Never talk to the police(campolalaw.com) |
Never talk to the police(campolalaw.com) |
For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No exceptions. Don’t get hung up on the reason for the stop, it doesn’t matter. Additionally, police can articulate in virtually any situation that they fear for officer safety, which is reason enough in many states to order you out of the vehicle. At this point they have a foundation to frisk you for a weapon.
Resisting at any point of this is very risky.
Understanding when and where an officer doesn’t have the legal authority to do the above gets very nuanced. But generally I encourage Americans to learn the rights they have when operating a car seeing as their lives revolve around driving.
It should be well known that you are required to show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States (1996)], your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] , and you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) & Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)].
All of these requirements have been litigated to the supreme court. You should also know the difference between probably cause and reasonable suspicion. We should add these topics to high school civics or something.
Not what it establishes. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5841
> your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)]
Not what Brendlin establishes (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-8120) nor Johnson (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-1122).
Passengers in a vehicle aren't even required to have a license. There's no requirement for citizens to carry papers in the US.
(They may be required to give their name, but not carry ID.)
> you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers)
Only because "officers had stopped Mimms for a legitimate reason and, upon observing [a] bulge in his jacket" (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830)
> Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)]
Similarly, if the stop is legitimate. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1268)
And before someone says "but the Supreme Court overrules the states", no it doesn't. Many state courts have found that their state constitutions grant their citizens more rights than the US Constitution in various circumstances.
Police should not be allowed to put you in that situation, period. Then you can teach everybody that one fact, instead of an incomplete list of one-off rules (that are apparently not even easy to interpret, as demonstrated by the other replies to your comment).
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr...
> The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
A Terry stop includes detainments of pedestrians, who do not have an obligation to identify in most states.
And just for clarity, a Terry stop is any brief investigative detention, not just those that arise from traffic stops.
You are required to provide a license to operate a vehicle.
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45317167 - Sept 2025 (2 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24754163 - Oct 2020 (1 comment)
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390344 - June 2020 (6 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police – James Duane - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717507 - April 2019 (4 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886628 - Dec 2017 (165 comments)
Don't talk to the police [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001859 - July 2013 (37 comments)
Don't talk to the police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758 - June 2008 (35 comments)
While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved.
So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do:
1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case
2. I talk, and it screws me
3. I don't talk, and it contributes to a case not being solved
4. I don't talk, and it screws me
I read stuff like this article and it tells you about 2, but it doesn't really put that into a broader context about the likelihood that 2 is the outcome. And there is a real decision to be made here!
Pro 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Merely being silent means the prosecution is able describe your communication as "refused to cooperate with or answer questions from law enforcement" which is a "negative" finding, whereas the right to remain silent is at least meant to be interpreted neutrally.
And then consider if you are are the spouse or parent of a murder victim or missing person, and are innocent. You are almost certainly going to be a potential suspect, but you also want to help them find the actual criminal, and if hiring a lawyer makes you "look guilty", then the police might focus their investigation on you rather than finding the real perpetrator.
I agree. This is a real problem in law enforcement. The issue is that while they're competing interests, my right to remain innocent should rationally supersede the deep profound desire for justice (but I recognize it rarely plays out this way).
Maybe, but it can also be VERY expensive to NOT have a lawyer.
I have a lawyer that offers free 30 minute initial conversations. But I also practically beg her to charge me for her time because it's valuable to me to get her take on the situation.
I lead a normal life. I've never gotten into a situation where this could ever possibly concern me. I'm betting the vast majority of people who visit HN (and aren't commenting here) wouldn't have this issue, either.
I do not fear the police. The police have helped me in several situations such as car accidents. At my business they discovered my back door open and, within minutes, caught the person who stole something. My car got side swiped overnight and they walked the street to see if any neighbor had a camera. And on and on.
You wouldn't find me in an illegal situation involving the police except if I happened to be there. But I wouldn't fear being hauled off to jail cause that just won't happen except on the internet.
> NO, YOU CAN'T TALK THEM OUT OF IT
> No, they don’t care about your story
If you are suspected of a crime, your inclination is going to be to explain the situation because it must be a mistake. If you find yourself suspected of a crime, you should talk to a lawyer, not the police.
People unknowingly break laws every day, yourself included. You have a right not to incriminate yourself. It is not fearing the police to recognize that innocent people get swept up in the bureaucratic law enforcement machine all the time. Talking to the police can only hurt you in this situation.
Finally, your examples are all examples where you were the victim of a crime, which is covered in the article.
Reminds me of the "I've got nothing to hide" mentality. Just because I'm not breaking the law, doesn't mean I want to make it easy for bad people to abuse me.
In light of this, I find the comments of the police officer invited to the youtube talk about how lucky the listeners are to be in the US (because police in other countries is so terrible) somewhat amusing.
In the US one should generally be terrified of the police, especially if one's skin color doesn't happen to be white. Plus everything that was said in the talk.
I later contacted a civil rights attorney to see if there was any case for racial profiling, but instead they took the opportunity to eviscerate me for not talking my way out of detention. Truth is lawyer will say whatever you did is wrong because the premise of client fucking things up is often just a more convenient explanation.
I would honestly say it couldn't help because it's not like they'd believe you if you said no and saying yes could make them suspicious. So while it seems like something that would be important to answer for safety, maybe it's safer to decline to answer.
Of course, if they're threatening you, you should comply because the place to fight is in the courtroom, not on the road.
This is a classic! it's informative but also entertaining.
If anyone has any other videos like this (usefulness, vibes, any topic) I would appreciate recs.
Even if it's completely entirely true and they believe it and they like you and that's enough for me. It can only hurt you.
Hope that helps!
Many many people live every day like this.
The police have a lot more power in any encounter, and there is no way to avoid having them make your life worse. About the only truly concrete advice is that if you are guilty of something then you absolutely, positively must get a lawyer before saying anything at all. The magic words are “I will not answer any questions without my lawyer present,” and any variation from that exposes you to the risk of the police creatively misinterpreting you.
The magic words can help you beat the rap, but they cannot help you beat the ride. If they decide that you are going to jail, then you go with them, and nothing you say or do (or not say or do) will prevent that. And you will stay there until your lawyer shows up.
After Salinas v Texas, you must positively assert that you are exercising your right to silence, not simply remain silent.
The prosecutor in a murder trial argued, at trial, that silence of the defendant (during police questioning) was evidence of his guilt. The supreme court in Salinas v Texas allowed this.
* The defendant also selectively answered some questions, so perhaps there is nuance, but to be safe, a positive assertion of right to remain silent seems prudent.
IANAL, and would love if an actual lawyer would comment on this.
I used to have to testify in civil and criminal proceedings a few times a year as part of my job. If you aren't trained to talk to police or adversarial attorneys, don't.
The magic is essentially talk to them like you would a call center agent. One topic per interaction. Use simple language. Answer a question directly. "He went that way." "I don't know."
Don't answer unasked questions. Don't demonstrate how smart you are. Don't try to "help". If you help, do an Irish goodbye asap.
At the end of the day or incident, the officer is going to write an incident report. You never want to stand out or be interesting that report. The more interesting you are, the more likely you are to get sucked in. I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case.
Sorry, I'm not following exactly: your colleague was ordered to appear because he was genuinely involved in something bad, he was falsely set up as being involved in something bad, or he's helping to litigate an insurance fraud case?
I don't think it's terrible advice to not talk to the cops but it tends to discount the reality of the world. Going through any sort of criminal trial is expensive and has devastating life impacts. Cops are the first step in that process and convincing them not to arrest you is the easy path out.
Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the original crime they stopped you for, but your day is still ruined.
Specifically England, not the UK, as Scottish law is different.
"When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop."
> You are required to provide a license to operate a vehicle.
And the police are required to have probable cause to believe you are operating it without such a license to stop you for that. Thus making it… a Terry stop!
So? Some Terry stops are vehicle-based, others are not; the ruling applies to both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
"When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop."
If the cops were seeking me personally (i.e the system is seeking me out) out it'd be a different story though.
Also, don't take my word for it - here's a US police officer saying the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (skip to the second half)
He wouldn't talk to police.
E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes ?
(And "identify" isn't necessarily the same as "show ID". It's legal to not have any form of ID in the US whatsoever - this comes up with voter ID discussion a lot - and those folks are still allowed to ride in a car.)
Not legal advice.
> When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop.
They can't pull you over without reason in the first place.
It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify.
If you feel as though the detainment was illegal, you can sue after the fact. There’s no point in trying to litigate the situation with the officer.
Again:
> Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
It is legal for a state to require you to do so, but some have not done so.
If you match the description and are in the vicinity of the crime, you are not going to save yourself by talking to the police. You are already in "get a lawyer" territory.
One night, while walking, I was stopped by police because I roughly matched the description of someone who had burgled a house nearby. They didn't tell me this straight away; they just asked who I was, where I lived, and what I was doing. I didn't have ID on me, but I answered their questions honestly. They went to their car for a bit (presumably checking that my name matched my address and/or that I didn't have a record), then came back, explained the situation, and let me go as they had no strong reason to suspect me. The whole interaction was pretty relaxed and cordial, and they didn't contact me again.
Things definitely wouldn't have gone better for me had I made a point of refusing to engage beyond the legally required minimum, and it's easy to imagine how they could have gone significantly worse.
Your position is just bonkers.
But if you start invoking your rights and they think you have something to hide, they can easily find an excuse. "I smelled alcohol" is a popular one. If you refuse the test, they can invoke the smell of alcohol as an excuse to bring you in. They will eventually let you go, but that's days rather than minutes.
Police will correctly tell you that they don't want to harass you and it is much easier to simply answer their questions if you have nothing to hide. You don't have to, and most of the time they'll still just let you go as long as you comply with the actual orders. But it's not a guarantee.
A huge amount of police work is vibes based "this guy looks sketchy, let's wait for him to do something and check him out" stuff. If you talk, they decide there's nothing to see here, move on.
If you don't talk in a clumsy way they decide you're up to no good and pull every trick in the book to get you. And they have plenty of tricks to construe the situation to their favor once they go down that path.
You absolutely can escalate what could've been a warning or simple ticket into a full fledged drug dog fake hit type stop by being obtuse. Or in the case of a real investigation escalate a "this ain't are guy" into a "put them on the short list and really go over them" (which you hope comes to nothing, but still).
>Your position is just bonkers.
Your position is just ignorant.
If you have been detained in a motor vehicle you are in control of, you must identify.
A traffic stop is a Terry stop. It's within the circle on the Venn diagram.
Stop-and-frisk of a pedestrian is also a Terry stop.
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
> As of April 2008, 23 other states had similar laws. Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists, which penalize the failure to present a driver license during a traffic stop.
> As of April 2008, 23 other states had similar laws. Additional states (including Arizona, Texas, South Dakota and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists, which penalize the failure to present a driver license during a traffic stop.
A state may require it. A state does not have to require it.
(To be clear, I'm handing over my license when asked regardless. There's just no apparent law applying universally to all 50 states that says I have to.)
What we're talking about is more specific than that, and other statutes are implicated.
If you were operating a vehicle and cop pulls up next you and casually asks about your day, then you don't have to identify, because that's a consensual encounter. If he suggests that you rolled through the stop, even if you didn't, then you're subject to things like implied consent that are attached to vehicle operation.