Print PDF
Favorite
Email
Being stopped by the cops is scary. This Instructable gives you everything you need to know to safeguard your rights when you are dealing with the police.
All of the information here is straight from the American Civil Liberties Union.
Remove these ads by
Signing UpStep 1General guidance for dealing with the police
1. What you say to the police is always important. What you say can be used against you, and it can give the police an excuse to arrest you, especially if you badmouth a police officer.
2. You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it. If you reasonably fear that your name is incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, which may be a defense in case you are arrested anyway.
3. You do not have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your house. If you DO consent to a search, it can affect your rights later in court. If the police say they have a search warrant, ASK TO SEE IT.
4. Do not interfere with, or obstruct the police, as you you can be arrested for it.
Remember:
Think carefully about your words, movement, body language, and emotions.
Do not get into an argument with the police.
Anything you say or do can be used against you.
Keep your hands where the police can see them.
Do not run. Do not touch any police officer.
Do not resist even if you believe you are innocent.
Do not complain on the scene or tell the police they are wrong or that you are going to file a complaint.
Do not make any statements regarding the incident.
Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest.
Remember officer badge & patrol car numbers.
Write down everything you remember ASAP.
Try to find witnesses & their names & phone numbers.
If you are injured, take photographs of the injuries as soon as possible, but make sure you seek medical attention first.
If you feel your rights have been violated, file a written complaint with police department internal affairs division or civilian complaint board, or call the ACLU hotline, 1-877-6-PROFILE.
| « Previous Step | Download PDFView All Steps | Next Step » |
NY Times Article - Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Warren and the other victims sued the District and the police department. In 1978, the D.C. Superior Court ruled that "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
Later in 1981, the D.C. Court of Appeals went further and ruled, "The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.'
The police are public servants, who serve the public AT LARGE. Thus they will quell mass riots, "keeping the peace," but when Granny gets murdered because no one showed up, forget suing, you're out of luck. Oh, that case you cited came later and tried to establish a "special relationship" did exist, being the only way an individual can show an obligation of the police to protect them. And it got ruled that a protection order didn't do that.
Legally speaking, as an individual, you're on your own.
This is rarely mentioned in the media as it leads to the following exercise in logic:
1. You, an individual, do not need a gun for protection as the police will protect you.
2. The police do not have to protect you, an individual.
3. Therefore...
But in my cases someone tried to mug me one night after class but there was no officer on scene so guess what i had to actually defend myself luckily i had my car door open and got a good hit on them in the face and scrambled back into my car where i had a small sword 19 inches long and threatened to cut them if they didnt run which thankfully did make them leave. i later found out that i was in violation of some stupid penal code that said you cant have a blade larger than i believe it was 8 inches that is unsheathed in the car? Made me laugh
Guns are there to protect yourself and to form militia i the event that the government has over extended their rights or the military has failed to protect you from danger. Lately the government (fed government) has been pushing for increased gun control so they criminals dont have guns but literally anyone who knows jack about crime knows that if a criminal wants a gun they will get a gun, which leaves the criminals a level above you if you dont have a gun to defend yourself.
Because, slightly cynical here, an orderly society is needed for the upper classes to not require trusted guards, and probably many of them, to protect their lifestyle, lives, and property. And even guards can be overwhelmed by a disgruntled mob. So we have the police who basically neutralize any disgruntled mobs that erupt, but mainly prevent them from forming by keeping a generally orderly society going. What "protection" there is, trickles down. If the upper class were protected but the "commoners" weren't at all, the commoners would be disgruntled. So protection is supplied to at least enough commoners to keep them from forming a mob, while legally not required to be provided to every last individual.
Slightly cynical, yes, but the model for the police is very old and quite often functioning as found in Robin Hood. Of course, the more historical method of forming an orderly society, beneficial to all, is quite horrifying despite its efficiency, involving much time and effort.
The method is teaching solid morals, hard concepts of what's wrong and right, and actually knowing your neighbors, making sure they have and follow the same morals, and thus forming solid peaceful neighborhoods and communities. But these days, people would rather have laws and police, then complain when neither works as well as they think they should. Go figure.
... the upper classes allowed no values to the workpeople but those which the slave-owner appreciates in the slave. The working man was to be industrious and attentive, not to think for himself, to owe loyalty and attachment to his master alone, to recognise that his proper place in the economy of the state was the place of the slave in the economy of the sugar plantation. Take many virtues we admire in a man, and they become vices in a slave.'
For credibility, I quote also Woodrow Wilson:
We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.
