It's a buildup.

Everybody thinks you'll be arrested instantaneously for refusing to cooperate.

You won't.

You will be hassled, detained longer as the cop works to gain PC to forcibly complete a task that he's attempted to do voluntarily.

My point throughout this thread is that you have to make a judgement call on what risk you're exposing yourself to by cooperating vs the amount of time you're wasting, not that you should always cooperate or never cooperate, but you should think about what you're doing.

I've found large amounts of stolen property on individuals who willingly allowed me to search their vehicles, and I've searched vehicles before where I was sure I would find something because the individual was behaving in an obnoxious defiant manner and found nothing.

In my view, both are equally stupid. The former for allowing me to build a case against them, the latter for refusing to answer a couple questions which, if answered would have removed my suspicions and stopped the search from occurring in the first place.

Some respond "Well, if you'll waste my time I'm gonna waste yours!" but that's ignorant. I'm billing the county at an OT rate during this traffic stop. You're not "wasting my time" at all, regardless of what you think you're doing.

You understand that attempting to get you evidence is a waste of everyone's time, right? Just google it. You've got all day to post on the internet anyway.

And cops in NYC were openly planting drugs on people to make their numbers too. This is still a very real problem. You're being naive if you think that just because some people have some cameras that the state is no longer going to break the rules to make their case.

Also, keep in mind that this program of torture that went on in Chicago operated at the highest levels of the CPD. There also must have been, at the very least, prosecutors who were completely complicit in this whole scheme. Also remember that no one actually went to jail for the crimes they committed(one belated perjury charge is super lol). Generally, the people who pull this kind of stuff are not held responsible. That's kind of important to trying to stop this behavior. A reason that leads me to believe that the state is still willing to break the rules to make their case. Which is why I would not talk without the assistance of counsel.



Dude, I never put up a goal post. I don't think phoenixs1 ever made that goal either. It is impossible to prove that this kind of behavior is routine. You understand that, right?

Whether or not it is routine is immaterial though. It has definitely happened in recent history. The risk to you is so massive that the idea that you think you should handle this on your own is laughable. If there is a one in a million chance that answering some questions will have the state investigate you then you really should just contact a lawyer. The point about innocent people being in jail does not matter too much to me either. The vast majority of people who face trial have their lives irrevocably changed. Even if they are found not guilty. The **** that goes down right at the beginning of an investigation can have a huge impact on whether or not you leave in a nice suit or a jump suit.

Oh I forgot to mention two little things.

The cop also tried to pull a neat little trick before I left: "Okay well I'm not going to charge you with anything so you don't need to identify yourself to me. However, the guard is likely going to give you a trespass ticket."

*cop looks at the guard and asks him if he's going to write me up for trespass, guard nods*

"See? So you have to identify yourself to him so that he can write you the ticket. Otherwise he won't be able to ticket you." [lol?]

Me: "So you're saying I have to identify myself to him."
Cop: "How else could he give you the trespass ticket?"

Me: "So you are ordering me to identify myself to him?"
Cop: "Well he needs it to write on the ticket."

Me: "That's not what I asked you. I asked you if I have to identify myself to him by law and that's a lawful order that you're giving me."
Cop: "Well..."

He literally trails off. I laugh and turn around to walk away. As I do so he calls after me "On a personal note... are you educated or something?"

If you have formed this view you should be able to point me to what got you to believe it is true. I'm not saying I'll accept it but right now you sound kind of nutty so I want to know if you have a good reason to feel this way or if you have just spent too much time on conspiracyblog.com. Instead of just repeatedly avoiding the question it is much easier to just answer it -- it isn't like I am asking you to write me an essay with full citations. You came to believe this is true so there has to be a reason for it.

If you can't provide any evidence it is happening then how do you know it is happening?

If there is no evidence of something happening isn't the more logical conclusion that it actually is not happening?

Boy that cop handled that poorly.

The agent for the property asked for a CT.

