Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,129 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
These are interesting:

Part#1

Part #2

:mod: I changed these links to go to the youtube versions of these videos, which were posted later by quincy07. --Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
I liked it when the cop agreed with the attorney: "Anything you say . . ."

ian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Very insightful! I'd recommend you taking 40+ minutes to watch these. Now, as the law abiding citizen's we are, I believe we're less likely to get into a situation like this, but if you are ever detailed or questioned, these videos definitely inform you about what to do and what not to do. In short, ANYTHING you say to a police officer while being detailed or questioned has potential to get you convicted. Even if you are totally innocent, the magic words are:

1. "Am I being detained?"
2. If yes, then "On suspicion of what crime?"
3. If you remain detained or are arrested, say nothing except, "I will not speak until I have a lawyer present."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Wow! Those are great videos. I've shared them with a few family, friends & co-workers and they've been impressed with the content. It has me convinced not to say ANYTHING!

That being said, what do we need to say? If we're pulled over by a cop and he asks, "Do you know how fast you were going," how do you respond? Do you simply say, "My name is _______ and I'm a concealed carry permit holder. My firearms are located here, here and here (and perhaps here). My birthdate is _________ and my address is __________. (And then hand them your DL & CFP, registration & proof of insurance... and then shut up? Obviously we need to comply with their orders, but is that all the information that we are required to give them?

I've heard (from other forums) that sometimes the police will claim that being unwilling to answer their line of questioning is considered "obstruction of justice." I know the police can lie all they want, but can they really charge you with obstruction of justice for exercising your 5th amendment rights?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
You can't be cited for obstruction of justice when their questions are self-incriminating, i.e. "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Instead you can reply with questions like, "How can I help you officer?" "Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go?" "Am I being charged with a crime?", etc.

The only statements you should say are, "I don't consent to any searches." "I want to speak with my attorney."

There might be a few others, but you get the idea. You shouldn't feel like you have to co-operate when your responses could potentially incriminate you. And since it's very difficult to know such things and what the officer is planning or looking to charge you with, simply staying silent is often your best option. Some people view this as extreme. Those same people will get charged with law violations that you could have thrown out in court just by staying silent and not admitting guilt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
GeneticsDave said:
"I don't consent to any searches."
I was told that saying NO to having your vehicle/person/etc searched when asked gives the LEO probable cause to search. Any insights on this? Where is “probable cause” defined in Utah (or fed) law?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
xmirage2kx said:
I was told that saying NO to having your vehicle/person/etc searched when asked gives the LEO probable cause to search.
:shock: No, I don't think so.

Talking to the police and cooperating (or not) is an interesting issue, and I think there is a very fine line that needs to be walked.

The biggest mistake people make when they are stopped or detained is to talk too much about relevant things. I think this comes from many people's mistaken belief that if they cooperate, the police will somehow "go easy" on them because after all, they were honest about it and came clean. This is NEVER a good idea.

Going too far the other way can make life difficult also. If you're pulled over for a routine traffic violation, and the first thing you say is "I won't speak without my attorney present.", that is going to immediately place the officer on guard and raise suspicion that you're up to something. There is nothing that will get you detained quicker than raising an officer's suspicion that you are up to something.

My CFP instructor was a Utah County Sheriff, and he told us that when they make a traffic stop, 1 or 2 out of 10 will turn into something much more and they can make the big bust - which is what they're trying to do. In order to get to those 1 or 2, they have to make the other 8 or 9 stops. When they realize a stop is one of those 8 or 9 and there's nothing there, they want to get it over with and move on as soon as possible. (This is where many cops will quickly end the encounter when they see your CFP, because that tells them that you've been background checked, etc., and are probably a law abiding citizen).

You wouldn't want something that could have been a quick and routine stop, where he may have even let you off with a warning, to turn into a prolonged encounter while the officer looks for probable cause to search your car or whatever just because you acted a certain way that led him to believe there was more going on that he hadn't found yet.

When I have a police encounter, my main goal is to make the officer comfortable and at ease. I want to let him know I'm not nervous, because I have nothing to hide, and he doesn't have to be nervous either. I want him to think I'm just a regular dumb guy, not doing anything serious, and a waste of his time. I'll get my wallet out before he reaches the car, and then keep my hands on the steering wheel. Then, I'll make casual conversation. I will be VERY careful not to say anything that could incriminate me, but I'll usually turn into a chatter-box. "Do you know how fast you were going?" No... my wife and I were just talking about how we needed to take the dog to the groomer because she's really starting to get stinky, and... "you were going 77 in a 65." Oh, really? Wow. No, we were just driving along on our way to Costco, and saw a billboard back there with a picture of a Golden Retriever on it and that got us talking about our Basset Hound, and bassets are some of the stinkiest...