A detailed history of the various political struggles among the upper classes over the formation in schools of the subjectivities of the lower classes is John Taylor Gatto's Underground History of American Education -- a section of particular interest is chapter eight. My point is only that the ethics which are instilled in youth are those which create the type of people necessary for use by the powers; in times of war, these will be soldiers; in times of industrial expansion, they will be factory workers; in the contemporary "service economy" they are the type called by one book title "the organization man," aka "team-players" -- although Bauman argues convincingly that the powerful are now much more interested in creating willing consumers of their products than producers of them. (Of course, the DIY movement, if you call it that, is a reaction against both consumerism and organization...)
People don't have laws and police because "they would rather have" -- they are born into societies with laws and police and courts. Moreover, they are taught that these laws and police and courts are synonymous with morality; the law is not represented to us as a living institution, as a set of arbitrary rules that some people made up and which all-too-often exist only to benefit those who make them; rather, they are sanctified by the theory of democracy which is drilled into the heads of the young long before they attain the capacity to think independently or the life experience against which to test authoritative assertions.
Our legal institutions have existed since they were invented by the ancient monarchies; in fact, there is a continuity of organization going back from the American court system through to the Norman conquest. It is the same organization, which has reproduced itself through so many generations of human membership. (Remember that the war which is called the American "Revolution" was one in which the States, without dissolving, declared independence, and formed a new union -- it was no more a revolution than the London Declaration.)
In the early days of these same organizations, they asserted directly their equivalnce with morality and, indeed, with the word of God. "Dominion is founded in grace" was the ideology of our court system in its infancy; which is to say, the law set down by the King is sanctified by God. Rousseau marked a shift in which the King began to claim the basis of his authority in his representation of the interests of the people -- of course, it was still the same organization, and largely this representation was nothing more than a pretense, though a pretense which could easily be sold to children -- including the children of the powerful, who would gain a convenient confidence in their own right to rule. The contradiction between the ideology and the reality, though, resulted in the various popular movements defining their task as the bridging of this gap; i.e., as the creation of truly representative government.
The representation of democratic forms as automatically producing democracy is itself indicative of a certain collapse of democracy (which had never really been secured). A society in which democracy was a primary goal, rather than an ideology justifying power (like "dominion is founded in grace"), would frankly admit that the task of ascertaining and enacting the general interests of the people cannot be accomplished automatically through any procedural form. But this is far from what children are in fact taught (in myriad ways), and what they believe until they learn about the system through their own personal experience. It is not a choice of the people to accept this representation; rather, it is simply what they are taught in their gullible youth (out of which many never grow).
My little examples here are just from (me) one person who has lived 19 years, i cant even image what stories ill have racket up by the time im 45 about what stupid crap cops have ticketed me for or alleged i did.
Should the government seriously be concerned about traffic tickets as much as they are, the real issue is the people stealing cars, breaking into homes which in my area are almost never caught and its simply easier for a cop to right tickets than actually patrol for real criminals.
Im sure many out there who are in support of increased government control and monitoring but its funny how those opinions change when the government comes cracking down on you or some benign offense you committed usually not even on purpose.
It is so neat that you think that innocent people have nothing to hide from the police. That is what Kevin Fox of Will County Illinois thought too.
He was innocent and was just trying to help the police and the states attorneys find the person who murdered his daughter, so he talked freely with the coppers. But that was before the authorities attempted to have him put to death for the murder of his daughter.
Fortunately, DNA evidence eventually excluded Mr. Fox.
Two-piece legal advice:
1. Demand an attorney, and
2. Keep your mouth shut.
-- SCAM
so-called "Austin Mayor"
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com
Cops have bad opinions placed on them because in dealings with cops, cops are the ones to usually instigate something especially with traffic ticket pullovers and are never forgiving at all, There was a police department in California that as shut down because of how they increased revenue which was to pull over and impound anyone car that was going even one mile over the super slow 30 mph speed limit they imposed with a minute impound time of 26 days.. this was costing thousands of dollars for going 31 mph.
This is why people have bad opinions of cops., yes there are people out there that should be arrested and fined but its when traffic tickets stops become something that can cost 200+ $ which to most people that are barely squeaking my usually means they miss that phone bill or cant put gas in their vehicle or food on the table because the government says you owe them money.. and if you dont pay that money ooooooo your screwed
And i hope you as a police man dont go to bed every night stressing about weather you are going to be murdered, no one should live that way except for murderers.
The government really shouldn't be able to fine people for violating the traffic laws. I say this because traffic laws ( for the most part) are so convoluted and confusing to most that its nearly impossible or impractical to follow every last one. Excessive speeding is one i believe people should be fined for biut going 70 mph in a 55 zone on a straight road out in the middle of nowhere shouldnt be something you can get fined for.
