It’s really important to know your rights. A lot of people think they know, but often times they don’t. And it gets those people in trouble.
For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No exceptions. Don’t get hung up on the reason for the stop, it doesn’t matter. Additionally, police can articulate in virtually any situation that they fear for officer safety, which is reason enough in many states to order you out of the vehicle. At this point they have a foundation to frisk you for a weapon.
Resisting at any point of this is very risky.
Understanding when and where an officer doesn’t have the legal authority to do the above gets very nuanced. But generally I encourage Americans to learn the rights they have when operating a car seeing as their lives revolve around driving.
ceejayoz 2 minutes ago [-]
> For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop.
> The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
m348e912 3 minutes ago [-]
This is so true, and it's surprising how many people don't know what they are obligated to do when asked by an officer. It's even fuzzy for me at times.
It should be well known that you are required to show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States (1996)], your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] , and you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) & Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)].
All of these requirements have been litigated to the supreme court. You should also know the difference between probably cause and reasonable suspicion. We should add these topics to high school civics or something.
Brendinooo 17 minutes ago [-]
>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect.
While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved.
So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do:
1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case
2. I talk, and it screws me
3. I don't talk, and it contributes to a case not being solved
4. I don't talk, and it screws me
I read stuff like this article and it tells you about 2, but it doesn't really put that into a broader context about the likelihood that 2 is the outcome. And there is a real decision to be made here!
Maxatar 8 minutes ago [-]
If you genuinely have evidence as a witness that can help police solve the case, then you get an attorney present.
mcmcmc 6 minutes ago [-]
[delayed]
digitalPhonix 10 minutes ago [-]
The point of the article (and any similar advice) is that 4 is not possible
Brendinooo 6 minutes ago [-]
The police couldn't creatively turn a five-minute interaction into my day/week/month getting wrecked? You can be held for ~2 days without charges being filed, right?
Arainach 14 minutes ago [-]
What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.
SoftTalker 8 minutes ago [-]
You don't talk, and it annoys the cop, so they fabricate evidence against you, or charge you with some other unrelated thing that they would have otherwise let slide.
buellerbueller 41 seconds ago [-]
if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for?
Your position is just bonkers.
lwansbrough 8 minutes ago [-]
If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment. Whether or not you need to produce ID at that point may vary by state but it’s likely the case in every state. If it’s legal for the police to demand your ID and you don’t, you can be arrested for failure to identify.
Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the original crime they stopped you for, but your day is still ruined.
Capricorn2481 5 minutes ago [-]
> If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment
If you match the description and are in the vicinity of the crime, you are not going to save yourself by talking to the police. You are already in "get a lawyer" territory.
wat10000 5 minutes ago [-]
"Don't talk to police" doesn't include legally required things like identification. What you don't do is volunteer more than you're legally required to provide.
onraglanroad 7 minutes ago [-]
In England, a refusal to answer questions can be taken as an indicator of guilt. But you can still ask for a solicitor and they will tell you which questions to answer and which not.
Specifically England, not the UK, as Scottish law is different.
thenoblesunfish 12 minutes ago [-]
Never frobnicate without a flangleharp, says the flangleharp salesman. He could be right, but you would probably want to ask someone else.
RickS 55 seconds ago [-]
If you watch the video (which is classic and the real content here), the lawyer cedes the second half to a career detective, who agrees with him in full.
bloppe 31 minutes ago [-]
I suppose a grain of salt has to be taken for the fact that this is basically an ad
normalaccess 22 minutes ago [-]
Sometimes it's smart to be silent.
Pro 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
FireBeyond 8 minutes ago [-]
Note that in the US, you need to verbally assert your right to remain silent.
Merely being silent means the prosecution is able describe your communication as "refused to cooperate with or answer questions from law enforcement" which is a "negative" finding, whereas the right to remain silent is at least meant to be interpreted neutrally.
I live in a country where you can now consider police to be "on your side": in other words, policing. It used not to be the case, so I can appreciate this.
In light of this, I find the comments of the police officer invited to the youtube talk about how lucky the listeners are to be in the US (because police in other countries is so terrible) somewhat amusing.
In the US one should generally be terrified of the police, especially if one's skin color doesn't happen to be white. Plus everything that was said in the talk.
aomix 28 minutes ago [-]
James Duane, the lawyer from the famous video about never talking to the police, wrote a book called You Have the Right to Remain Innocent. It’s a great read if you want to feel very sad.
mothballed 29 minutes ago [-]
Lawyers will damn you no matter what you do. AT one point I was accused of kidnapping my own child as a result of racial discrimination where a caller called in that the child was a different race so I must have kidnapped them.