By now the officer just wants to get rid of me and interrupts me to tell me to pay more attention and slow down or something, then sends me along my way. :wink:

:mod: Edited to correct quote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
xmirage2kx said:
GeneticsDave said:
"I don't consent to any searches."
I was told that saying NO to having your vehicle/person/etc searched when asked gives the LEO probable cause to search. Any insights on this? Where is “probable cause” defined in Utah (or fed) law?
This is absolutely wrong. You should watch this video
. The video bothers me because it's all about how to get away with it if your breaking the law. But It does make some good points about your rights. The most important part is that not consenting to search defiantly does not give an LE the right to search you. What use would the right be if claiming it automatically invalidated it. However I wouldn't use the phrase "I don't consent to any searches" unless it was clear the officer was going to search your car and you really didn't want them to. Because as soon as you say that you can guarantee that you are going to be asked to step out of your car and you will get a ticket. Instead I suggest you are cordial and cooperative. Don't offer information and don't incriminate yourself. Instead change the subject,offer information you know they are either going to to ask for anyway, or answer their question with a question.
Examples.
Officer: Do you know why I'm pulling you over?
Bad Example: I was speeding. or I guess I was speeding.
Good Example: No officer why? (note: That this is true even if you were speeding he may be pulling you over because you have a tail light out.)

Officer: You were speeding. How fast do you think you were going?
Bad Example: I was going 5 over wasn't I. (I know people out there think 5 over is safe but don't admit to even that it's still breaking the law and now he has a confession.)
Good Examples:
I thought I was going the speed limit. (note: Only say this if it's true, Don't lie)
(Change the Subject) Wow officer it's hot out here.
(Offer Information) Do you need my license and registration?
(Offer Information) Officer I need to tell you I'm a concealed weapon permit holder and I have a concealed weapon.
(Answer with a Question) How fast did you clock me at?
(Answer with a Question) Was I going over the limit?

Here are the things to remember.
1. Don't be a jerk. Most cops are good guys just trying to do their job. If you were speeding you deserver a ticket don't like it slow down. I've decided that I don't like being pulled over myself so I just try and obey the speed limit. (even on I-15 which is hard sometimes since it's 65 and everyone is going 80.)
2. Be cooperative. Give the officer what they ask for. If they ask you to get out of the car do it. This doesn't mean incriminate yourself by admitting you were speeding or changed lanes without signaling.
3. Don't lie. Although I wouldn't volunteer any information or admit to any wrong doing definitely don't lie.
4. Don't cause additional suspicion. So don't start the conversation off by saying "I have a gun!", "I refuse to make any statement without an attorney", or "I don't consent to any searches." these are reasonable things to say if the officer begins to run a fishing expedition or starts asking questions that don't simply pertain to a traffic violation. But as long as it's a routine traffic stop it shouldn't be necessary to be so forceful instead try and be casual but careful.

Note I'm not a Lawyer so your mileage may very.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
I am glad that you posted those...as it really made me think and change my opinion on some things.

Tarzan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Good examples. I think most police encounters can (should) be honestly answered with "yes", "no", or "I'd rather not say".

Anything more than this has the possibility of being incriminating. My brother is LEO and says that he gives tickets all the time to people because they confess to speeding even though he has no evidence. It looks like they are speeding, maybe 20 over the limit, so he pulls them over, asks them how fast they are going, they say "10 over" or "5 over" and he writes them up for that speed - all without having a radar speed or any other evidence. If they just kept their mouth's shut, he would not give them a ticket because he has no evidence. Once they admit to speeding, he if free and clear. Even if they fight the ticket and take him to court, he has irrefutable evidence from their own mouth.

If he has a radar gun speed of them going 20 over and they say 5 over, it's an easy battle in court - he simply shows the judge that the person was violating the law in the first place and as such, they probably cannot be trusted (at least no more so than a radar gun) to accurately represent their actual speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Smith:

OK, so what happens if a cop pulls you over and he didn't have a radar gun. He asks you and you don't confess (or do, it doesn't really matter for this situation) -- but he proceeds to write you up for, we'll say 10 over. It goes to court. There's no empirical evidence short of his own opinion. But in court you say "no I wasn't speeding at all -- in fact, I was 5 under" and he counters and says "no you were 10 over by your own admission"... what then????

