Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Mike from Dallas on June 9, 2009:

I've seen this reaction many times. It seems that people believe that only guilty people rely on their rights as innocent people "have nothing to hide." A mind game, really, as I have nothing to hide while getting dressed, but I still pull the shades for privacy. I don't remember the name, but an internet lookup will provide the court ruling that "the exercise of a right cannot be converted to a crime."

But while no cop has ever asked me how fast I was driving, they have asked if I knew what speed I was going. Almost like a lawyer asking you if you stopped beating your wife. Yes, no, maybe, no answer is correct. If you say no, it's a confession that you weren't paying attention to your speed. If you say yes, it's a confession that you knew you were speeding. You have two choices: Verbally spar with the officer, which nets you nothing, or tell him specifically that you were doing the posted speed limit (even if you were doing 45 over the limit). It's his job, and the court's, to prove otherwise so don't give him a confession to make their job easier.

Posted by Brian in Jackson, Michigan on June 9, 2009:

The first thing they usually ask me (I drive a lot at night) is "Where are you going?"

What is the suggested response to this? I have to fight every time not to reply "What's it to you?" As far as I'm concerned, unless I'm a suspect, it's none of their business, even though I'm usually just going home from work or running to the store for a soda.

Posted by Linda in Pennsylvania on June 9, 2009:

What if one is questioned as a witness, and later the police decide you are a suspect? Can answering questions as a witness, (eg."I saw a man in a blue car at the house") be used against me? (eg. "You were near the house, so you had opportunity") If I delay answering *any* police questions until I have a lawyer present, I might be giving the criminal time to escape & commit more crimes. Do I have to endanger the community in order to protect myself?

---

These are good questions. I don't have the answers, but it's clearly something to think about. -rc

Posted by Caleb in Iowa on June 9, 2009:

The ACLU has a "Bust Card" freely available. Print it off and keep it in your wallet to know your rights when you're stopped by police.

Bust card link: http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/dwb%20bust%20card7_04.pdf

Posted by Ian -- Harrison, NY on June 9, 2009:

One police station would ask people who were being "booked" if they had used drugs. The reason being is sometimes people have bad reactions so the cops would have some idea that the passed out "perp" had too much coke.

A judge said that the answer to that question could be used at trial. (Only, of course, if it was incriminating.)

As far as not responding to the police ("Where are you going?") one needs to know why he or she was stopped. Usually there is a basis for a stop (even if it is only DWB {Driving while Black}). Unless you have a great deal of time, annoying a police officer is usually a losing situtation. A smart answer can easily be followed by "Please step out of the car." Failure to obey can result in resisting arrest or interferring with governmental administration charges. Even if you eventualy win, it probably won't be worth it.

Posted by Bill, Vancouver Island BC Canada on June 9, 2009:

Police in Canada have a procedure, "chartering", that's quite like the Miranda warning in the US. They advise you of your rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of our Constitution. These are not dissimilar to their US 5th Amendment equivalent, i.e.: you don't have to answer questions, and you have guaranteed access to legal representation. That is, if it's a criminal offence that's being investigated.

In Canada, all criminal law is made at the Federal Level (by Parliament and the Senate) and may be enforced by any Peace Officer in the country whether RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police: our federal police force), provincial (Ontario and Quebec have provincial law enforcement agencies) or "local"(municipal, tribal, transit or numerous other police forces).

Of course, any law officer may enforce any other provincial or local law or ordinance in force in his jurisdiction. I have not heard, however, of an instance where a defendant in a provincial (traffic or hunting laws, for example) or municipal (like noise bylaws) trial has used, successfully or not, a defence based on not being chartered.

I can share a personal experience that taught me what can happen when you talk to the police. Many moons ago, while stopping for a signal just turned red, my brake pedal went to the floor without any warning. I had slowed down quite a bit by the time I hit the vehicle ahead but it still did a bit of damage.

The police officer who attended, after ensuring that nobody was injured, hopped into the driver's seat of my car and directed a couple of us to push it off to the side of the road. He then filled out the accident report as I answered each question as honestly as I can.

So I'm sitting in court sometime later, finding myself charged with "Following too Closely" and "Operating an Unsafe Vehicle". I thought that I should have no problem straightening this out as I sat listening to the officer start to testify. In response to a query from the prosecutor about the reason the charge had been laid, the cop stated that I had admitted to him that I knew the brakes were defective. And the Crown rested.

Jumping at the opportunity to cross examine the officer, I asked him exactly when I made this confession. He responded that when he got in to move the car I had told him that I knew that the brakes didn't work. What?

I was completely flabbergasted, trying to think what he might be referring to; I didn't expect a respectable police officer to lie to a Judge so I assumed it had to be an innocent mistake that I could straighten out -- once I knew what it was.

Then I recalled that when we were pushing the car, I had quipped: "Watch the brakes, they don't seem to be working too good". Some confession that was! Obviously a simple satement of a self-evident fact. But it was all he needed; anything else I had said could be (and was) ignored and used against me.

I had neither the time, togetherness nor instant verbal skills to put my statement in context to counter the impression that had been carefully crafted. I must have just stuttered and stammered until the Judge impatiently asked if I had any more questions for the witness. Of course I didn't. Where could I start?

Don't talk to the cops. Justice and law enforcement aren't the same thing.

Posted by Frank, DeKalb, IL on June 9, 2009:

This is all so important for the public to understand. I remember watching police dramas on television with my friends after our first year criminal law and procedure classes; and invariably, when the suspect was in the "interview" room and the cops started asking questions, we would yell at the TV screen "Don't say anything!!! Ask for an attorney!!!"

They almost never do, and, just like in real life, nearly everyone who gets pulled in gets convicted.

The odd corollary is that most people unfamiliar with the justice system seem to think most criminals go free because of these "technicalities" -- which are, in fact, our bedrock, foundational law set up by the Founders of our country.

Posted by Karl, Los Altos, CA on June 9, 2009:

I'm a night owl. I've had a couple of cases where I've been out walking along the edge of the street at 2am or so, and a police officer has decided to pull over and chat. There's no apparent crime involved, so does that make it safe to answer honestly about what I'm doing? (I haven't had any bad experiences as a result of doing so -- yet.)

In the first instance, I was walking past some neighborhood houses trying to identify the source of some music that had been bothering me. In the second instance, I'd been doing multiple tasks, including returning an item to the library -- it would have been overdue the next morning -- but when he asked me if I was just out for a walk, I answered affirmatively, as my daily exercise walk was another of my reasons. He also asked if we'd ever talked before -- I wasn't sure, since I didn't remember much about the officer from the first instance. I later realized that any answer other than "no" might be an indication of having had prior trouble with the police....

Posted by Paul, Port Washington, NY on June 10, 2009:

My sister, as a New Yorker was visiting LA and doing what all New Yorkers do, she walked. Apparently it appears to be illegal to be a pedestrian in LA. She was "pulled over" and asked where her car was sometimes by 2 different cops on one trip.

---

It's not illegal to be a pedestrian in LA. It's illegal to be a New Yorker there.... -rc

Posted by Tony In Japan on June 10, 2009:

Regarding the "illegal to be a pedestrian in LA" experience, I remember that being mentioned in an episode of "Remington Steele" in regard to the city of Beverly Hills some decades ago.

This video is timely for me as the Japanese Press are currently up in arms about a man released from prison eighteen years after being found guilty of murder, where the police apparently ignored alibi evidence because they already had a DNA sample that matched (i.e one in several hundred people probability, due to the immaturity of the technology back then.) Once his defence team got a more accurate DNA comparison done recently, it became clear he was innocent.

And they still don't record all interrogations here, because as the Justice Ministry claimed, it might make suspects more reluctant to confess.