• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

For those of us that refuse to answer questions or show ID

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
One of the hardest things for new OC'ers is refusing to cooperate with a police contact. They hedge and fumble but often don't say "I'm not going to answer and I don't have to". I have a recording of a Roanoke Cop telling Tosta Dojen he only had the right to remain silent if he was guilty of a crime:lol:

Anyway.....the Supreme Court recently ruled on your right to remain silent. Decide for yourself if it's relevant.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday in a Texas murder case to narrow a suspect's right to remain silent.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, with the rest of the court splitting along its four conservatives, four liberals ideological fault line.
In December 1992, brothers Juan and Hector Garza were shot and killed in Hector's Houston apartment. Police found no forced entry but did find spent shotgun shells. A neighbor heard the shots and described the getaway car as a dark colored Camaro or Trans Am.
Police discovered Genovivo Salinas might have attended a party in the apartment the night before the early morning killings.
Police went to Salinas' home where he lived with his parents and discovered that his mother mother had a dark blue Camaro or Trans Am. Police also found a shotgun and asked Salinas to accompany them to the police station for questioning and fingerprints, without placing Salinas in custody or reading him his rights.
Salinas voluntarily answered some questions, but went silent when asked whether ballistics would match the shell cases found at the crime scene.
At Salianas' murder trial, prosecutors used his silence under questioning as evidence of guilt. He was convicted and appeals courts rejected his claim that the prosecutors use of his silence violated the Fifth Amendment -- which gives a defendant the right not to incriminate himself.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts.
Salinas' "Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," Alito wrote for the narrow majority. "It has long been settled that the privilege 'generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection 'must claim it.'"
Speaking for the dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said: "In my view the Fifth Amendment here prohibits the prosecution from commenting on the petitioner's silence in response to police questioning. ... The Fifth Amendment prohibits prosecutors from commenting on an individual's silence where that silence amounts to an effort to avoid becoming 'a witness against himself.'"
---

The Court also struck down Arizona's Voter ID law. I haven't read it yet so I don't know if it'll change Va's Voter ID law that goes into effect next month. A few of us will not vote because we've had enough ID'ing and aren't going to play anymore. Hopefully this ruling will help.

That is an OC issue BTW. No vote means no power.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
From Peter Nap's quoted summary:

Salinas' "Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," Alito wrote for the narrow majority. "It has long been settled that the privilege 'generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection 'must claim it.'"

Which begs the question, had Salinas explicitly invoked the Fifth Amendment protection, instead of remaining silent, would the prosecutor have been permitted to mention that fact to the jury during the trial?

It almost sounds like every police encounter from now on should start with, "I am hereby notifying you of my intent to claim the protection of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, I am going to stop talking to you now."

TFred
 
Last edited:

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
That defendant made the mistake of going with them voluntarily and answering some of their questions. When asked, say, "Thank you, but I prefer not to.", or "I would rather not chat, thank you." And if they start getting nasty, say, "I want my lawyer." and remember the five magic letters: K Y B M S! ("Keep Your Big Mouth Shut"). If you talk to them at all, but then refuse to talk about certain subjects, that's a problem. So don't talk to them at all, that way no one can tie your refusal to talk with any particular issue. And if someone tries to do so at trial, you can defend by saying, "That's not it at all - I just didn't want to talk to the cops, period; it had nothing to do with X, Y, or Z."
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Hear! Hear!

SCOTUS has already said (I forget the case but it's hiding up in News & Political Alerts) that you must, even after being read your Miranda rights actually say "I want to talk to a lawyer" before the cops must stop pestering you until an attorney shows up. In that case they said that even though the appellant was in full custodial detention (stainless steel bracelets and everything) simply refusing to say anything was not actually, you know, like really invoking invoking his right not to say anything without an attorney present and to not say anything until/unless advised by said attorney.

And now SCOTUS says that if you are not under custodial detention your right against self incrimination does not exist. I guess they are basing it on the theory that you could just get up and ask them to validate your parking slip instead of sitting there trying to ignore them and suck up their free coffee. (But wait! Since the cops brought him to the stationhouse for questioning, do they have to drive him back home again? SCOTUS says "No".)