He was just green lighted to either get your ID or hook you for criminal trespass.

At that point when you ask if I'm ordering or asking, I respond "Neither, I'm advising you that you'll either provide ID for a Trespass warning, or you'll be arrested for Criminal Trespass since I can't provide a warning."

Maybe it's different where you are. Here the police provide CT warnings.

I think most people are concerned with upholding the tenets of the constitution, and not with trying to waste people's time or just being an ******* for no reason. There's a reason why people are allowed to refuse searches, and it's not to protect guilty people.

People should be allowed to exercise their legal right to refuse a search and not be made to feel like a criminal in doing so. If the majority of people refused searches (instead of what is probably the opposite), then you, as a law enforcement officer, wouldn't automatically presume guilt based on someone's preference of not letting you violate their personal privacy just to quell your "suspicions".

It's okay, though. I understand people would rather give up liberty than convenience. It's a rather common situation and is why/how the UIGEA was able to be passed.

Henry, you completely missed the point of my story. My exact situation isn't important, what was important was this:

This happened to my family. And it was not intentional by the police. Call it a misunderstanding. Or pure incompetence if you want. The point is we were lucky that their mistakes didn't have negative consequences for us. If their mistakes had been different that wouldn't have been the case. Having experienced this I have no doubt that similar mistakes happen in other cases with very bad consequences for those who spoke while innocent.

It's been provided in this thread though. Are you saying that it just stopped a couple of years ago or something? Because there is a ton of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. Is that news to you?

http://www.orangecountycriminaldefen...ithhold-e.html

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/31...evidence-again

http://www.mattmangino.com/2012/02/f...gated-for.html

http://ijpc-cincinnati.org/death-pen...nerations-ohio

http://www.sualaw.com/Appearances-Ar...y-evidence.pdf

Okay, just did you 5 minute google search using "exculpatory evidence" and some other related terms. There is a reason why there is a lot of case law on this issue.

I am not alleging some grand conspiracy amongst prosecutors. I'm just saying that they, like everyone else, break the rules. When they break the rules the victim gets their life ruined. If you want to take that risk then fine, that's cool. It's obviously not a smart risk to take.

Yea I know, right. 2 miles away a burglary alarm is going off at a computer repair place, I stop you for speeding and find 7 laptops and 4 CPU's in the backseat of your car, and you're heading away from the store. And you tell me to "**** off" when I ask where the computers came from.

I'm being a dick right?

It's everybody's job to stand up for their own rights. By not doing so it's making my life harder. I mind that. So what?

I'm of the mind that this was a baseless nearly random search. Commit an armed robbery then go wait in an idle late-night bus? "You fit the profile?" probably means, you have two legs and we're just going to check everyone. Also possible there wasn't even a robbery. Most likely refusing search just means you don't get searched.

There are other options you don't list like:

They find something "suspicious" but benign that leads to a police station riggamaroll.

They find something illegal which never would have occurred to you For many of you this would be trace amounts of pot or the like.

They plant something.

You don't have to expose yourself to these risks just because you don
't have to. I won't so now I look like the ***hole.

I think one thing that dkgo and others are misinterpreting was the whole "the prisons are filled with idiots like you that talk to the police."

You guys have turned that into "prisons are full of innocent people who got railroaded by the cops", instead of what I suspect the weird "lawyer lady" probably meant:

A few innocent people and many, many more people of varying degrees of guilt are in prison, and may not have been had they not voluntarily spoken with law enforcement.

I suspect the number of truly 100% innocent people that have been falsely imprisoned because they tripped up speaking with the police if DWARFED by the number of people that WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHARGED OR COULD HAVE BEATEN THEIR CHARGE had they not voluntarily spoken with law enforcement.

To a defense attorney, both of those groups are pretty much the same - clients who didn't beat their rap.

Maybe to you and me, we don't think that it is such a bad idea that someone who was guilty (even if it was finding out they did something unrelated to the original questioning) got put in the clink.

But yeah, obviously for dumb stuff that you either did and don't care about being charged with (i.e. traffic stop for speeding), dumb stuff that you didn't do and doesn't carry a stiff punishment, or to assist in an investigation, cooperation is your best bet.

For anything more serious that could really impact your life, even if you are 100% innocent, you gots to lawyer up.

I once got caught going in to a club with 8 ecstasy. The bouncer was like "Now just wait here" so I was like "No chance" and ran out the door. I went and bought another 10 and was waiting across the road from the club for my friends to come out so we can go elsewhere when two cops spot me.

"Can you just come in to this doorway for a search?". Now I know the bouncer has pointed me out to the cops as the guy he caught with 8 ecstasy so they have grounds to search me and if I refuse they can take me down to the station and strip search me. I decide I may as well take my chances. Fortunately even although they got me to take off my shoes (something I later found out the cops in the UK are not allowed to do in an outside search) the pills were in my sock under the arch of my foot so even although the cop patted down the outside of my foot he never found them. Phew. Then the questions start.

"Did you try to take in 8 eccies to the ABC? Gonna sell them eh?"

"Id rather not say anything"

"Look we can get the bouncer to identify you so just admit it"

<I smile>

"They couldnt all be for you. Giving some to your pals?"

<I know that even giving drugs away is supplying so still say nothing>

Then the absolute gem of a line.

"If you admit you had the pills we'll let you go, if you don't I'll arrest you for breach of the peace or something"

"So if I admit I committed a crime I'm free to go but if I don't you'll arrest me?"

<at this point his radio went about a fight nearby>

"Right I'm gonna let you go, but if I see you on this street again tonight I'll arrest you. Don't take the piss out the cops".

I dont really understand why he was wanting me to admit to having had the drugs in my possession. This can't be a crime or any rock star who has written an autobiography would be up for arrest.

No, I would assume you have probable cause, yes?

I was addressing allowing voluntary searches.

I said the involuntary search occurred because of the refusal to answer a few questions.

That was the scenario in which it occurred.

Thank you for not answering the opposite of my question.

I agree with your method of ra. I quantify the value of the huge detriment as approaching infinity and the very small chance somewhere between 10% and 0.1% though your mileage may vary if you don't tend to rub people the wrong way as I do IRL. Obviously large chance + very small chance = 100%.

Did you look at the links you provided? The first is a lawyers blog where the claim is unsubstantiated and the rest are blogs that with a quick read don't really cut it. Even if we accept that everything stated on these sites was true I couldn't find a single example of exculpatory DNA evidence being suppressed. No one is really taking the position the prosecutor's are saints that do no wrong -- I would have no problem believing a prosecutor withheld knowledge of a witness drug use but that is very different than suppressing DNA or physical evidence. That latter is very serious and does require a conspiracy to pull off and there is no way anyone could get away with doing that except maybe in rural areas.

The problem is that people are greatly overestimating the probability that cooperating to a certain point has on the risk of something happening. Unless the individual is very stupid the risk is so small it can be considered zero. People are also greatly overestimating the probability that not cooperating will have on preventing a charge.

There also seems to be a artificial dichotomy being imposed where people are basically making it out to be that you either have to fully cooperate or just say nothing at all including even the most mundane and meaningless questions such as were you in a city that you were in and which you don't plan to ever deny going to. That people actually believe most functioning human beings can't figure out when something is getting serious and then say well I'd like to speak to council now is baffling.

-----------

Another story where cooperating with the police led to a quick resolution. My friends and I were on a cycling trip from Toronto to Niagara Falls. On the way back we get stopped by the police as we are about an hour out in a neighbourhood of nice waterfront houses. It was 4am and we looked like ****. Cop asks what we are doing cycling at this time. We explain that we left in the morning and doing Toronto to the Falls and back. He explains something about burglaries in the area and asks to look in our bags. There is nothing illegal in our bags. How can it possibly be -EV to allow the officer to look in the bag?

If that was her claim people would not have objected but your interpretation of what she meant makes no sense. The position was always that people who were involved should not talk. The discussion has always been centred on people who had absolutely nothing to do with it talking. Her position is very clear in that she believes that innocent people regularly get convicted of crimes they had nothing to do with because they start talking to the police.

henry you arent denying duke are you? what nifong did there was just beyond description

No one is denying that it has ever happened, people are saying that it is not a routine occurrence that should cause you to lawyer up at the sight of an officer. The way the duke case was handled by everyone was obviously despicable.

This is why no one wanted to do your google search for you. Search for yourself. It's out there. Again, there is a reason why there is existing case law on the subject. Because it happens from time to time. Would I use the word "routine"? No, no one has in this thread so far except for you.

I think you're underestimating what can happen to someone who talks to the cops without the assistance of counsel.

First assumption: There is likely no burglaries in the area. He is saying that to get you to let him search you.

Second assumption: I don't really care about the fact that there have been burglaries in the area. In some vague theoretical sense I care that crime takes place and that people are hurt, but me not cooperating is not going to effect that. I am not the burglar, and refusing to be searched does not in any way hinder cops from finding the real burglar (if there is one), except for maybe wasting a few extra minutes of the cop's time.

If I don't consent to the search, there is no way I am connected to any crime, real or imagined. I am not in a car, so the likelihood of the cop "punishing me" with bogus fines or tickets is slim to none.

If I do consent to a search, as much as you say you "know" there's nothing illegal in the bag, there is a non-zero chance that there is. I could have forgotten something in the bag, the person I am riding with could have put something in there, a roommate or friend or partner could have put something in there, whatever.

You are dealing with a police officer. If he finds something on you he is not going to let it slide. There are very minimal consequences to refusing a search. There are very serious consequences should you be caught committing a crime.

I absolutely refuse the search 100% of the time.

Pot makes you paranoid.

Edit, this thread has really illuminated how many people, at any given time, are walking around committing or having just committed minor legal transgressions. I'm calling everyone's mothers.

No but that it was quickly discovered is actually a good indication of how hard it is to do something like this. An investigation involves too many people to successfully get their cooperation on lying to railroad someone. From what I know of the Duke case I have no idea how the prosecutor though he was going to get away with it.

Saying stuff like this is pretty meaningless.

How exactly could CrashJr have gotten in trouble by confirming he was in Portland?

How exactly could I have gotten in trouble by speaking to the police officer when when he was told I had been accused of taking $20 in quarters from a store I was never in?

I fully realize it isn't true but it is much nicer to say that then what he was really thinking that we were full of **** and not long distance cycling. I don't really care. If he has asked without a reason I still would have said yes.

The time that would be getting wasted is mine. No one was under the impression that we were being helpful in anyway. The goal was just to end the interaction as quickly and effortlessly as possible. That is accomplished by allowing him to look in the bags.

After reading you story and now this you are doing a very goo job of proving my point for me

Despite that by that point I had the bag with me for 24 hours and had been in and out of it multiple times I am certain of the contents. I also don't have lowlife friends who would plant **** on me. What your position seems to be is if you are a careless pothead then you shouldn't talk to cops -- especially if you are also not very bright or articulate.

The consequences of refusing a search is that this is going to take much longer. It is pointlessly antagonistic with someone who is just doing his job. Four guys on bikes in a nice neighbourhood at 4am is suspicious and I don't at all have an issue with him wanting to talk to us. If I felt his behaviour was unjustified then getting into a dick measuring contest might be something I would consider but it was perfectly justified and I'm not going to escalate something when I know that by cooperating I can just pleasantly and quickly conclude the interaction.

Henry being intentionally obtuse! Omg, so surprised. You figure it out Henry. It's not that hard to create a hypothetical around a less than reliable story from the internet.