And that is exactly what they did to a friends worker. He doesn't have a license but he drove himself and a girl to the park. When the police asked him whose truck he had he said it was his bosses truck. They asked where his boss was and the guy said he just met this girl and walked off in the woods. The police asked how long he though his boss would be and the guy says, I don't know that girl was really pretty. The cops arrested him and left him in jail for 5 days. If you ask me I think he got what he was asking for.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Can you get a speeding ticket even if you are not in your car?
- Thread starter baynsac
- Start date
And that is exactly what they did to a friends worker. He doesn't have a license but he drove himself and a girl to the park. When the police asked him whose truck he had he said it was his bosses truck. They asked where his boss was and the guy said he just met this girl and walked off in the woods. The police asked how long he though his boss would be and the guy says, I don't know that girl was really pretty. The cops arrested him and left him in jail for 5 days. If you ask me I think he got what he was asking for.
- Joined
- 24 May 2002
- Messages
- 1,431
Watched Cops tonight. The Cops were lying like a sidewalk. "Tell me who was driving the car, it doesn't matter that you were drinking" Ya right. In the end the guy they were pressuring couldn't be busted as the driver so they took him to jail for public intoxication. Think about that next time you go out drinking.
I said he shouldn't have said anything. And I've got no problem lying to people that I know will lie to me. Sorry bud, the cool blue uni doesn't fill me full of dread and scare me into puking up any answer asked of me by them.
Didn't you in one of your recent threads mention that you thought it was funny that a police officer pulled you over and asked if the NSX was your car? I assume, and please correct me if I am wrong, but you were reflecting on being "profiled", or being categorized into a group which you thought was unfair and unjust.
Excuse me again if I misunderstand, but aren't you doing the same thing with the categorization of the "cool blue uni"? You have, "no problem lying to people that I know will lie to me." Do police officer lie to all of us? I am sorry, but I've never had that experience. Please enlighten me.
No offense, but I find your rational of lying to people extremely interesting. You have no problem lying to people that may lie to you. Where does that extend? People that may do business with you? They may lie to you, so is it OK to lie to them? Your co-workers? Your neighbors? Children? Friends? Spouse? Vendors? Girlfriend? et. al.
Please understand, I am NOT attempting to disagree with you or find fault with your rational. I am just fascinated with your rational of lying to people. Perhaps I've also misunderstood your rational. Is it just OK to lie to police officers? I am not saying you're wrong in your actions, but it is just so contary to mine.
I guess some of the reasons I find this so fascinating is that when I was a child I was taught that lying was not a good thing and that I should tell the truth. Also, when I was commissioned as an Army officer, I took an oath that "my word was my bond."
I hope you're not offended by this post because that was not my intent. Also sorry for hijacking this post.
Last edited:
I agree we're hijacking this post. I'm not upset with you for your post. I'm not speaking from some moral, idealogical, utopian society soapbox. I'm not saying it's right, I just said I have no problem with it. I wanted to be an officer for a while. Was part time on two departments. Only then did I find out how full of shit most of them are. All the crooked, backhanded crap that goes on would BLOW your mind! So because of this... Again.... I have zero problem telling them whatever they wanna hear to get them out of my space. All the stuff with neighbors and co-workers and family and all that, I'm talking about the police... But yeah... I guess if I had a neighbor or co-worker who I KNEW would lie right to my face to get what they wanted.... I'd feel no obligation to be forthright with them. Is that wierd? It would be less wierd to be truthfull with people you KNOW are trying to get the best of you? Maybe in fairy land... Not in my world. Next time you go to a car lot, why don't you be honest with the sales guy and tell him how much money you have for a car?
most importantly, they had no probable cause to search your car. You have the right to say no.... fuck.... if you need help, please let me know...
I notice you only have 50 posts so you may not be familiar that we don't use profanity on this board. Lot's of guys have their wife's and kids view this board. That aside, it's a matter of good taste.
Mod. Please omit.
Speaking only hypothetically, if they'd caught on to his lie(s) and arrested him for obstruction, they'd have had probable cause to search his car. In fact, even if they didn't arrest him, but knew for certain he was lying, they could have. By what we've been told, that was not the case, but I consider the OP to lack credibility at this point, so for all we know, there was probable cause and we just don't know.