I tell you, there are days when it feels like if I don't check http://howappealing.law.com/ they are going to slip another slice of the stupid pie past me.

stay safe.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
That defendant made the mistake of going with them voluntarily and answering some of their questions. When asked, say, "Thank you, but I prefer not to.", or "I would rather not chat, thank you." And if they start getting nasty, say, "I want my lawyer." and remember the five magic letters: K Y B M S! ("Keep Your Big Mouth Shut"). If you talk to them at all, but then refuse to talk about certain subjects, that's a problem. So don't talk to them at all, that way no one can tie your refusal to talk with any particular issue. And if someone tries to do so at trial, you can defend by saying, "That's not it at all - I just didn't want to talk to the cops, period; it had nothing to do with X, Y, or Z."
Maybe jumping to a whole different horse here... a few weeks ago I went through one of those Friday night road blocks. The LEO was asking me several questions, where I had been, where I was going, I was rather non-responsive, heading that way (pointing ahead), coming from that way (pointing behind). He was not happy with these answers... I suspect he wanted to hear me speak enough words to ensure I was not intoxicated. I guess it's not easy at the time, but you would still recommend answers such as, "I really prefer not to chat with you.." ?

TFred
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
a few weeks ago I went through one of those Friday night road blocks.

Just curious, what jurisdiction was this in? F'burg, Stafford, or Spotsyl'tucky? (Just guessing that it was one of the three.... probably Stafford, if I really had to narrow it to one guess).
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Maybe jumping to a whole different horse here... a few weeks ago I went through one of those Friday night road blocks. The LEO was asking me several questions, where I had been, where I was going, I was rather non-responsive, heading that way (pointing ahead), coming from that way (pointing behind). He was not happy with these answers... I suspect he wanted to hear me speak enough words to ensure I was not intoxicated. I guess it's not easy at the time, but you would still recommend answers such as, "I really prefer not to chat with you.." ?

TFred
I haven't gone through a checkpoint for a long time Tfred, but I have found User's letter to be an indispensable tool.

So far my favorite encounter was with a Richmond LEO who was insisting I tell him why I was videoing. I gave him the letter and he read it. Then I said "Could I ask one question?". He thought I'd blinked so he said "Sure!".

I said "Would you like to use my cell phone to call him, the number's programmed in".:lol::lol::lol:

He said that wouldn't be necessary.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I haven't gone through a checkpoint for a long time Tfred, but I have found User's letter to be an indispensable tool.

So far my favorite encounter was with a Richmond LEO who was insisting I tell him why I was videoing. I gave him the letter and he read it. Then I said "Could I ask one question?". He thought I'd blinked so he said "Sure!".

I said "Would you like to use my cell phone to call him, the number's programmed in".:lol::lol::lol:

He said that wouldn't be necessary.
How come we don't have a sticky post with all his references? His website doesn't have links to them any more. (This letter to LEO, the bill of sale template, the notes from his classes...) All very valuable things to have handy.

TFred
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
How come we don't have a sticky post with all his references? His website doesn't have links to them any more. (This letter to LEO, the bill of sale template, the notes from his classes...) All very valuable things to have handy.

TFred

There may be reasons we don't understand TFred but I may ask if can post them on my site as a client. I guess it depends on the reasons?????????
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Maybe jumping to a whole different horse here... a few weeks ago I went through one of those Friday night road blocks. The LEO was asking me several questions, where I had been, where I was going, I was rather non-responsive, heading that way (pointing ahead), coming from that way (pointing behind). He was not happy with these answers... I suspect he wanted to hear me speak enough words to ensure I was not intoxicated. I guess it's not easy at the time, but you would still recommend answers such as, "I really prefer not to chat with you.." ?

TFred

Imagine submitting to a 'Field Sobriety Test' while OC'ing.

