WATCH: N.J. troopers arrest woman for remaining silent during traffic stop

[apvbguy]

Sorry, but it's acting like a moron.
In our society, when someone speaks to you, it is a societal norm to respond, whether it's a person on the sidewalk, a cop, a stock-person in a store, or the POTUS.

A "yes/no" question is not asking for a confession, it's asking the driver if they know what is happening. An answer of "no" is not terribly difficult, and it does not incriminate you in any way.
There is no law that says you are supposed to know why a cop pulls you over, and there is no penalty for not knowing why if a cop asks you.

Getting tired of apologists who think that acting like an *** in society is a good thing.
Chris Rock did a great skit on how to act around the police. I couldn't have said it better.

I can't link to it, but if you look up Chris Rock and Police on Youtube, ya' can't miss it.

why do cops like you think that a person protecting their rights by not offering info, by not engaging in " friendly chit chat" is acting like an ahole? I am not arguing with the cop I am not denying anything I am cooperating with his commands to produce documents, I am just not talking to him about how the weather is. a cop is a hammer and to him everyone he encounters is a nail that needs pounding, I try not to get pounded.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Accuse me of throwing a temper tantrum when I state that some people in our society act like jackasses.
I can provide proof, but there are far too many options out there to pick from.

The category of "Jackasses who are going to prove their knowledge of the 2nd Amendment to the police" fills dozens of pages alone.
Would hyperlinks to proofs make you feel better?

Interesting how you have to shift your argument away from the video in the OP to all those other examples. How about if we stay on topic to the video in the OP?

It IS pretty neat that the ACLU attorney knowns what the intent of the question was:
"They wanted her to incriminate herself,"€ said Alexander Shalom, the senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's New Jersey chapter, after reviewing the dashboard video from the incident. "They wanted her to say, 'Yeah, I was going a little too fast'"

Did the troopers tell him this, or is he stating it as fact before it's proven?

But it's OK for you to ASSume the reason for the woman remaining silent, according to you - being a moron.

Maybe they wanted her to say "no" so they could explain.

How hard would it be for officer friendly to just state, "The reason I stopped you is....?" It takes longer for the officer to ask a question and wait for an answer then just to make the statement up front.

Maybe they wanted to make sure she was able to speak English before asking for her documents.

The question wasn't "do you speak English?" If that is what they wanted to know, why not just ask that question? Or why not just ask for her documents and wait for a reply of "No speak English?"

Imagine if she was drunk, but they just ticketed her and let her go based on her refusal to answer questions.
Then the ACLU and every other group out there would be suing the State Police for allowing a drunk driver to leave a stop and kill someone.

So, imagine if officer friendly asks you to step out of your vehicle and open the trunk and glove box for just a quick look. After all - we wouldn't want a drug dealer driving away from a stop for speeding with a car load of drugs to sell, now would we? So would you classify yourself as a moron for saying no to that?

To avoid all the whining and hand-wringing, maybe we should just eliminate police departments altogether and let society sort it out.

Or maybe we should just insist that police officers do their jobs within the bounds of their limited authority.

 

[Eidolon]

i just went back and watched the entire video and my opinion has changed completely. She screwed the pooch big time. With all the things that she did say it would have been reasonable for her to start (And end) with " I elect to exercise my right to remain silent."

I have to agree with robgmn, she was a moron.

If you're going to remain silent, remain silent period. Don't answer some questions and not others. Had she kept her mouth shut all the way through she very likely would have had a case.

 

[Nadir Point]

I suspect there are just way too many A-holes out there on the streets believing they are large and in charge in their arrogant little minds.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I suspect there are just way too many A-holes out there on the streets believing they are large and in charge in their arrogant little minds.

And that's why when we interact with them any good lawyer will advise you to keep your mouth shut and provide only the information and documentation required by law to provide.