Another reason not to lie to the police... y'know, aside from it being a crime, and all.
Last edited:
I hate traffic cops. They DO pull people over for BS tickets. It happens all the time. Whether he lied to the police or not isn't the issue. In fact I believe under pressure to avoid a ticket we would be less than truthful in most cases when nervous.
The cops F'd up his rights and played with his words to get him to do something he shouldn't have to. Taking his keys is B.S. End of story. All of this for mild speeding/loud exhaust is lame. I am 32 and I have been pulled over before for an unsafe lane change when I was younger. It was pretty stupid as well. I do believe that younger kids get messed with more often that older guys. I speed way more often now but I have a lawyer and a Valentine One so I rarely get caught.
The cops F'd up his rights and played with his words to get him to do something he shouldn't have to. Taking his keys is B.S. End of story. All of this for mild speeding/loud exhaust is lame. I am 32 and I have been pulled over before for an unsafe lane change when I was younger. It was pretty stupid as well. I do believe that younger kids get messed with more often that older guys. I speed way more often now but I have a lawyer and a Valentine One so I rarely get caught.
So maybe that's why you have no problem lying to people who lie to you, because you learned it in the police academy, LOL. I remember your threads about beings a police officer. You are one of the few who actually tell it like it is. See my problem is if someone lies to me I call them out right in front of everyone. I do not like someone else to think they can lie to me because I am stupid and I am going to believe their BS. I in fact get myself into a bit of trouble here and there calling people out. I can be polite but often times I am not and I never allow someone to use the ruse that others and going to be polite and smile when they get lied to. Polite, sure I am polite until someone lies to me, including the police.
Ok. I am an attorney and let me just make a few general observations. First, regardless of how you acted, those police officers treated you badly. However, based on your narrative, most of it was probably legit. In criminal law, there are two standards the police use to detain and search citizens: Reasonable Suspicion (RS) and Probable Cause (PC). Of the two, Reasonable Suspicion is the lower standard and it pretty much means that if the officer has a reasonable belief that you are breaking or have broken the law, he may detain and question you about it. If through questioning he uncovers more information that confirms or strongly suggests his suspicion is correct, he now has Probable Cause and can either conduct a thorough search and/or arrest you. So, how does this fit here?
You likely created reasonable suspicion of a violation when you passed as many as three (3) police officers and revved your loud exhaust. No doubt there is a exhaust noise law in CA in addition to any local ordinances. So, by doing that, you gave them reasonable suspicion to believe you violated the law. You probably also gave them reasonable suspicion as to any illegal performance mods like NOS, turbos, etc. That means they can detain and question you about these violations, even if you are not in the car anymore. Note that there doesn't seem to be any basis for reasonable suspicion about a DUI at this point.
After you got their attention with the exhaust, they followed and observed you driving. If you broke the speed limit even by 1 mph during this time, they now have RS or maybe even probable cause to believe you violated the speed limit. They don't need a gun, they can testify as to their "visual estimate" of your speed. I hate this standard, because the court always believes the cops despite it being entirely subjective and not very consistent.
So, by the time they stop you at the taco place, they've got RS or PC on noise/emissions violations and speeding. That means they can stop you and talk to you about it, which it seems they did. Now here is where the problem is. At this point, surrounded by 3 cops who were questioning you, I think you were arguably in Custodial Police Interrogation (CPI), which triggers your 5th right to remain silent and also your right to counsel being present during questioning. At this point, the magic words are “I need to speak to my attorney.” If you say that, all questioning must STOP until your attorney arrives. They do have the option of taking you to the station, but may not ask any more questions. If they do, anything you tell them plus any evidence they find after you ask for a lawyer will likely be thrown out of court. You appear to have done that here, but not right away, which was your first mistake.
The stuff about “Phillip” and ID was probably just BS to test you for evasiveness. It was probably ok though, since cops are allowed to ask you for ID as part of RS questioning. The alcohol questioning was totally baseless, since at that point they had no RS about drinking. They likely knew it, so that is why they kept asking you to go to your car, since the car violations (exhaust/speeding) were the only violations they had to go on and the only bases on which they could detain/question you. Where you screwed up was in lying to them about driving. Three cops saw you driving that car. When you told them you weren’t driving, it raised the bar towards RS for DUI or other common driving offenses. Then when you told them your wife drove you—a second lie-- , they felt enough RS to go into the DUI stuff.
The gross violation of your rights occurred when you advised the officers that you wanted to speak to your attorney and they took your phone away as you were calling the attorney. That is a blatant and reprehensible incidence of misconduct, and I would go after the officer who did it. Moreover, cops may not use a request for counsel as a basis to infer any wrongdoing or “something to hide.” Everything that happened after they took your phone away is likely inadmissible and I suspect your attorney will have no problem getting it thrown out. I would also ask his opinion on going after the cop who grabbed the phone as you were asking for a lawyer. This isn’t North Korea.
With that said, some important things to remember:
1. Don't Lie. Yes, cops can lie to you to elicit information. But, if you lie to them, it just creates RS, which leads to searches, which leads to tickets, arrest, etc. Remember, you don't always know what they know, so a lie could be doing more damage than you think.
2. Be polite. Even if they are total scumbags to you. On the street, they have the power. With an attorney in court, you have the power and THEY are the ones who have to answer the tough questions. So, while on the street, be nice, smile and politely respond to them. Bad cops will try to harass you into getting upset, which they know may cause you to slip up and admit stuff. Don’t fall for it. Just say “I’m sorry, officer. I’m afraid we’ll have to wait until my attorney arrives before we can go any further.” Don't be smug or cocky about it, just neutral. Poker face.
3. Say the magic words. “I need to speak to my attorney.” Make sure there are witnesses, if possible.
So, could you have done it different? Yeah. You could have used the magic words right up front, but that might have resulted in a ride downtown before it was sorted out. You could have insisted on the breathalyzer, which would have eliminated RS on the DUI, but you’re still stuck with the exhaust/speeding issue. That means you still would have had to go to your car and eaten the NOS ticket- remember they had RS so they can search the car for mods. You could have told the truth about the car and maybe they would have just given you a warning, but it sounds like they were out to get you on something. I suppose the moral of the story is if you have obvious mods to your car (exhaust, flashy rims, big spoiler, etc.), you are giving the cops a “foot in the door” to stop and ticket you. With all of the new street-racing and emissions laws coming into effect these days, you should factor this in as a probable additional cost of the mod.
You likely created reasonable suspicion of a violation when you passed as many as three (3) police officers and revved your loud exhaust. No doubt there is a exhaust noise law in CA in addition to any local ordinances. So, by doing that, you gave them reasonable suspicion to believe you violated the law. You probably also gave them reasonable suspicion as to any illegal performance mods like NOS, turbos, etc. That means they can detain and question you about these violations, even if you are not in the car anymore. Note that there doesn't seem to be any basis for reasonable suspicion about a DUI at this point.
After you got their attention with the exhaust, they followed and observed you driving. If you broke the speed limit even by 1 mph during this time, they now have RS or maybe even probable cause to believe you violated the speed limit. They don't need a gun, they can testify as to their "visual estimate" of your speed. I hate this standard, because the court always believes the cops despite it being entirely subjective and not very consistent.
So, by the time they stop you at the taco place, they've got RS or PC on noise/emissions violations and speeding. That means they can stop you and talk to you about it, which it seems they did. Now here is where the problem is. At this point, surrounded by 3 cops who were questioning you, I think you were arguably in Custodial Police Interrogation (CPI), which triggers your 5th right to remain silent and also your right to counsel being present during questioning. At this point, the magic words are “I need to speak to my attorney.” If you say that, all questioning must STOP until your attorney arrives. They do have the option of taking you to the station, but may not ask any more questions. If they do, anything you tell them plus any evidence they find after you ask for a lawyer will likely be thrown out of court. You appear to have done that here, but not right away, which was your first mistake.
The stuff about “Phillip” and ID was probably just BS to test you for evasiveness. It was probably ok though, since cops are allowed to ask you for ID as part of RS questioning. The alcohol questioning was totally baseless, since at that point they had no RS about drinking. They likely knew it, so that is why they kept asking you to go to your car, since the car violations (exhaust/speeding) were the only violations they had to go on and the only bases on which they could detain/question you. Where you screwed up was in lying to them about driving. Three cops saw you driving that car. When you told them you weren’t driving, it raised the bar towards RS for DUI or other common driving offenses. Then when you told them your wife drove you—a second lie-- , they felt enough RS to go into the DUI stuff.
The gross violation of your rights occurred when you advised the officers that you wanted to speak to your attorney and they took your phone away as you were calling the attorney. That is a blatant and reprehensible incidence of misconduct, and I would go after the officer who did it. Moreover, cops may not use a request for counsel as a basis to infer any wrongdoing or “something to hide.” Everything that happened after they took your phone away is likely inadmissible and I suspect your attorney will have no problem getting it thrown out. I would also ask his opinion on going after the cop who grabbed the phone as you were asking for a lawyer. This isn’t North Korea.
With that said, some important things to remember:
1. Don't Lie.
Yes, cops can lie to you to elicit information. But, if you lie to them, it just creates RS, which leads to searches, which leads to tickets, arrest, etc. Remember, you don't always know what they know, so a lie could be doing more damage than you think.2. Be polite. Even if they are total scumbags to you. On the street, they have the power. With an attorney in court, you have the power and THEY are the ones who have to answer the tough questions. So, while on the street, be nice, smile and politely respond to them. Bad cops will try to harass you into getting upset, which they know may cause you to slip up and admit stuff. Don’t fall for it. Just say “I’m sorry, officer. I’m afraid we’ll have to wait until my attorney arrives before we can go any further.” Don't be smug or cocky about it, just neutral. Poker face.
3. Say the magic words. “I need to speak to my attorney.” Make sure there are witnesses, if possible.
So, could you have done it different? Yeah. You could have used the magic words right up front, but that might have resulted in a ride downtown before it was sorted out. You could have insisted on the breathalyzer, which would have eliminated RS on the DUI, but you’re still stuck with the exhaust/speeding issue. That means you still would have had to go to your car and eaten the NOS ticket- remember they had RS so they can search the car for mods. You could have told the truth about the car and maybe they would have just given you a warning, but it sounds like they were out to get you on something. I suppose the moral of the story is if you have obvious mods to your car (exhaust, flashy rims, big spoiler, etc.), you are giving the cops a “foot in the door” to stop and ticket you. With all of the new street-racing and emissions laws coming into effect these days, you should factor this in as a probable additional cost of the mod.
Ok. I am an attorney and let me just make a few general observations. First, regardless of how you acted, those police officers treated you badly. However, based on your narrative, most of it was probably legit. In criminal law, there are two standards the police use to detain and search citizens: Reasonable Suspicion (RS) and Probable Cause (PC). Of the two, Reasonable Suspicion is the lower standard and it pretty much means that if the officer has a reasonable belief that you are breaking or have broken the law, he may detain and question you about it. If through questioning he uncovers more information that confirms or strongly suggests his suspicion is correct, he now has Probable Cause and can either conduct a thorough search and/or arrest you. So, how does this fit here?
You likely created reasonable suspicion of a violation when you passed as many as three (3) police officers and revved your loud exhaust. No doubt there is a exhaust noise law in CA in addition to any local ordinances. So, by doing that, you gave them reasonable suspicion to believe you violated the law. You probably also gave them reasonable suspicion as to any illegal performance mods like NOS, turbos, etc. That means they can detain and question you about these violations, even if you are not in the car anymore. Note that there doesn't seem to be any basis for reasonable suspicion about a DUI at this point.
After you got their attention with the exhaust, they followed and observed you driving. If you broke the speed limit even by 1 mph during this time, they now have RS or maybe even probable cause to believe you violated the speed limit. They don't need a gun, they can testify as to their "visual estimate" of your speed. I hate this standard, because the court always believes the cops despite it being entirely subjective and not very consistent.
So, by the time they stop you at the taco place, they've got RS or PC on noise/emissions violations and speeding. That means they can stop you and talk to you about it, which it seems they did. Now here is where the problem is. At this point, surrounded by 3 cops who were questioning you, I think you were arguably in Custodial Police Interrogation (CPI), which triggers your 5th right to remain silent and also your right to counsel being present during questioning. At this point, the magic words are “I need to speak to my attorney.” If you say that, all questioning must STOP until your attorney arrives. They do have the option of taking you to the station, but may not ask any more questions. If they do, anything you tell them plus any evidence they find after you ask for a lawyer will likely be thrown out of court. You appear to have done that here, but not right away, which was your first mistake.
The stuff about “Phillip” and ID was probably just BS to test you for evasiveness. It was probably ok though, since cops are allowed to ask you for ID as part of RS questioning. The alcohol questioning was totally baseless, since at that point they had no RS about drinking. They likely knew it, so that is why they kept asking you to go to your car, since the car violations (exhaust/speeding) were the only violations they had to go on and the only bases on which they could detain/question you. Where you screwed up was in lying to them about driving. Three cops saw you driving that car. When you told them you weren’t driving, it raised the bar towards RS for DUI or other common driving offenses. Then when you told them your wife drove you—a second lie-- , they felt enough RS to go into the DUI stuff.
The gross violation of your rights occurred when you advised the officers that you wanted to speak to your attorney and they took your phone away as you were calling the attorney. That is a blatant and reprehensible incidence of misconduct, and I would go after the officer who did it. Moreover, cops may not use a request for counsel as a basis to infer any wrongdoing or “something to hide.” Everything that happened after they took your phone away is likely inadmissible and I suspect your attorney will have no problem getting it thrown out. I would also ask his opinion on going after the cop who grabbed the phone as you were asking for a lawyer. This isn’t North Korea.
With that said, some important things to remember:
1. Don't Lie.
2. Be polite. Even if they are total scumbags to you. On the street, they have the power. With an attorney in court, you have the power and THEY are the ones who have to answer the tough questions. So, while on the street, be nice, smile and politely respond to them. Bad cops will try to harass you into getting upset, which they know may cause you to slip up and admit stuff. Don’t fall for it. Just say “I’m sorry, officer. I’m afraid we’ll have to wait until my attorney arrives before we can go any further.” Don't be smug or cocky about it, just neutral. Poker face.
3. Say the magic words. “I need to speak to my attorney.” Make sure there are witnesses, if possible.
So, could you have done it different? Yeah. You could have used the magic words right up front, but that might have resulted in a ride downtown before it was sorted out. You could have insisted on the breathalyzer, which would have eliminated RS on the DUI, but you’re still stuck with the exhaust/speeding issue. That means you still would have had to go to your car and eaten the NOS ticket- remember they had RS so they can search the car for mods. You could have told the truth about the car and maybe they would have just given you a warning, but it sounds like they were out to get you on something. I suppose the moral of the story is if you have obvious mods to your car (exhaust, flashy rims, big spoiler, etc.), you are giving the cops a “foot in the door” to stop and ticket you. With all of the new street-racing and emissions laws coming into effect these days, you should factor this in as a probable additional cost of the mod.
Great write up. Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail like you did.
Why is there a double standard that allows cops to lie and punishes a citizen for doing the same? Doesn't this very standard promote cops not only to lie but to also assume that everyone else lies too? From my observations of life I have noticed that those who often accuse others of something are most often doing the exact same thing they are accusing others of doing.
No prob. As for the double standard, the justification is public safety. Essentially, the government decided that getting criminals off the street through deception outweighed any harm to ordinary citizens. I remember this was hotly debated in my law school constitutional law class way back when. I always saw it as every time the government steps on your rights, they justify it with public safety. Sometimes, it's legit and other times I think it is either lazy legislating or a blatant power grab. Unfortunately, baynsac found himself a casualty of this tension. :frown:
Thanks for the great reply Honcho. Finally a proper response to the OPs original question.
I have one question about your reply. As you stated you can say the magic words, "I need to speak with my attorney", but assuming someone doesn't actually have an attorney on retainer then what? I assume the cop is not going to wait around for you to find a phone book so if you are taken in then can you request a public defender? How much time do you have to produce an attorney so the police can continue their questioning?
thanks.
I have one question about your reply. As you stated you can say the magic words, "I need to speak with my attorney", but assuming someone doesn't actually have an attorney on retainer then what? I assume the cop is not going to wait around for you to find a phone book so if you are taken in then can you request a public defender? How much time do you have to produce an attorney so the police can continue their questioning?
thanks.
