Tough Day To Be In Law Enforcement

[Gameface]

And just an FYI, you DO NOT ever have to do a field sobriety test. Never. There is NO good reason to do a field sobriety test whether you're sober or drunk. It can only hurt you.

You also never need to do the roadside breathalyzer. Never. If you are arrested you have to do the official breathalyzer on the calibrated machine at the police station. That's it.

If a police officer asks you to do field sobriety test or roadside breathalyzer they have already made up their mind about your intoxication. What they need now is some reasonable justification to arrest you. That is 100% the only reason they are requesting field sobriety tests and roadside breathalyzer. If they ask for those things nothing good can come from volunteering to provide them with evidence against you.

 

[Gameface]

 

[fishonjazz]

Yeah I mean my advice is not about getting away with committing crimes, it's about not providing an opening that allows to police to create something that doesn't exist, either intentionally or unintentionally.

And I really, really don't understand consenting to searches. All you have to do is say "I don't consent to searches." By submitting you are normalizing their expectation that they can search anyone's car anytime they want to and that refusing to allow a search is suspicious.

If you know any lawyers ask them if you should just freely answer police questions and allow them to search whatever they want. I know what lawyers (legal experts) say about this.

The police use these tactics to target certain people based on their own biased perspectives. It is an abuse and it results in deaths.

For what its worth, I have never had a police officer ask if they can search my vehicle.

 

[Gameface]

Don't drive intoxicated and you won't have to worry about it.

Watch the ****ing video, that's not true.

A very good portion of people who are not intoxicated at all fail field sobriety tests.

If an officer asks you to do a field sobriety test they are trying to arrest you, so if you think "I've done nothing wrong, so I'm good" then you're absolutely wrong and doing a FST that you don't need to do is 100% stupid. The FST doesn't prove you're okay to drive. That's not what it's for. It is 100% designed to give the office the justification they need for an arrest.

 

[Gameface]

For what its worth, I have never had a police officer ask if they can search my vehicle.

Neither have I. By the time they do that they are absolutely not your friend. There is only one reason for the police to search your vehicle and that's to justify arresting you, which is 100% their goal if they want to search.

I should say, neither have I as an adult. I have as a teen. In fact when I'd hang out with my old friends in Glendale it was pretty much every stop. When hanging out in Sandy, not so much, except those times there were minorities in the car...

That's why I feel strongly about this.

When the cop sees you they probably have a reasonable amount of empathy already. Then what, you're friendly, they see some fishing gear and you end up giving them a tip on where to catch some brook trout and they send you on your way.

Next stop, a 19 year old black guy who's a little tired of being pulled over. He doesn't want to talk to the cop, he just wants to go on his way. Cop already had some ideas about this guy, now he's able to draw a contrast between the friendly white dude somewhat close to himin age most likely. This kid is asked to exit the vehicle, asked if he minds if the officer searches his car, asked a bunch of questions about what he's up to and why is he in this area.

 

[Gameface]

Utah trooper accused of making false DUI arrests

The officer, once praised for her knack for finding drunk drivers, is out of a job and facing lawsuits

www.police1.com

By April 2012, her credibility had come into question so much that a prosecutor said he would no longer prosecute DUIs if Steed's testimony was the only evidence.

In October, the Salt Lake Tribune obtained a memo written in May 2010 in which Utah Highway Patrol Sgt. Rob Nixon flagged Steed's "pattern" of questionable DUI arrests. He wrote that the bulk of Steed's arrestees had no signs of "impairing drugs" in their systems.

The memo said she based most of her arrests on signs of impairment such as dilated pupils and leg and body tremors.

Steed was taken off road patrol in April 2012 and fired in November. She was accused of violating department policies, falsifying police reports and using questionable practices when making DUI arrests.

 

[Gameface]

I'm going to say one last thing before I stop aggro posting in this thread.

I don't hate police.

When I am pulled over I am polite, I'm compliant, I don't have an attitude. I also don't answer questions about where I'm going or where I'm coming from. I do that politely. I don't give them my guess as to why I was pulled over, I just say I don't know.

I got pulled over around 2012 and the officer said the traffic stop was like taking a vacation because I pulled over right away, I was polite and I had all my info ready to go. He thanked me while he handed me my speeding ticket.

I got pulled over about a year ago doing 92mph on Bangerter. I pulled over right away, I had my info ready to go, I was polite. I'm not sure exactly why, I think because I had crossed from South Jordan to West Jordan and the police officer was from South Jordan another officer pulled up and I was like "ah ****, what's this all about" but they talked for a few minutes and the cop came back, gave me a warning and I was on my way. It was a perfectly friendly interaction but I didn't answer questions about where I came from or where I was going or why I thought I had been pulled over.

This isn't about being confrontational or making the cop's job harder. It isn't about getting away with stuff. If you think that because you're a perfect angel who has not and will not ever do anything that violates one of the 10,000+ laws that you're subject to, that's great. More power to you. If you're so sure that your privilege means you and the cops are on the same team, more power to you. There is nothing wrong or hostile or suspicious about not answering questions that are not related to the purpose of the stop. There is nothing wrong or hostile or suspicious about not incriminating yourself by giving what will be used as a confession in court by taking a stab at the reason you were pulled over. A cop asking to search my car would feel every bit to me like a cop asking if he could **** my wife. The answer is that you aren't going to be doing it with my consent.

To me it seems simple and obvious, but then all the comments I've gotten so far amount to "don't break the law and you don't have to worry about it" which is 100% flat out wrong.

 

[fishonjazz]

To me it seems simple and obvious, but then all the comments I've gotten so far amount to "don't break the law and you don't have to worry about it" which is 100% flat out wrong.