 

[Nadir Point]

And that's why when we interact with them any good lawyer will advise you to keep your mouth shut and provide only the information and documentation required by law to provide.

Of course! That's why you need lawyers. Then, next they'll advise you of their fee structure, right? :sarcastic:

This is not an investigation interview. It's a traffic stop. Can you imagine the distinction there WRT your lawyer advice? Ever heard of the word "cooperate?" It's usually a great course of action for people in traffic stops with nothing to hide and no axe to grind.

 

[mikestone967]

any answer could be turned around on you later and then a charge of obstruction could be filed after the fact. you are protecting yourself by offering only the required credentials and remaining silent.

He knows. He just wants to stir thing up.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Of course! That's why you need lawyers. Then, next they'll advise you of their fee structure, right? :sarcastic:

This is not an investigation interview. It's a traffic stop. Can you imagine the distinction there WRT your lawyer advice? Ever heard of the word "cooperate?" It's usually a great course of action for people in traffic stops with nothing to hide and no axe to grind.

You pull over in a safe place when the lights behind you come on. You produce for the officer your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. You sign on the dotted line stating that you have physically received the citation. How is that not cooperating with the officer? Why should any officer EXPECT any more cooperation that that? Again, if the officer asks you to open your trunk so he can have a quick peek inside are you just going to "cooperate" because you have nothing to hide and no axe to grind? We wouldn't want drug dealers just driving away from traffic stops, would we when a simple peek would ensure that you are not one and make some people feel safer? What if he wants you to open a door so he can shine a flashlight under the seats? Just cooperate because you have nothing to hide?

Just because I have nothing to hide does not obligate me to prove that to the officer just because he asks.

 

[RedWriter2015]

Perhaps she was simply trying the Lois Lerner (IRS) Congressional testimony strategy ... / sarcasm / ... but it worked for Lois Lerner.

 

[NavyLCDR]

 

[Eidolon]

Nope she's screwed the pooch on this one.

First of all with the traffic stop only an idiot would ask ask "Am I being detained ?" They turned on the lights, yes you're being detained.

Second again, we're talking about a minor traffic stop. When the cop came up to the car and asked "Do you know what I stopped you for?" all she had to to do was say "No". If he gets stupid after that then she has plenty of time to exercise her rights and go "You know what I'm not saying anything else until I speak to Lawyer." Remember at some point during the video she was talking just the things she was saying were stupid.

She lost any justification for the whole I was exercising my right to remain silent gig when she opened her mouth

 

[Deanimator]

Had she just answered and had a conversation, her odds of driving away would have gone up.

I have not the slightest desire to have "conversations" with cops, and don't intend to any time in the future.

 

[Deanimator]

Accuse me of throwing a temper tantrum when I state that some people in our society act like jackasses.

Yeah, but that's just how some cops are...

 

[Deanimator]

This is not an investigation interview.

You don't know WHAT it is. That's why you say as little as is REQUIRED by law.

Police are allowed to LIE. I don't have coerced conversations with people whose word I cannot trust.

 

[BluesStringer]

Nope she's screwed the pooch on this one.

First of all with the traffic stop only an idiot would ask ask "Am I being detained ?" They turned on the lights, yes you're being detained.

There are different schools of thought on this point, but as the attorney knew, asking if you're being detained sets the cop up for the second question after answering in the affirmative, "What articulable suspicion do you have of me committing a crime or about to commit a crime?" Knowing it's all being recorded (because the cop's dash-cam is recording it), the cop is in the legal trap of either refusing to provide a reason for the detainment, provide a reasonable articulable reason for the detainment, or lie about the reason. It puts stuff on the record to be used as evidence of one's rights being violated when they go to court.

The other school of thought is to do what you suggest and keep quiet throughout the encounter. The advantage of that is that no claim can later be made by the cop that your "conversation" was mutually voluntary because you never did converse with him/her. She tried that tack, and was flabbergasted that a cop was so devoid of training as to actually say to the woman, "You have the right to remain silent and not to answer questions without your attorney present" as he leads her away, handcuffed and under arrest for exercising her right to remain silent.