Many people say traffic accidents are causes mostly by people speeding which is true but in retrospect cops almost never pull over the " D'wads" that go snail slow so when you try and pass them an accident occurs. I know me writting this will have as little impact on everyone here as a feather being blown in the wind.
Actually you've pretty much shown us where you're coming from with the above remark. You assume that the person is screaming. The comment I read which you're quoting suggested saying these things, not screaming them.
I don't mean to toot my own horn here, but before I got into this line of work I got a degree in psychology. After college I went into work as a care-giver for the elderly, at times caring for folks who had lost the ability to speak, or had other conditions which made communication difficult. Later, at academy, there was also some fairly extensive confrontation simulation and contact communication training. Now I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but due to my education, training, and experience, I think I am fairly adept at effective communication, reading body language, interpreting meaning, and detecting dishonesty. I also like to think that I project myself in my contacts as professional, but reasonable, and not overly emotional.
With all that said, I think you'd really be surprised how people can behave, particularly when dealing with drunk people. Most people I contact are reasonably polite, but there's always a few that get VERY vocal about "knowing their rights," and that speech is usually peppered with curses and name calling. I find with these folks, it has little to do with how I act or what I say; they've had a past experience with law enforcement that was not pleasant, and seem to have generalized that to mean all cops are out to get them.
I don't mean to be inflamitory, but I honestly find from my experience that the people who are most concerned with this sort of 'what not to tell the cops' stuff are interested because they want to know how to hide their not-so-lawful activities. These are usually teens and young adults who have drug use problems, or alcohol problems, or both. I don't mean to imply that everyone who is concerned about their rights is automatically a criminal, but I really have found that the people who most often talk about their rights with me also get very upset... usually due to fear that I am about to find out something they don't want me to know. And that is usually that they have some dope in their pocket, or that they're a minor and have been drinking, etc.
Ah, perhaps that's the crux of it. From the tone of the original, it sounded like you found that most people were the screaming type:
Now, with all that in mind, do you think maybe it would be appreciated when you are talking with someone, and they're actually polite and respectful? You know, someone who actually replies to you in a civil tone instead of screaming, "I know my rights, I don't have to answer your questions! Am I being detained?!?"
Frankly, a little courtesy and honesty works wonders on me. Those are the folks I remember, and the ones that I wave to when I see them, and the ones that help me remember that not every one hates me, and that there are people out there worth serving.
But then again, who cares what I think? I'm just another f-ing pig on a power trip out to get people for no good reason, apparently. Or at least, that's what I'm told.
Going back and reading it again, I still read that you perceive there are at least a significant number that have issues with you/your position, and not that most people are "reasonably polite." Then again, perception is everything; what I see as politely maintaining my rights or telling an honest answer that an officer does not like, the officer may see as (borderline criminal) non-compliance. And as the guy who's 1) not armed and 2) less likely to be believed in court, I have less flexibility in how I'm perceived.
I really, honestly have nothing to hide. I had my first drink at 23, accidentally got drunk (miscalculated proof) once at 25 and knew I never wanted to do that again, and am way to much of a control freak to want to take any drug that may alter my mental state. I hardly have taken painkillers when prescribed them. My two tickets have been for a broken signal that was actually broken, and 59 in a 55 (I had the cruise set on 58 by my speedometer.) I'm quite boring, actually, and I'm okay with that.
My belief is that, in reality, the laws we have are to protect me, and sometimes protect criminals as well. You see, if I am doing nothing illegal, then no one should be able to bother me, peek into my affairs, use my time, etc. It is only when there is significant evidence that a person is doing something illegal that an investigation should begin. The whole idea of looking for illegal activities that people might be doing is backwards, and far more intrusive to the honest person than the criminal. In many cases, the search for criminal activity itself borders on punitive.
When I was young, I was parked in a public lot at night reading. (I didn't want to go home between my evening and night jobs.) I had two officers come up and tell me to get out of the car, frisk me, search the car, and keep me there well past when my shift started. I had nothing illegal in the car, was legally allowed to be there, and was completely cooperative. Nowadays I would know that the car didn't have to get torn apart, I didn't have to be frisked, and that I probably could have left long before they made me feel like i could leave. The reason they gave for all my hassle was that they had had problems in the area a few months ago. So, for their months old "problems" and my lack of knowledge, I nearly got fired.
A year or so ago, an accident occurred on the corner I lived on. Almost immediately, some people started trying to move things, and I started taking photos. (I did call 911 first.) As it turns out, the guys moving things caused the accident, and were moving things so the half-conscience guy looked to be at fault.
