[liquidgecka]

If they try make sure you assert that you do not consent to searches, and would like to be on your way.. Then when they try to hold you ask them if the detention is inline with `Rodriguez v. United States` which specifically forbids cops from delaying a driver so that they can get dogs to the scene.

[godelski]

This sounds nice until a cop throws you against a car anyways. You're right to give the advice because this is what should happen but that's not the reality because the whole premise is based on what already should not be happening. You'd only need that line against a cop abusing their power. They're almost always going to continue abusing their power

[giantg2]

Many cops just try to trick you or are ignorant. Providing this info and asking for a supervisor is the best basis for any potential future legal recourse (especially if recording). Of course none of that matters in the moment, but it can make a big difference in getting that $800 back or not having it seized in the first place.

[godelski]

Well in my experience (given in another comment) this is not the case. With a judge, sure, but a cop no. (Fwiw, I'm white)

It's worth a shot, yes, but it's also unlikely to change the tables. Because again, the only time you would need to utilize such information is when you're encountering a cop who is actively abusing their power. My point is that in such situations, the information has a chance to de-escalate, be neutral, or escalate the situation.

It's hard to tell on the Internet what the intent is because well intended seemingly good advice can also be noise. I'm just trying to convey that the picture isn't black and white. I mean if things happened they way they should, we wouldn't need to call a supervisor or remind a cop of the law, right?

[lukan]

"My point is that in such situations, the information has a chance to de-escalate, be neutral, or escalate the situation."

Yes, because in intense situations, it matters often much more how you say something, than what exactly you are saying.

Remember that from the point of view of the cops, you might draw a gun at any moment, if they misjudged you. They need to feel they are in control of the situation.

So giving a legal correct counter, but in a snarky or aggressive voice, might not help.

But calmly reminding them of certain laws and maybe even asking them, if they are sure that they could justify their actions in a court, might work better than resisting and demanding things of armed police officers.

[withinboredom]

> But calmly reminding them of certain laws and maybe even asking them, if they are sure that they could justify their actions in a court

This will mostly just come across as patronizing and more likely to 'deal with you in court' while your smarmy ass sits somewhere.

Some real advice: don't tell a cop how to do their job. Answer the damn questions and be assertively "no" if they ask you to consent to anything. That's it. If they go away, great. If they make your life hell. That sucks, but don't do anything to make it worse, like patronizing them. Suck it up and deal with it later.

[lukan]

Well, I do have managed quite well with different police so far, even though not with US police. But I am sure they react to body language and sound as well. And yes, one can also articulate that sentence less escalating, my point was mainly that the way someone is said matters a lot more.

[godelski]

  > Remember that from the point of view of the citizen, the cop might draw a gun at any moment, if they misjudged you. They need to feel they are in control of the situation.

FTFY

The point I'm making with the edit is that the cop is a trained professional while the citizen is some random bloke.

Not that while the citizen might have a weapon, the situation is unambiguous for the officer. They have several...

So both people are in the same situation and seeking the same thing (at this basic level), right? The question is who has the higher obligation, who has to "be the bigger man?"

In all other professions, it is generally without dispute that the greater burden falls upon the professional. The one with training. The one with authority! By nature of the interaction the cop has more control than a citizen. Power granted by law, a position of authority, and an unambiguous armament.

I need you to think carefully about the consequences of your argument. How they extend past this specific example we have in our heads. You'll need to clarify to what extent this is okay.

Authority needs not just be accountable, but accountable in proportion to the power we grant them. Do I need to quote Uncle Ben‽‽‽ Without a doubt, officers have substantially more power than the average citizen, thus I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest they should be held to a higher degree of accountability. I maintain this position regardless of the type of authority. In many cases, ignorance is not an excuse. With professionals, ignorance may not just not be an excuse, but an active act of malice (a doctor who does not continue their education has actively chosen inaction. Their ignorance will not hold up in a court of law. In our case, I see no reason ignorance is different from malice when the requisite knowledge is commonly taught in middle and high school. I am willing to give a pass for complex issues, but not stop and frisk)

[giantg2]

"Because again, the only time you would need to utilize such information is when you're encountering a cop who is actively abusing their power."

Again, this is not true. There are other situations where this info can be beneficial (ignorant cops or deceptive but not corrupt cops).