It doesn't really seem fair for the court to side with him MERELY b/c he's an Officer and you aren't... so what do they do???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
bane said:
he counters and says "no you were 10 over by your own admission"... what then????
Another reason to record all police encounters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
bane said:
Smith:

OK, so what happens if a cop pulls you over and he didn't have a radar gun. He asks you and you don't confess (or do, it doesn't really matter for this situation) -- but he proceeds to write you up for, we'll say 10 over. It goes to court. There's no empirical evidence short of his own opinion. But in court you say "no I wasn't speeding at all -- in fact, I was 5 under" and he counters and says "no you were 10 over by your own admission"... what then????

It doesn't really seem fair for the court to side with him MERELY b/c he's an Officer and you aren't... so what do they do???
If you go to court the burden of proof is on the officer. I've never used this but my brother has and has gotten out of 7 tickets so far.
http://www.blurofinsanity.com/Speeding.html

Mostly just by delaying it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
bane said:
There's no empirical evidence short of his own opinion. But in court you say "no I wasn't speeding at all -- in fact, I was 5 under" and he counters and says "no you were 10 over by your own admission"... what then????

It doesn't really seem fair for the court to side with him MERELY b/c he's an Officer and you aren't... so what do they do???
I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine it could probably go either way. In a he said/she said battle, things are entirely at the discretion of the judge, though the burden is on the officer to prove guilt. If the cop is lying and found out to have lied on the stand, he loses his job and will probably face criminal charges, so it's not really entirely in his best interest to do so, particularly over a $100 ticket.

I don't know if this is policy, but without evidence (radar, camera, witnesses, etc.) a cop is unlikely to issue a ticket because they face a chance of going to court and cops HATE going to court! But they like giving tickets to ******* who threaten to take them to court more than they dislike going to court. With camera's in cars and microphones on their uniforms, the cop has an awful lot of evidence against you. A lot of agencies will have cops video the radar gun speed indicator, then dictate the details of the incident while or after they write you up. All of this is admissible in court later and will go against you, not against him. They simply show up, hit play, and let the judge decide.

As Ty points out, with enough effort, you can get out of most any ticket as long as you don't admit guilt. For most people the effort and time to POSSIBLY get out of a ticket is more than the cost of just paying it up front. Besides, those tactics have also been known to backfire. The judge and officer can also delay you - making you come back over and over again (yes, court is held 9-5 on weekdays). You can also tick off judges who have been known to order an inspection of your car (and I guarantee the officer you made come to court can find SOMETHING wrong with your car), charge people with contempt charges, increase the fine to the maximum allowable, etc.

Most police officer's I've talked to say the thing that most impacts their likelihood to issue a ticket versus a warning or nothing at all is prior offenses. When they run your license and see 3 speeding tickets in the last year, you have essentially admitted your guilt and they are almost certainly to try, yet again, to teach you a lesson. A clean record is the best way to maintain a clean record.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
bane said:
It doesn't really seem fair for the court to side with him MERELY b/c he's an Officer and you aren't... so what do they do???
Fair or not, all else being equal there WILL be a presumption that the officer's testimony will be more credible than the defendant's.

When you think about it, the defendant's interest in getting out of the ticket is probably greater than the officer's interest in the defendant being convicted - therefor the defendant has more likelihood to lie than the officer does.

Again though, this is when everything else is equal. If you record all police encounters like Swillden suggests, and can produce the recording of the encounter which differs from the officer's testimony, guess who just lost most of their credibility?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
IANAL, but from what i have read I know that the officer's testimony has to prove you are guilty.

This is from the link i posted
BEFORE an officer can use the radar/laser reading as evidence, he has to establish a few things Jurisdiction Certification, up to date, accurate, traffic and engineering survey, radar/laser properly calibrated, tuning forks calibrated (with radar), FCC license, radar/laser unit appears on that FCC license

If the officer attempts to use the radar reading before establishing those things above, politely interrupt and say "objection your honor, inadmissible evidence."

Then tell the judge why. If the officer fails to prove your guilt at the end of his testimony don't question him, move to have the case dismissed. And explain what he failed to prove.
I'd say the best thing you can do is have a competent lawyer if you are going to speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
I have to agree with Smith assertion that the best way to avoid a problem in the first place is to keep your record clean. My record is squeaky -- but that isn't to say I haven't been pulled over in 10 years... just so few times for such minor stuff that each time they have issued me at most a warning -- with one exception where I rec'd a ticket -- but that was down in Hurricane in an obvious set-up with a PD that has a well-known history of being less than upstanding. All the other officers, both here in Utah as well as CA were very polite and fair and I never really had reason to feel the need to worry about how they were going to proceed. I treated them with respect, they treated me with respect, and I got a warning.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top