After the police, fire, and ambulance arrived and put the guy who was hurt in the ambulance, an EMS guy heard from my neighbor that I had taken photos. He told a fireman, who told a police officer, and suddenly I had two of them walking up to me in my yard, one with hand on holstered pistol, to talk about that. They asked if I took photos, and I said yes. They asked why, and I told them that they were for personal reasons. (I take a lot of photos.)
Long story short, they hassled me for 15 minutes, including screaming at me, while I kept a calm voice. They strongly suggested they may delete my photos, take my memory card, take my camera, smash my camera, raid my house, and shoot my dogs (inside my house), plus subpoena me and my camera and memory card, plus arrest me and my wife. I kept asking if the law allowed that, in a way that required a yes or no, and got changed subjects. I did manage to get from them that I had not done anything illegal in taking the photos, but that it was just "in poor taste." I verified that I was not under arrest, and free to go, and walked away from them (still yelling) and into my house.
I still have the (boring) photos, and nothing came of it. But I did find out that the guy who was hurt was the neighbor of one of the local police officers, and had feuded with him over a fence placement. And I found out (from my deputy uncle) that the officers who talked to me were the nice guys who only have trouble with belligerent criminal types. But if I had not known my rights, I'd have caved and deleted the photos, thinking I had to. And had I gotten angry and yelled back, I'd probably have ended up in jail, only to have the charges dropped.
And I've never had so hard a time staying calm as when I watched a fireman point two policemen toward me, and then watched them put on their "stern" faces, one put his hand on his gun, and walk my way. For doing something completely legal, that they knew was completely legal.
If these are the local "nice" officers, and they treated me that way, how can you expect people to react to police officers? Doing nothing wrong does not protect an innocent person from someone who believes he is doing the right thing and has a badge.
in short cops are always looking to make a name for themselves and the crooked ones( what seems like 99% of them) are going to do it in a very rude and right infringing way. We as the people supposedly have overall authority over them as said by our Constitution but because in a localized incident cops have the rights to just arrest you, the right you had in the beginning is now forfeited because your arrested.
I just wish our freedoms that we had in the 1950's would come back but that will never happen again, at least not in this country.
Personally i do break the law quite a bit, I really dont think the government should have the right to simply say' You owe them money' for a speeding ticket even though everyone else was going the same speed and they pulled you over because they had a quota to meet... The government has really gotten stronger since 9/11 because it gave them public opinion to do all kinda of crazy laws because its in the interest of public saftely... personally id much rather have the right to determine what is safe for my own house and person than what the government says is safe. In california here its illegal to shoot someone unless they have already shot at you... I find that so stupid because it only takes one bullet to kill you and if your protecting yourself from a mugger then id rather not have to wait around for them to shoot me so i can shoot back legally... Yet law enforcement promotes laws like this for some denounced reason
people especially government should not have the power to ruin your life for things as petty as traffic violations or things you did that did not harm anyone physically or financially..
Joe, when you approach someone, the difference between you and the other person is significant:
- The person you're going up to may have a weapon, he/she knows you have a gun and a taser. And tasers don't exactly have a reputation of being used sparingly.
- If you hurt the person you're dealing with, it will most likely be considered unnecessary force, if the other person hurts you, it will be considered assault on a police officer.
- You have a bullet proof vest, we have nothing.
- No matter what we do, people usually side with the police.
- Police openly admit that they lie all the time to get the information they want. If I lie to you, it opens me up to your discretion, as most cops hate being lied too.
People assert their rights, not to be rude, but because we have to. If I don't demand a lawyer, I don't know what you may turn around and use against me. There are just too many stories of injustice floating around, and the unfortunate truth is that I cannot trust just any cop walking around. If I do decide to answer your questions, I may get mixed up about something and find myself arrested.Just like it's better for you to assume I'm dangerous when you approach me, it's best for me to assume you're dangerous.
Ive personally always wanted to experience the cops from the old movies where they were pleasant and didnt ticket or arrest everyone. sadly that doesn't exists or at least in my experience.
I wish cops werent corrupt but with the government lowering standards on everything including that of those who are recruited into the force, quality of law enforcement suffers..
But some cops are ego-tripping, right smashing fascists, and as someone else before me has said, you never know which kind is approaching you. You're lucky in not meeting any of the bad kind.
A friend of mine was guilty of being black in the wrong neighborhood and ended up flat on his stomach in the middle of winter, with 6 cop cars surrounding him and all the cops from those cars pointing guns at his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid.