I've heard that, among law enforcement agencies, the FBI has the authority to compel you to talk or face what? Prison? Fine?
IF that is true, do any local or state agencies, or other federal agencies, have that same authority?
I've heard that, among law enforcement agencies, the FBI has the authority to compel you to talk or face what? Prison? Fine?
IF that is true, do any local or state agencies, or other federal agencies, have that same authority?
Anyone can refuse to talk under the auspices of the fifth ammendment. Where many people screw up is lying to them. That is a chargeable offense.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/what-to-do-when-fbi-comes-knocking-your-door
I've heard that, among law enforcement agencies, the FBI has the authority to compel you to talk or face what? Prison? Fine?
The FBI has the authority to compel you to sit there and listen to questions. But then your local PD can do that too.
No, the FBI does not have the legal authority to compel you to answer absent very rare circumstances*.
What they do have is a small army of psychologists and they are very, very good at persuading people to talk when it would be in their best interest to shut the fuck up.
It is a federal felony offense in it's own right to lie to the FBI, but invoking your right to remain silent and refusing to answer their questions is not a lie.
*This would involve an Assistant US Attorney (a federal prosecutor working for the DOJ) going in front of a federal judge and getting you a conditional grant of immunity so that nothing you say to the FBI can be used against you in court. This would negate your fifth amendment right against self incrimination.
In my experience the hard thing is to keep people from talking. Cops ask a question and they tell happily tell them anything they want to know.
Yep, real life is frequently like that scene from the second Shrek movie.
https://www.quotes.net/mquote/85955
Donkey:
You're supposed to say "You have the right to remain silent!". No one said I have the right to remain silent!
Shrek:
Donkey, you HAVE the right to remain silent. What you lack, is the capacity.
Chapter 8 of "An Unstoppable Man"
The trooper looked at Delaney with a jaundiced eye. "You know, you may not be under arrest, but you still do have the right to remain silent. How about exercising that right for me?"
Was that inspired by Shrek?
In my experience the hard thing is to keep people from talking. Cops ask a question and they tell happily tell them anything they want to know.
Talking themselves into the jail in the process.
ETA: Of course, many of them don't need to say much as they've already ran their mouths on social media.
Getting a tattoo of a gun, complete with serial number, posting a high definition pic online, then leaving the
same gun at a shooting scene was one of the better examples of such behavior. Mr Dindunuffin was proud of that Hi-Point.
I testified against a repeat offender who burgled my neighbor's house while I watched. Only wearing shorts so the tattoos of an antique WWI era Savage pistol appeared to be 'holstered' in his pants made him easily identifiable. He finished his last sentence at 9am, I ran him off my property an 10AM, he broke into the neighbors at 10.30am and was back in the lock up at 1pm.
Dumb crooks rotate in and out of jail. Smart crooks become Congresscritters & banksters.
A lawyer I know once told me one of the hardest parts of his job is getting his clients to actually shut up and let him (the lawyer) speak for him.
You can actually see this amazingly clearly on one of the Jan 6th FBI interviews where they ask a guy if he understands his rights and still wants to talk to them and he says
(I'm paraphrasing, but this is pretty close)
"I know I'm not supposed to. My lawyer always tells me I shouldn't say anything without him, but yea, I'll talk to you"
I've seen transcripts of a few other interviews over the years where they do this same thing. Once they're in an interview room, people just seem to get nervous and can't seem to stop themselves from talking.
Once they're in an interview room, people just seem to get nervous and can't seem to stop themselves from talking.
This is deliberate psych warfare stuff.
Yea, but I'm amazed when you read the transcript how transparent it is (of course, that's easy to say for me, not sitting in the room being interrogated).
Sometimes I watch procedurals and think how weak some of the cop interrogation scenes are with things like "We want to help you, but first you have to help yourself", but then I see these exact quotes from actual cops in transcripts.
This should be mandatory viewing for every citizen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
It's actually not true.
The Shrek comment is quite correct. What happens is simple. What the police will do is ask, "What's your name?"
You respond, "Bob Potomac."
Them: "Cool. What's going on tonight?"
THAT is when you should just SHUT UP! You do NOT have to answer them. You have given them a name for their records. If they ask you for your ID, you do NOT have to give it to them. Note that this is during a NORMAL just regular police interaction or during a DUI checkpoint.
If you have the blue lights in your rear-view and you stop, you DO have to provide valid proof that you have a license to operate the vehicle, as well as valid insurance, but you do not have to enter into any conversation other than that with them. Where 99% of the morons screw up is when the police ask if they can search your car. You do NOT have to give them consent.
I think we've all read the stories on here regarding the tricks that Homeland Security and the FBI pulls that are a bit over their authority. Fifth Amendment applies.
Where 99% of the morons screw up is when the police ask if they can search your car. You do NOT have to give them consent.
I was told that the thing that mess people up is the cops say "we have probable cause, so we can search it without your permission, but it would be better for you if you gave us permission" and so they go ahead and give permission.
Especially then, you don't give permission, because if they're asking, there's a good chance they think their probable cause is weak. You still want them to search using probably cause, because if they mess that up, everything will be thrown out, but once you consent it doesn't matter how weak the probably cause was.
The law says people can't consent to sex with the doctor, shrink, or boss because of the power dynamic involved.
Really the courts should treat police requests for "consent to search" the same way. The power dynamic in the situation makes the notion of "voluntary consent" laughable.
That's probably true, but it took us almost 200 years to just get Miranda warnings, so I'm not holding my breath. The last people who ever seem to be on the look out for a citizens rights over the state is the government.
Really the courts should treat police requests for "consent to search" the same way.
In the UK, following the way police officer Wayne Couzens arrested Sarah Everard so he could rape and murder her, some senior police officers have suggested that if someone tries to arrest you for dubious reasons, seek help from a bus driver!
AJ
In the US that would probably get you (and maybe the bus driver) shot.
Wayne Couzens was trusted enough to carry a firearm when on royal protection duty :-(
AJ
The Queen's Canadian pilot was a burglar, rapist and serial killer. Her uncle was a serial pedophile rapist. Her Surveyor of the Queens Pictures was a soviet spy. Her second son's taste for young legal poon is the least disgusting scandal about that family. Its time to bring back the Jacobites and restore some dignity to the office.
At least Philip achieved his stated goal and died in time to reincarnate as a deadly virus.
I was told that the thing that mess people up is the cops say "we have probable cause, so we can search it without your permission, but it would be better for you if you gave us permission" and so they go ahead and give permission.
The last time a cop tried that on me, I told him he had to do what he had to do. They never did an overt search, but they did hold me long enough for a K9 unit to arrive and sniff my truck. Apparently, driving west on I-40 while being a Native red skin was the probable cause part.
I learned later that the cartels had started recruiting folks from the Oklahoma reservation to move product and cash east and west on that route.
I learned later that the cartels had started recruiting folks from the Oklahoma reservation to move product and cash east and west on that route.
Unfortunately, that's reality, too. The I-35 corridor running through the middle of OKC is always a good spot to see this happen, especially right where the speed limit changes from 70 - 60 if you're southbound. It's funny, but if you've got out of state plates, and immediately slow to the speed limit - as far as the OKHP is concerned, that's probable cause. The minor detail that they average three major drug busts every single week - in the exact same spot - is relative.
The minor detail that they average three major drug busts every single week - in the exact same spot - is relative.
How many of those are actually real? Assuming for the sake of argument that they are all legitimate, that's out of how many stops/searches?
I wonder how many of those are people being stopped so the cops can do a civil forfeiture. Every week it seems there's a story about someone with a bunch of cash going to get a car, or buy a farm, or whatever getting stopped and all their money taken by the police, who can then use that money for operations.
I wonder how many of those are people being stopped so the cops can do a civil forfeiture.
Almost all of them most likely. Civil forfeiture should be unconstitutional and illegal, it's not much more than government sanctioned theft. Unfortunately, many places are only increasing their robbery.
The minor detail that they average three major drug busts every single week - in the exact same spot - is relative.
That's actually unusual. They are normally after cash seizures.
That's actually unusual. They are normally after cash seizures.
It's stupid, but because I-35 is basically THE north-south corridor from Laredo, Texas all the way to Duluth, Minnesota - and then you get I-40 going from North Carolina to California - we get so damned many stops here it's not funny.
They had a big one not that long ago because - you'll appreciate this - a licensed and authorized grower in Colorado was transporting from his facility there, to another facility in Louisiana, where he's also a licensed and authorized grower. Guess what? Violation of federal laws - they got his car, his cash, and a couple tons. And it's LEGAL here - but not across state lines.
So driving while Black as probable cause has now been extended to driving while Red and the critical race theory boys want to reverse that to make driving while White a crime. John Glubb was spot on about the lifespan of empires. The USA will be at the 250 year dissolution mark in 5 years and at the rate things are unravelling I doubt it will make it past that.
Umm, I'm White and lived in an area the was 99% black for several years. I was regularly stopped by the police coming home from my job as a bartender in the early morning hours. The assumption was that I was in the neighborhood buying or delivering drugs.i was thankful that the owner fired anyone behind the bar who had even a sip of booze.
Umm, I'm White and lived in an area the was 99% black for several years. I was regularly stopped by the police coming home from my job as a bartender in the early morning hours. The assumption was that I was in the neighborhood buying or delivering drugs
Two incidents of the same general ilk.
In 1982 I and two write friends (and we're the pasty types) walked through a notorious project in Chicago late at night, but on a main street. Nobody did/said anything until two idiot cops in a patrol car stopped us to find out what we were doing, warning us about how dangerous it was. That drew attention and created a truly dangerous situation.
In 1999, walking from the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles to the Antiochian cathedral took me through a Hispanic neighborhood. Again, walking along a main street. I spoke fluent Spanish and was dressed basically business casual (khakis/Oxford shirt). Nobody said or did anything until after two patrol cops decided to stop and talk to me and warn me how dangerous it was. When they drove off, I had to talk my way out of a confrontation they caused.
While home on Leave from the US Army c.1984 I was stopped for "Driving While White" in Seattle, my home town which then was more than 90% White (Asians and various Pre-Columbian Tribes, more common than Blacks).
However, there was (and still is) a majority Black neighborhood, the Central District, East of Downtown. I had dropped off a friend, and was driving to my Grandparents home (dating back to the 1890's).
When the SPD pulled me over, they stated their "Probable Cause" was that I was White in a Black neighborhood. Felony Stop, had me prone on the ground, shotguns out, multiple police 🚔 cars...
I had to Prove my Home of Record was my nearby Grandparents home, matching my Washington state Drivers License, and Registration for my car, that I kept at my grandparents, while I was assigned to Fort Bragg.
We were the last White family in the neighborhood, although there was, and is a predominantly Jewish neighborhood just a few blocks away.
I sold the house in 2000, and moved out of the city.
If you don't look the part, it draws contrast between you and the regulars of the neighborhood in question. Even if your appearance doesn't standout, body language can get you hassled by the local gendarmes.
A few things to keep in mind.
Cops have the legal right to lie to you to trip you up.
https://mattoxlaw.com/2020/04/06/is-it-legal-for-police-officers-to-lie-to-or-manipulate-you/
You can not just refuse to answer questions, you have to actively invoke your 5th amendment right.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html
Cops are not allowed to detain you longer then it takes to write a ticket so they can wait for a dog.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/239513-court-rules-cops-cant-hold-suspects-to-wait-for-dog
In many States (except for drivers) you have the right not to provide ID unless the cops can state a valid reason to suspect you of a crime.
https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/stop_identify_statutes_in_us-lg-20180201v3.pdf
To those who say "If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear in answering questions". I say if I haven't done anything wrong they don't have the right to ask me questions.
You can not just refuse to answer questions, you have to actively invoke your 5th amendment right.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html
I think you are missing an important point in the 2013 decision on using silence against a defendant.
According to the Court, the prosecution can comment on the silence of a suspect who:
is out of police custody (and not Mirandized)
voluntarily submits to police questioning, and
stays silent without expressly invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.
If the cops arrest you and haul you in for interrogation, this would not apply.
Never voluntarily submit to out of custody questioning.
I was talking about out of custody. The best thing to say is you want a lawyer.
The one question you should never answer is when a cop asks you "Do you know why I stopped you?"
Some States are now not allowing cops to use the "I smell pot" as a reason to search your car.
Some States are now not allowing cops to use the "I smell pot" as a reason to search your car.
Carte blanche to steal anything they find via 'civil forfeiture'.
The one question you should never answer is when a cop asks you "Do you know why I stopped you?"
The correct answer is always "No."
You aren't a mind reader. Even if you know you were doing something that could get you stopped, that doesn't mean that's why you were stopped.
:)
The correct answer is always "No."
I would imagine "Yes, because you're a total dick" wouldn't go over too well, however true.
"Yes, because you're a total dick" wouldn't go over too well, however true.
Do detectives (ie dicks) go out on patrol and stop motorists?
On a completely irrelevant side note, the name 'Nigel' was given to less than three babies in the UK last year.
AJ
less than three babies
Was the third birth thalidomide-affected? I nearly was, my mother turned down the new wonder-drug which was supposed to help with morning sickness.
My grandfather was happy to tell me that my name meant 'dirty', being derived from the Latin for dark or black. I'd guess that's the reason for it's present unpopularity, to avoid potential problems with the PCW crowd.
Was the third birth
OK, fewer than three babies, ie zero, one, or two.
Lucky swerve by your mother ;-)
(Although the woke crowd will probably crucify me for making such a 'cis' observation.)
I suspect it's unpopular because of its upper-class connotations, and because there haven't been any great role-models of that name recently other than Nigel Farage ;-)
AJ
Nigel Lawson?
No, her name's Nigella. And she's not exactly a role-model after tolerating Charles Saatchi's abuse ;-)
AJ
She was Katie Price for the aspirational class. Big tits, a cocaine habit and a husband who helps her fall down stairs. Same same.
Nigel was Nigella's daddy, and as far as I know he still is.
I know, I was joking. Only Methuselahs like us remember him though. I'm pretty sure he writes a column for a right-wing newspaper so he's probably still alive.
Woke observation - if you can change your biological sex, shouldn't you be able to change your biological parents?
AJ
shouldn't you be able to change your biological parents?
Not Logical. DNA testing might be able to adjust who your father really was, but the woman who gave birth to you is your bio-logical parent. Mothering might be an emotional reaction to how you are treated, but your "mother" is the lady whose uterus expelled you after at least seven months. Or maybe a few weeks less, if the hospital was particularly advanced. Normally it takes about 9 months for most mothers to give birth.
Not Logical. DNA testing might be able to adjust who your father really was, but the woman who gave birth to you is your bio-logical parent.
If in vitro fertilization is used, an embryo can be implanted in a woman other than the one who supplied the egg, so it is possible for the birth mother to not have any genetic link to the child.
and, IIRC, fertilised eggs have been artificially created by swapping the nuclear DNA in an unfertilised egg with a non-egg cell and ?chemically fooling the egg into 'thinking' it's fertilised so the mitochondrial DNA is from a different organism. Many of C.J.Cherryh's works look at the societal changes which could be possible given widespread cloning - to get worker populations, to select for certain traits, or vanity clones.
I worked with a thalidomide victim in the 80s. His left arm was 8 inches long. Had some anger issues too. You dodged a bullet.