Sure.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
What I gather is they did not use his not talking against him, they used his talking and then stop talking at certain questions against him. Touchy but I agree with the courts. He should have asked for a attorney from the start.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
What I gather is they did not use his not talking against him, they used his talking and then stop talking at certain questions against him. Touchy but I agree with the courts. He should have asked for a attorney from the start.

But since he was not in custodial detention he was not entitled to the presence and counsel of an attorney.

Pay attention - that little pea only seems to be under the cup you think it is under.

If "Am I free to go?" = YES. then GO!

If "Am I free to go?" = NO, then ask for an attorney and KYBMS till he gets there.

Technically the cops can talk to you/ask questions that have nothing to do with the crime they are investigating/charging you with, even after you invoke your Miranda rights and before the attorney shows up.

stay safe.
 
Last edited:

Glockster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Houston

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
One of the hardest things for new OC'ers is refusing to cooperate with a police contact. They hedge and fumble but often don't say "I'm not going to answer and I don't have to". I have a recording of a Roanoke Cop telling Tosta Dojen he only had the right to remain silent if he was guilty of a crime:lol:

Anyway.....the Supreme Court recently ruled on your right to remain silent. Decide for yourself if it's relevant.


The Court also struck down Arizona's Voter ID law. I haven't read it yet so I don't know if it'll change Va's Voter ID law that goes into effect next month. A few of us will not vote because we've had enough ID'ing and aren't going to play anymore. Hopefully this ruling will help.




That is an OC issue BTW. No vote means no power.

SCOTUS struck down AZ law because they were using a federal form and requiring proof of citizenship while using the federal form. If they use the state form (not a federal voter form) then they can require proof of citizenship, but use of the federal form requires use of federal law. I think (I am not sure of this) that VA uses a state form so VA can do what they want. I think Va only is requiring picture ID not proof of citizenship but I have been too busy to really read into the new requirements.



I found an interesting article about it: "http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/06/17/left-loses-big-in-arizona-supreme-court-case/"

excerpt....
Next, when voters use a state, as opposed to a federal, form, they can still be required to prove citizenship. The federal form is irrelevant in that circumstance.
After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form. The Left wanted the submission of a federal form to mean automatic no-questions-asked registration. This is a big loss for the Left because now states can put suspect forms in limbo while they run checks against non-citizen databases and jury-response forms. Another significant victory in today’s decision. The Left wanted to strip them of that double-checking power.
The decision today is a great example of how conservatives can be distracted by squirrels running past. It is understandable and forgivable because they aren’t daily immersed in the long-term election-process agenda of the left-wing groups. Nor do they daily involve themselves with the details of election process. But having been in the “preemption wars” for nearly a decade, I can assure you this case is a big win, even if it doesn’t appear so at first glance.
 
Last edited:

Arma1911

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
96
Location
VA
Recommended video- "Do you know your constitutional rights?"

I have really learned a lot reading the posts on this forum and on some of the other state's forums. Some of the discussions have lead me to search Youtube for additional videos/information.

One video that I came across is titled "Do you know your constitutional rights?" posted by Jeff Benner on April 26, 2012. If I were computer savvy I would post a link, sorry. However, it is easy to find if you put the title in your YouTube search.

It is a good compilation video of several interactions with LEO concerning open carry, requirement to show ID when asked, rights to film and record audio, etc. It is only about 9 minutes long. Good to see folks standing up to Illegal demands/questioning by LOEs and understanding the constitutional protections we have.
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
I have really learned a lot reading the posts on this forum and on some of the other state's forums. Some of the discussions have lead me to search Youtube for additional videos/information.

One video that I came across is titled "Do you know your constitutional rights?" posted by Jeff Benner on April 26, 2012. If I were computer savvy I would post a link, sorry. However, it is easy to find if you put the title in your YouTube search.

It is a good compilation video of several interactions with LEO concerning open carry, requirement to show ID when asked, rights to film and record audio, etc. It is only about 9 minutes long. Good to see folks standing up to Illegal demands/questioning by LOEs and understanding the constitutional protections we have.

Link to video mentioned above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE1-NwZ81Ns
 
Top