[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.