[godelski]

  > ignorant cops

This is an important, but orthogonal topic.

We are talking about something fairly basic, so if our standards of policing are that it is excusable that a cop does not understand... the 4th amendment... then I'm not sure it is worth distinguishing from abuse. As such level of incompetence would necessitate willfulness.

  > deceptive

I fail to understand how you are distinguishing an antagonistic cop who understands you are not breaking the law and is actively trying to trick you into (or trick you into revealing that you are despite no meaningful evidence that a crime is taking place) is different from one that is abusing their authority. I'd go so far as to say that this is a literal act of that.

Look, I am happy you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt. We need people to provide such perspectives. In all honesty, I do appreciate your comment and that you are pushing back, but I think you'll need to take a significantly different route if you are to sway me. I think continuing down this train of reasoning will fail to persuade those with similar views. This does not mean there isn't an argument that would, just not this one.

[zmgsabst]

My experience aligns with your advice:

Most police officers will bully you within the extent of their authority and try to deceive you into complying beyond their authority, but will not physically break the law.

With those police, being polite but firm is a good strategy.

- - - - -

Example: you’re in the parking lot of a business after hours, sitting there with a backpack; two officers in a cruiser park and get out to find out what you’re doing.

1. Well — legal or not, they’re going to detain you for a moment until they decide how to proceed

2. and they’ll pretend the only way to make that stop is let them search your bag to “prove you didn’t steal anything”

3. but if you politely repeat that you’re not consenting to any searches and would like to leave, they’ll let you go because at best they have probable cause for trespassing.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> Most police officers will bully you within the extent of their authority and try to deceive you into complying beyond their authority, but will not physically break the law.

"most" is probably correct, but of course cops that don't break the law don't make the news because it's uninteresting.

I think the real problem we have is the cops that DO break the law and violate your rights and absolutely nothing happens.

A cop that searches your bag without probable cause or consent needs immediate retraining on the first offense, and needs to be fired on the second offense. If the cop gets fired and then gets hired as a cop somewhere else and commits the same offense, they need to be permanently banned from being a cop.

[montagg]

I think the argument for using the line is, there is no reason in the moment not to try everything you can, no matter where you are, and you adjust based on the situation. If you’re in a place that doesn’t respect the rule of law ALL THE TIME, sure, don’t. Is the US(I will assume you’re US-based) that right now? I think your answer to that question == whether you feel the tactic is viable.

But you’re right, we shouldn’t be in this place as a nation, wondering if police are going to be ethical even most of the time.

[giantg2]

The main point was that there is a line between being cooperative and being tricked or forced into consent for a search. The best tactic is to appear cooperative but not a pushover. If they are forcing or tricking a search, then you need to show that you are complying but "under protest". And definitely, this is based on how it is now, not where we should be.

[wordsarelies]

Count to five in your head before answering any good questions.

They get trained to get you to misspeak, and they ask you questions that if you answer them like a normal human you give up rights...

[pc86]

If the cop wants to throw you against the car that's going to happen and no amount of negotiation or "Am I being detained?" is going to prevent that. It's also not going to help against the sizable percentage of cops who just don't know they can't do something. This isn't for either of them, this is for the lower grade abuses of power where the cop will make you "wait" 2 hours for a K9 (but never call them in the first place) to try to get you to consent to make things go faster. If they know that you're going to be filing complaints and suing them they're much more likely to just send you on your way. YouTube has literally thousands of these videos which induce various levels of rage depending on how egregious the cops act.

[markovs_gun]

Yeah having rights is great but it's not a lot of help when the cops can just beat the shit out of you and arrest you for resisting arrest. Maybe you'll get it overturned in court but what good does that do if you missed work or lost your job over the whole ordeal?

[klyrs]

Does it forbid the tactic in a way that results in negative consequences for the perpetrating officers?

[giantg2]

Your right has been confirmed in that case. It then has the basis for a civil rights case.

[klyrs]

But Rodriguez is way past the qualified immunity deadline. What incentives the cop not to do this?

[giantg2]

How so?

[alex_lav]

"Simply tell the cops you're leaving" is a very out of touch suggestion to make.

"Simply tell the cops you're leaving because The Law" even moreso.

[dheera]

> Then when they try to hold you ask them if

In the US if you ask the cops anything you risk getting tased or having a knee on your neck.