Tough Day To Be In Law Enforcement

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

FIVAS said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

fishonjazz said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Gameface said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

fishonjazz said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

fishonjazz said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

TheGoldStandard said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

The Thriller said:

I just saw that the officer who killed Dante Wright was found guilty of manslaughter for shooting him with her gun instead of a taser.

I admit, I hadn’t paid attention to this at all. I have no idea whether he’s black or white. Yet I was not surprised that it happened in Minneapolis (same place as George Floyd) and it was over… expired registration.

Which brings up the main question asked almost two years ago: do we really need the police to handle these situations?

Broken taillights, expired registration, giving someone a counterfeit $20, I mean seriously??? Is that really worth their salary? Is it really worth risking escalation like we just saw with Dante Wright or George Floyd? Can’t expired registration be handled differently?

Earlier this year my wife let her car registration expire. Nothing malignant, she forgot about it. When she went to get her oil changed, the mechanic let her know that her registration had expired. No guns were needed. Didn't need cops. She paid to have the registration done there and we got the sticker. In 15 mins the issue was resolved and no one died from it.

It’s almost 2022, why are the police still wasting time with stupid issues like taillights and expired stickers?

Click to expand...

I haven’t paid a lot of attention to it either, other than reading one article when she was convicted. He had an outstanding bench warrant. If I remember correctly, he was at first compliant and then jumped back in the car. So to say it was over expired registration doesn’t tell the whole story. But it leads back into Gameface’s posts.
I see the point you’re making, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. I do think police have an obligation to enforce the law, even if they are stupid laws like a broken tail light or expired plates. If they’re not going to enforce those laws, why have them? Erase them from the books. I’d argue the roads become less safe. If I have no reason to fix my non functioning brake lights, why would I? It doesn’t affect me unless someone rear ends me. Then it’s their fault for not stopping.



Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz

Gameface said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with that scenario more so than a cop pulling me over for speeding. In this scenario there is a dead body. I dont want there to be any chance that im involved in a murder case. In the speeding scenario im trying to think of the worst case scenario of me telling a cop im on my way home from fishing or something and about the worst think I can think of is that maybe I get let off with a warning or get a ticket.

fishonjazz said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah and I agree with that. But I'm not trying to roll the dice.

fishonjazz said:

I agree with that scenario more so than a cop pulling me over for speeding. In this scenario there is a dead body. I dont want there to be any chance that im involved in a murder case. In the speeding scenario im trying to think of the worst case scenario of me telling a cop im on my way home from fishing or something and about the worst think I can think of is that maybe I get let off with a warning or get a ticket.

Click to expand...

What if they just found a person shot dead at the lake you just got done fishing at?

I know, I know. I'm taking this a bit far at this point, but still.

Gameface said:

Yeah and I agree with that. But I'm not trying to roll the dice.

Click to expand...

I kind of think you might be rolling the dice with your strategy though. I think it likely that answering a cops questions, when i haven't broken any laws, or not answering questions would both end up just fine most of the time. However I think that not cooperation could lead to the cop getting angry and maybe detaining me or using force on me or something. Sure in the end I would be in the right in that instance and would get the charges dropped in court and maybe even be able to sue. However I would rather just keep the drama out and go on about my day. I think being cooperative, even overly so, is the best way to achieve my goal of staying drama free.

Gameface said:

What if they just found a person shot dead at the lake you just got done fishing at?

I know, I know. I'm taking this a bit far at this point, but still.

Click to expand...

No thats a fair point. I guess I just gotta play the percentages. I think that a cop asking me where im headed and me answering with "im not going to answer you as its not your business" or something similar could lead to things getting testy and heated. Or at the least drawing things out by the cop trying to get me to explain why I wont talk to him. I would imagine the cop would ask follow up questions like "why are you being so defensive" and say things like "if you have nothing to hide then you should have no problem answering me" or "your resistance to my questions makes you seem suspicious" etc.
I want to just avoid that convo and be on my way asap.

fishonjazz said:

No thats a fair point. I guess I just gotta play the percentages. I think that a cop asking me where im headed and me answering with "im not going to answer you as its not your business" or something similar could lead to things getting testy and heated. Or at the least drawing things out by the cop trying to get me to explain why I wont talk to him. I would imagine the cop would ask follow up questions like "why are you being so defensive" and say things like "if you have nothing to hide then you should have no problem answering me" or "your resistance to my questions makes you seem suspicious" etc.
I want to just avoid that convo and be on my way asap.

Click to expand...

The police know that you don't have to answer questions. Getting aggressive with a person who chooses to remain silent could cost them their job. The important part for me is to be very polite, calm and cooperative. Not answering questions doesn't have to be confrontational. You can say "My lawyer friend told me I shouldn't answer questions, I'm just following their advice."

When I'm speaking to police I speak to them the way I would have spoken to a superior officer in the Navy. I'm polite, calm, professional and I always call them "Sir" or "Officer" basically every sentence I say. I have a tendency to act in a formal way even when I shouldn't but in situations like this I think it helps me. I'm very formal. I say things in plain simple language that leaves little room for interpretation. I don't try to make jokes. I don't try to be a smartass. I don't challenge them on anything they are saying.

If the officer starts getting agitated then I comply with whatever they want, short of answering questions. But I continue to refuse to answer questions in a very neutral non-argumentative way. "Sir, I just don't answer questions. With all due respect, I'm not trying to make your job any harder than it already is, I just have a personal commitment to remaining silent."

I provided a couple examples of times I've been pulled over and refused to answer the "where are you going?" question. I had very positive interactions both times.