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

[BluesStringer]

And you WAIVE it every time you open it

Not if you open your mouth to ask the cop a legal question. The only time you waive your right to refuse to answer the cops' questions is when you're answering the cops' questions. You waive nothing by putting the cop on record concerning the nature of the interaction. Nothing at all from a legal perspective. One could counter that it does no good to put them on the record, but it is not accurate to assert that one's rights are voluntarily waived when they do so.

Blues

 

[Eidolon]

Not if you open your mouth to ask the cop a legal question. The only time you waive your right to refuse to answer the cops' questions is when you're answering the cops' questions. You waive nothing by putting the cop on record concerning the nature of the interaction. Nothing at all from a legal perspective. One could counter that it does no good to put them on the record, but it is not accurate to assert that one's rights are voluntarily waived when they do so.

Blues

Again, in the video you posted Dr. Duane asserts without qualification that you WAIVE your right to remain silent as soon as you open your mouth.

 

[BluesStringer]

Again, in the video you posted Dr. Duane asserts without qualification that you WAIVE your right to remain silent as soon as you open your mouth.

First you said you're "almost positive" that's what the law professor said, and now you're saying that he "asserts without qualification that you WAIVE your right to remain silent as soon as you open your mouth." When did you become so positive? And if this new positivity comes after reviewing the video to find what you thought you heard before, how about citing the time-stamp so someone wishing to learn the truth of the matter doesn't have to go back through the entire 48 minute soliloquy?

And look man, I've said probably a hundred times or more on this site that no good can come from talking to cops. If the Professor said it the way you say he did, that you "waive your right" to invoke your Fifth Amendment protections "as soon" as you open your mouth no matter what you say if/when you do open your mouth, I'd question him on that score too, but I don't disagree with any advice that says just shut the heck up with cops.

I never was arguing the point with you. I only responded to you to say there were two schools of thought about being totally silent vs. asking legal questions to get cops on the record. I could provide multiple examples of both schools of thought in action where detainees practicing both schools of thought walked or drove away suffering no consequences from the cops at all. I disagree with you and the Professor if he indeed did say what you say he said about waiving your rights by talking at all, especially before Miranda is given, but I don't disagree at all with the premise that it's prudent and just plain ol' smart to keep quiet throughout the encounter. Is that not enough agreement for you? I certainly hope so, but if not, tough.

Blues

 

[Nadir Point]

Can we agree the stupid beotch is an idiot and cops screw shyt up all the time?

 

[BluesStringer]

Can we agree the stupid beotch is an idiot and cops screw shyt up all the time?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Can we agree

Nope.

 

[Nadir Point]

Puhleeez

So bootboy does or does not agree? Thinks the question is overshadowed by foul language? Is offended, therefore too upset to answer? Would rather have dissenting opinions stifled by the moderator? Please choose one or more answers. It's also potentially an essay question, since that seems to be your preferred method of communication: long-winded rhetorical streams of nonsense.

 

[BluesStringer]

Nope.

Ditto.

 

[Robgmn]

Not if you open your mouth to ask the cop a legal question. The only time you waive your right to refuse to answer the cops' questions is when you're answering the cops' questions. You waive nothing by putting the cop on record concerning the nature of the interaction. Nothing at all from a legal perspective. One could counter that it does no good to put them on the record, but it is not accurate to assert that one's rights are voluntarily waived when they do so.

Blues

When you speak, you waive the right to remain silent and what you say can be used against you in court.
If you're gonna remain silent, then do so.
If you are going to speak, then say nothing that is self-incriminating.
Answering no to a question that you are not expected to know the answer to is not self-incriminating.

She's a moron with a law shingle.

 

[BluesStringer]

I don't answer trick questions, nor do I answer questioners who I already know ask trick questions.

 

[Eidolon]

I don't answer trick questions, nor do I answer questioners who I already know ask trick questions.

You don't have to answer the question just keep your head out of the orifice she put her's in.

"Do you know why I stopped you tonight?"

"I'd rather not answer any questions officer."

Then don't say another word except (if necessary) to explicitly state "I wish to exercise my right to remain silent"

If you have to say that Do. Not. Say. Another. Word.

Had homegirls done that odds are she would have been cited and released

 

[NavyLCDR]

Had homegirls done that odds are she would have been cited and released

And there was absolutely no reason why she could not have been cited and released anyway. If we admit the subject stopped was wrong in the way she acted, that does not excuse the cops from not just doing their job, writing a ticket and being done with it.

 

[mikestone967]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Eidolon]

And there was absolutely no reason why she could not have been cited and released anyway. If we admit the subject stopped was wrong in the way she acted, that does not excuse the cops from not just doing their job, writing a ticket and being done with it.

Yeah, how did that work out for her?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Yeah, how did that work out for her?

We don't know yet, the lawsuit hasn't been settled. Hopefully, it works out quite well for her.

 

[BluesStringer]

You don't have to answer the question just keep your head out of the orifice she put her's in.

"Do you know why I stopped you tonight?"

"I'd rather not answer any questions officer."

Then don't say another word except (if necessary) to explicitly state "I wish to exercise my right to remain silent"

If you have to say that Do. Not. Say. Another. Word.

Had homegirls done that odds are she would have been cited and released

But wait..... You've argued in several posts now that opening her mouth at all put her the legal status of having WAIVED her rights. Now your only bone of contention is whether to inform verbally or silently that you don't want to answer questions.

All you're doing is moving the goal posts all around the field. What you suggest above is a perfectly good option under a couple or three schools of thought on how best to protect your rights during interactions with cops. I am not arguing against the prudence of that advice anymore than I was about the prudence of never saying anything to cops.

Do you ever just kick back, relax, and have a non-confrontational conversation? If you say "Yes," it would be difficult to prove by just reviewing your posting history here.

Blues

 

[Eidolon]

But wait..... You've argued in several posts now that opening her mouth at all put her the legal status of having WAIVED her rights. Now your only bone of contention is whether to inform verbally or silently that you don't want to answer questions.

All you're doing is moving the goal posts all around the field. What you suggest above is a perfectly good option under a couple or three schools of thought on how best to protect your rights during interactions with cops. I am not arguing against the prudence of that advice anymore than I was about the prudence of never saying anything to cops.

Do you ever just kick back, relax, and have a non-confrontational conversation? If you say "Yes," it would be difficult to prove by just reviewing your posting history here.

Blues

Opening her mouth did put her in the legal status of having waived her right to remain silent. My contention in this has always been if you're going to waive your rights do so effectively.

"I'd rather not answer questions." is explicitly invoking your right to remain silent. Since the incident was recorded you are on record as having invoked your rights and there's no way they can hold your assertion of your rights against you.

Personally I don't think you could pull it off you'd be too interested in showing the cops that you were the smartest guy in the room

 

[Robgmn]

Speaking IS waiving your right to remain silent.
Where's the confusion?

 

[Nadir Point]

Personally I don't think you could pull it off you'd be too interested in showing the cops that you were the smartest guy in the room

Yep, no Pullitzer prizes in the offing for bootboy, that's for sure.

 

[Eidolon]

The post seems to have disappeared (and I'm pretty sure I know why) but I seem to remember someone asserting that you need say NOTHING to invoke your right to remain silent and challenging anyone to provide legal precedent stating otherwise.

Bergheim V Thompkins docket # 08-1470 SCOTUS