rights Foundation

On that page are 4 short videos that cover what to do in police encounter situations. They also have a longer, 45 minute DVD available that includes all those short segments and I believe some other material too. The first of the 5 videos on that page is also interesting, and gives some background of the organization. But while I am at it, I can tell you one of their own biggest sources of information: the ACLU. They are also in the process of producing a new movie called "10 Rules for Dealing with the Police".

There is also an excellent video called "Don't Talk to Cops", done by an attorney and an ex-police officer. You can watch it on YouTube:

Don't Talk To Cops, Part 1

Don't Talk To Cops, Part 2

Any interaction with police not involving a motor vehicle should involve primarily these phrases:
"Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go?"

If you are being detained, stop and identify laws in about 1/2 of the states allow officers to demand identification. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes Even in most of those states, you are only required to state your name, not provide documents or any further information besides your name.

You new script is now:

"I do not consent to a search" "I do not wish to answer questions without a layer present"

See http://www.flexyourrights.org/street_stop_scenario for the slightly more complicated automobile case.

Police officers script many of their interactions because of the legal requirements.. You should also.

Note, much of this advice I've received from police officer friends. Endeavor to be polite, but don't give up your rights voluntarily. If the officer has probable cause to hold you or search your belongings, they will make that clear and won't ask for your permission. If they're asking, not telling, say no.

NEVER cooperate with the cops. If you are about to get in trouble, clam up...get lawyered up.

Once you start to cooperate a little, it appears....you can start to give up rights you have.

Some good info is here. Also, look up a film they did, it is available for free called Busted.

This is somewhat off-topic, being about American law, but the "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" laws are abused continually. Police can and do search wherever they feel like by lying and saying they "smelled something." Flex your rights.

Here's a good site that overviews your rights during a traffic stop very well. It explains probable cause and when you can say "No" to a police search of your car.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/traffic_stop_scenario

Best to not say anything to the cop.

Fixed that for you.

Source 1: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/why_you_should.html
Source 2: http://www.flexyourrights.org/

Hmm..you need to remember these words : " I do not consent to a search".

I highly recommend that everyone visit http://www.flexyourrights.org/ and watch their movie Busted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA/

The movie depicts several common interactions with police (cops at the door because of a loud party, pulled over for speeding, etc.) and demonstrates the right way and the wrong way to handle yourself.

The information is invaluable and could mean the difference between freedom and incarceration.

As a side note... check out:

http://flexyourrights.org/

They've got some good write ups about what your rights are under various police encounters...

Nephilium

And for those in the U.S.... You should know what your rights are...

Nephilium

2935.041 Detention, arrest of shoplifters; protection of library, museum and archival institution property.

(A) A merchant, or his employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.

Commonly known as 'stop and identify' statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

"Currently the following states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI""

If he'd have kept his cool, and not tried to hide his box full of pot, the trooper probably wouldn't have had a reason to search the car.

There was no "box full of pot". It's quite possible - likely, even - that the "suspicious action" is a complete fabrication on the art of the cop in question.

According to TFA, "The officer got permission to search the vehicle". Never, never, never, never give your consent to a search. Don't do it. Ever. When you consent you give up your Fourth Amendment rights.

Cops lie. They will tell you that things will go easier if you consent. It's bullshit.

Instead, be calm, be nice, but flex your rights.

The following is just my opinion of a reasonable person who read the text of findings of the Supreme Court. I think the article I am replying to misleading in general, and FUD specifically.

Let me make it abundantly clear SCHOOL IS GOVERNMENT. All restrictions against government apply except as limited by the Supreme Court.

Here is the text of the 4th Amendment - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment04/

I've been looking into general causes for the failure of US Education system, and found quite a few interesting references a couple of days ago, so this is not totally new. My goal is to entice some reforms once I can afford to do so.

Now, I've been upset about this policy and its potential impact for several hours since I got back from a nightclub... so thanks for giving me some Supreme Court cases to read. Since you likely haven't read them, I'll post the relevant parts. The TLO case is pretty thorough by itself, but I also think that your "free speech is moot" argument not confirmed by the Hazelwood case. Please read it in your spare time. It concerns limited special circumstances school censorship and disruptions to classroom, but it doesn't waive the 1st Amendment. In case of 4th Amendment, the TLO case reduces "probable cause" to a lower standard and does not require a warrant but doesn't change much else. It doesn't authorize a random baseless search.

Citing the cases is all well, but let's include full quotations omitted from this text with regards to special circumstances as it's quite key :-). Rights are being stripped daily, and something must be done to stop it. Ironically, it seems like kids will have to read some Supreme Court rulings and get familiar with http://www.flexyourrights.org/

Looking at New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=CASE&court=US&vol=469&page=325

Here is the full paragraph related to 4th Amendment from TLO:

1. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials and is not limited to searches carried out by law enforcement officers.
Nor are school officials exempt from the Amendment's dictates by virtue of the special nature of their authority over schoolchildren. In carrying out searches and other functions pursuant to disciplinary policies mandated by state statutes, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents of students, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity from the Fourth Amendment's strictures. Pp. 333-337. [469 U.S. 325, 326]

2. Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, non-contraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. But striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. Thus, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority. Moreover, school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness of any search involve

That is because I was taught that if you didn't do anything wrong, then you should not be afraid to be searched.

When you consent to a member of law enforcment's search you stand to gain nothing and to lose everything. If they have to ask you "can I take a look in here?" then they probably don't have the authority to do so already. Always tell them that you "don't consent to any searches". You can't possibly understand every nuance of every law there is, and believe it or not even the most honest citizens can go to prison, be fined, harrassed, etc. It happens everyday, you only need to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Examples When you agree to a search you not only put your self in a dangerous situation for no reason at all, but you reinforce the idea that is in some law enforcment officials minds that they have the right to search anyone any time they please, leading to more searches with out evidence.

That video is called Busted: The citizens guide to surviving police encounter, and it's copyrighted, go on and watch it, but if you learn anything you should really consider paying for it at Flex Your Rights Any money you give them is a donation, any profit they make goes directly to some very good causes.

In that vein, here's something a friend pointed me to just today.

http://flexyourrights.org/
"Just say no to police searches"
This is a neat little site that details what your rights are in vasious situations, how to walk away from the police, and how to decline searches. (Basically, ask if you are free to go, if you aren't, don't say anything till you see a lawyer. Be polite.) It also has a number of useful videos for download. (samples of their DVD)

This is information every american should have.

Correct - here's a great page on just what to do in the event you are stopped.

In summary:

1) Keep Your Private Items Out of View
2) Be Courteous & Non-Confrontational
3) Just Say "No" to Warrantless Searches
4) Determine if You Can Leave
5) Do Not Answer Questions without Your Attorney Present
6) Do Not Physically Resist

Some of this really goes to "No good deed goes unpunished". Even if you have nothing to hide and did nothing wrong doesn't mean you should roll over and expose your belly.

http://flexyourrights.org/busted/bt-download.html

http://flexyourrights.org/tracker/download.php?act ion=torrent&info_hash=592b34df33f51ad5b262f1a83f98 6b31ae5ede83

http://flexyourrights.org/busted/bt-download.html

http://flexyourrights.org/tracker/download.php?act ion=torrent&info_hash=592b34df33f51ad5b262f1a83f98 6b31ae5ede83

Sure, they see it as equal to guilt. They want to search you, after all. Who cares how they see it? But it's your responsibility to assert your rights.

Visit http://www.flexyourrights.org/. You deserve to know, and exercise, your rights. Better men than you and I have died for them.

But to the extent that officer or public safety is immediately at issue, that concern is sufficiently alleviated by the officer's ability to perform a limited patdown search for weapons. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 25-26 (1968).

The officers detained him and his two passengers for two hours as they searched for illegal drugs, weapons, or other contraband.

This one's real simple: if a police officer asks to search your car (or anything else), do not say yes. Instead, say that you do not consent to the search and ask whether you are free to go. "Am I free to go?" is the easiest way to get out of a jam. Read more at http://www.flexyourrights.org/scenario/trafficstop .html

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and
never will be. - Thomas Jefferson

to Flex Your Rights as an American. Know what to do in a situation such as this. Remeber there are checks and balances and they work both ways. I think this precendent (being set by the policeman) is a bad one, and it could run us down a very slippery slope.