I later contacted a civil rights attorney to see if there was any case for racial profiling, but instead they took the opportunity to eviscerate me for not talking my way out of detention. Truth is lawyer will say whatever you did is wrong because the premise of client fucking things up is often just a more convenient explanation.
SoftTalker 10 minutes ago [-]
Lawyers will will say whatever you did is wrong so that you will pay them to tell you what is right. A lawyer is not on your side until you have formally engaged his or her services.
normalaccess 15 minutes ago [-]
yes, there is a fine line between "Don't Talk" and standing up for your rights. I feel like it's advisable to speak up when your rights are being violated. I can't quite put the words on what I mean but I think stating a fact like "This is my kid" is A-ok.
seethishat 23 minutes ago [-]
It is OK to talk to them. Just don't lie and don't answer questions. Doing either could land you in jail.
kelseyfrog 11 minutes ago [-]
Maybe watch the video? This position is explicitly called out as nonviable. You still put yourself at major risk if you employ it.
supertroop 16 minutes ago [-]
Did you watch the video? It is never ok to talk to the police unless you’re a rich white dude.
aquarious_ 24 minutes ago [-]
I always dislike when this is posted, the advice of "Don't talk to the police" is repeated and repeated yet real life is more complex and multifaceted.
Is this actually helpful and does it actually educate anyone?
pstuart 17 minutes ago [-]
SCOTUS has ruled that the police are not obligated to "protect and serve"; the police are not on your side. Respectfully exercising one's rights is a sensible choice when engaged with them.
convolvatron 18 minutes ago [-]
I think it's very helpful to understand that the police have their own agenda and a completely different perspective on the situation as you. they don't really give a shit about your problems, if they show up, its to see if there's anything that intersects with their world. this is why even as a victim talking with the police is a deeply confusing process -they seem to care a lot about stuff that doesn't matter as well as not being that interested in whatever crime may have occurred. and depending on the circumstance you could easily be the one getting your legs kicked apart. you learn that eventually, but some hints probably help
Rendered at 17:29:59 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No exceptions. Don’t get hung up on the reason for the stop, it doesn’t matter. Additionally, police can articulate in virtually any situation that they fear for officer safety, which is reason enough in many states to order you out of the vehicle. At this point they have a foundation to frisk you for a weapon.
Resisting at any point of this is very risky.
Understanding when and where an officer doesn’t have the legal authority to do the above gets very nuanced. But generally I encourage Americans to learn the rights they have when operating a car seeing as their lives revolve around driving.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr...
> The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
It should be well known that you are required to show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States (1996)], your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] , and you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) & Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)].
All of these requirements have been litigated to the supreme court. You should also know the difference between probably cause and reasonable suspicion. We should add these topics to high school civics or something.
While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved.
So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do:
1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case
2. I talk, and it screws me
3. I don't talk, and it contributes to a case not being solved
4. I don't talk, and it screws me
I read stuff like this article and it tells you about 2, but it doesn't really put that into a broader context about the likelihood that 2 is the outcome. And there is a real decision to be made here!
Your position is just bonkers.
Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the original crime they stopped you for, but your day is still ruined.
If you match the description and are in the vicinity of the crime, you are not going to save yourself by talking to the police. You are already in "get a lawyer" territory.
Specifically England, not the UK, as Scottish law is different.
Pro 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Merely being silent means the prosecution is able describe your communication as "refused to cooperate with or answer questions from law enforcement" which is a "negative" finding, whereas the right to remain silent is at least meant to be interpreted neutrally.
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45317167 - Sept 2025 (2 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24754163 - Oct 2020 (1 comment)
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390344 - June 2020 (6 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police – James Duane - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717507 - April 2019 (4 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886628 - Dec 2017 (165 comments)
Don't talk to the police [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001859 - July 2013 (37 comments)
Don't talk to the police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758 - June 2008 (35 comments)
In light of this, I find the comments of the police officer invited to the youtube talk about how lucky the listeners are to be in the US (because police in other countries is so terrible) somewhat amusing.
In the US one should generally be terrified of the police, especially if one's skin color doesn't happen to be white. Plus everything that was said in the talk.
I later contacted a civil rights attorney to see if there was any case for racial profiling, but instead they took the opportunity to eviscerate me for not talking my way out of detention. Truth is lawyer will say whatever you did is wrong because the premise of client fucking things up is often just a more convenient explanation.