Both schools of thought have been successfully asserted on the street thousands, maybe even millions of times, with no one getting arrested. She did sort of panic when she chose the silent treatment and it didn't work, but she didn't "screw the pooch" simply by asking if she's being detained. It's a legal question about the status and nature of the involuntary interaction with law enforcement that cops are obligated by both statute (in most jurisdictions) and SCOTUS rulings (in all jurisdictions) to provide a legal answer to.

She lost any justification for the whole I was exercising my right to remain silent gig when she opened her mouth

I think you're mistaken. She is allowed to aid in her own understanding of the nature of the interaction, and likewise allowed to ask questions that cops are obligated to answer. When they don't provide adequate, legal answers, it is they who screwed the pooch, and she'll almost certainly eventually win a judgment saying so, depending on how far she's willing to take it if she loses at the local level first. It's just as likely as not that she'll win locally though.

Blues

 

[Eidolon]

[

There are different schools of thought on this point, but as the attorney knew, asking if you're being detained sets the cop up for the second question after answering in the affirmative, "What articulable suspicion do you have of me committing a crime or about to commit a crime?"

JMO but that's an irrelevant question. If the police tell me I'm being detained I'm done talking period. I'm this case she was asking "Am I being detained?" While being handcuffed. Again, stupid question under the circumstances.

The other school of thought is to do what you suggest and keep quiet throughout the encounter. The advantage of that is that no claim can later be made by the cop that your "conversation" was mutually voluntary because you never did converse with him/her. She tried that tack, and was flabbergasted that a cop was so devoid of training as to actually say to the woman, "You have the right to remain silent and not to answer questions without your attorney present" as he leads her away, handcuffed and under arrest for exercising her right to remain silent.

By the time she was in handcuffs she had already waived her right to remain silent by opening her mouth.

Both schools of thought have been successfully asserted on the street thousands, maybe even millions of times, with no one getting arrested. She did sort of panic when she chose the silent treatment and it didn't work, but she didn't "screw the pooch" simply by asking if she's being detained. It's a legal question about the status and nature of the involuntary interaction with law enforcement that cops are obligated by both statute (in most jurisdictions) and SCOTUS rulings (in all jurisdictions) to provide a legal answer to.

No, asking if she was being detained wasn't screwing the pooch. She screwed up when she started talking period.

I think you're mistaken. She is allowed to aid in her own understanding of the nature of the interaction, and likewise allowed to ask questions that cops are obligated to answer. When they don't provide adequate, legal answers, it is they who screwed the pooch, and she'll almost certainly eventually win a judgment saying so, depending on how far she's willing to take it if she loses at the local level first. It's just as likely as not that she'll win locally though.

Blues

You referenced "Don't Talk To The Police" go back and watch it again. I'm almost positive that Dr. Duane states that you waive your right to remain silent the second you open your mouth.

In no sense am I saying that the police handled the stop properly. I'm saying that, especially as an attorney, she handled the stop extremely poorly

 

[Nadir Point]

I'm saying that, especially as an attorney, she handled the stop extremely poorly

I wonder how many times she warned them she is an attorney and they don't know who they're dealing with... and how far over the legal limit she was.

 

[Eidolon]

I wonder how many times she warned them she is an attorney and they don't know who they're dealing with... and how far over the legal limit she was.

There was some of that, at one point I heard her say something about " My father was the prosecuting attorney..." And she got told to shut up

 

[NavyLCDR]

By the time she was in handcuffs she had already waived her right to remain silent by opening her mouth.

Wrong. A person can invoke their 5th Amendment rights at any time during a detainment or questioning.

 

[Eidolon]

Wrong. A person can invoke their 5th Amendment rights at any time during a detainment or questioning.

And you WAIVE it every time you open it