I dont think that statement is flat out wrong. I think that there are rare times that it is wrong but I think that most people not breaking any laws dont have to worry about it most of the time. So its usually correct imo. I dont know if there are statistics available but I would be surprised if the statistics showed that the majority of the time a person is not breaking any laws that they end up in trouble with the police.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

I dont think that statement is flat out wrong. I think that there are rare times that it is wrong but I think that most people not breaking any laws dont have to worry about it most of the time. So its usually correct imo. I dont know if there are statistics available but I would be surprised if the statistics showed that the majority of the time a person is not breaking any laws that they end up in trouble with the police.

You would think that, but there are good examples against it.

For example, in 1972, a crack commando unit were sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit (heard it was the field sobriety test that took them down). These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, I recommend it, as they are an A+ team...

Also, if you drive with a 420 sticker, with a lowered Civic with tinted windows and chassis lights, expect more hassle from the cops.

The same goes for old, poorly maintained vehicles. Body sized trash bags are also no good. (Still think Ziploc should come out with Ziploc body bags with the colored seal so you know it is sealed and fresh.

Utah cops also like to hassle people with out of state plates, particularly California.

I hear the Pontiac Aztek is also an understated option for meth chemists.

If I was a cop I'd pull everyone over that drives one of those Smart For 2 vehicles, because you know there is something suspicious going on with those people...

 

[Gameface]

I dont think that statement is flat out wrong. I think that there are rare times that it is wrong but I think that most people not breaking any laws dont have to worry about it most of the time. So its usually correct imo. I dont know if there are statistics available but I would be surprised if the statistics showed that the majority of the time a person is not breaking any laws that they end up in trouble with the police.

You are correct that the majority of the time the police pull someone over they don't fabricate charges against them. Especially if you're in a favorable demographic.

I don't think what I've suggested is life or death do it my way or you're gonna die or anything. I do think it is the correct way to deal with police interactions. When police ask you where you're headed they are investigating you. You should not help the police investigate you. You should not provide more information than necessary because without realizing it you could implicate yourself in something that you had nothing to do with.

The video I posted titled "Don't talk to police" is long but it's a very good video. It is a law professor teaching a class of law students (I think he's a guest speaker). He has a police officer there to provide the perspective of law enforcement. I highly recommend that video if you're gonna watch any of them. He covers a lot of the arguments you and FIVAS have made.

Then there is the video of the cop that arrested many people on suspicion of being under the influence of marijuana based on his certification to be able to identify certain signs of such. These people were not drunk and they came back completely clean for drug use. However, if they had smoked pot a week or so before the arrest the arrest would have stood and they would have a DUI. If they had simply refused to do the field sobriety test there wouldn't have been anything the corrupt cop in those cases could have pointed to as providing him with the reasonable suspicion he needed to arrest them.

Same thing with the superstar UHP officer. She needed people to voluntarily perform field sobriety tests so that she could say based on her training that she detected signs that they were under the influence of something. She arrested and got convictions on dozens of people who were not drunk or high. Had the people she victimized simply followed the advice I have given here she would not have had the reasonable articulable suspicion she needed to charge them with a crime.

If you want to chit chat with a cop about your itinerary, what you do for a living, if you've ever been arrested before you'll probably be fine. But you are being interrogated and the only thing the things you say can be used to do is to charge you with a crime. They CANNOT be used to exonerate you. If you admit to doing something wrong that can be used against you, both to provide grounds for filing charges and is admissible in court. If you give a reasonable explanation for your actions that CAN'T be used in court. That's hearsay. It literally can't help you.

 

[Gameface]

So maybe I'm just weird like that but this got me thinking about a scenario.

If I walked into work, let's say I work at a mid-sized office, and my boss is dead on the floor I would call 911 and then go see if there is anything I can do or if he/she is just dead. I would tell the 911 operator that my boss is on the floor and appears to be dead and give the address to the office and even though they would ask me to stay on the line I'd go ahead and hang up.

When the police got there I would show them to the body. I would give them basic info, like my name and the dead person's name and position, etc. After that was out of the way and they started asking me more questions I would tell them that I need to talk to a lawyer before I answer any more of their questions. They would probably say "Don't you want to help us figure out what happened? Why would you need a lawyer if you've done nothing wrong?" I would say that this is a legal situation and I need a legal expert to advise me on how I should handle it, as I am not a legal expert and don't know what I should do.

Even if I wanted to give all the details I could think of at the scene, if they wanted me to go to the station so that I could make an official statement, that's where, even though I'm 1000% innocent. I would not do it without talking to a lawyer first. Through my lawyer I would provide as much information and assistance as I possibly could. But I will never under any circumstances for any reason go with police to sit in an interrogation room and provide them with any information without talking to a lawyer first. I don't care what the situation is.

 

[fishonjazz]

You would think that, but there are good examples against it.

For example, in 1972, a crack commando unit were sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit (heard it was the field sobriety test that took them down). These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, I recommend it, as they are an A+ team...

Also, if you drive with a 420 sticker, with a lowered Civic with tinted windows and chassis lights, expect more hassle from the cops.

The same goes for old, poorly maintained vehicles. Body sized trash bags are also no good. (Still think Ziploc should come out with Ziploc body bags with the colored seal so you know it is sealed and fresh.

Utah cops also like to hassle people with out of state plates, particularly California.

I hear the Pontiac Aztek is also an understated option for meth chemists.

If I was a cop I'd pull everyone over that drives one of those Smart For 2 vehicles, because you know there is something suspicious going on with those people...

I agree with all of that. Yet I still believe that the statistics would show that people not breaking laws have less issues with police than people breaking laws.