Kind of reminds me when a tenant moved out and he claimed his old junk truck came up missing. The cops questioned me like I took the truck. They also wanted to question my wife too. I told them they were not separating us and if we were going to answer any questions it would be in the same room at the same time. The cop said what do you have to hide. I said nothing I just know how your game works. The cop got pissed and said if she didn't find the truck someone was going to jail. I LOLed and said if you don't find any evidence you are going to arrest someone??? then looked at her like this
Then I asked her to put on her thinking cap and ask some real good questions that would help her get to the bottom of the situation. She said like what. I said well lets talk about why the tenant moved out. Eviction. Now if you got evicted and were pissed at the landlord wouldn't you try and make hassles for him? She figured it out after that. I still don't know if they ever got the tenant for filing a false report. I know the a-hole most likely took his own damn truck.
If you don't have one you can say "an attorney" instead of "my attorney." Remember the Miranda speech- "If you don't have an attorney one will be appointed for you." What sucks is that they will likely take you in to the station first, where you can have a public defender present for questioning. They're probably not going to wait long for you to search the phone book. With that said, a good attorney is probably a number you want to have saved in your phone contacts, just in case. I've got a good one in my phone...my wife! lol :biggrin: She just got me out of a ticket a few weeks ago as a matter of fact...
With that said, a good attorney is probably a number you want to have saved in your phone contacts, just in case. I've got a good one in my phone...my wife! lol :biggrin: She just got me out of a ticket a few weeks ago as a matter of fact...If you don't have one you can say "an attorney" instead of "my attorney." Remember the Miranda speech- "If you don't have an attorney one will be appointed for you." What sucks is that they will likely take you in to the station first, where you can have a public defender present for questioning. They're probably not going to wait long for you to search the phone book.
Can I get your cell number? Ha ha....i think your a little too far from me anyway. Thanks for the reply.
Ha! Sorry, man I'm only admitted in NY. Besides, I don't do criminal law, but like all lawyers I was trained on it. fact, baynsac's scenario reads a lot like a bar exam crim law question...
Great overall write up Honcho.....I'm an attorney as well, but in California. I would just like to clarify on Honcho's analysis. Unfortunately, your right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment ONLY attaches in criminal proceedings, and not civil. Why is this important? Most traffic tickets are considered civil violations and not criminal, therefore your constitutional protections under the 6th amendment generally do not apply here.
Likewise, under the 5th amendment right to counsel under Miranda, applies where there is a custodial interrogation and not to on-scene police questioning or questions at routine bookings. As Honcho correctly stated, the OP position can be argued to be a custodial interrogation, but realistically I wouldn't bet this argument would be successful. First, "in custody" specifically refers to situations where the suspect is placed under arrest, not free to leave, or detained by the suspect's reasonable expectation. Here, OP was not placed under arrest, arguably he could have left if he had chosen to, and its debatable whether OP belief (if he believed he was in custody) was reasonable. The stronger argument, albiet IMO, is that this merely amounted to a consenual encounter, thus no custody and no right to counsel under Miranda.
Obviously, you can pay to have an attorney represent you, which means he/she will argue the facts most favorable for you, but that alone does not guarantee anything, which I'm sure most of you all realize.
From what the OP stated, it appears the primary motivation/purpose of the police questioning him was to write him a traffic ticket for speeding, excessive noise, etc.......which is considered a civil violation in California, therefore does not raise 5th or 6th amendment right to counsel issues, and which further explains why the police never read the OP his Miranda rights.
My recommendation, tone down the "loud" factor, both figuratively and literally, and exercise common courtesy. If you follow this advice, I doubt you'll run into this situation again.
Likewise, under the 5th amendment right to counsel under Miranda, applies where there is a custodial interrogation and not to on-scene police questioning or questions at routine bookings. As Honcho correctly stated, the OP position can be argued to be a custodial interrogation, but realistically I wouldn't bet this argument would be successful. First, "in custody" specifically refers to situations where the suspect is placed under arrest, not free to leave, or detained by the suspect's reasonable expectation. Here, OP was not placed under arrest, arguably he could have left if he had chosen to, and its debatable whether OP belief (if he believed he was in custody) was reasonable. The stronger argument, albiet IMO, is that this merely amounted to a consenual encounter, thus no custody and no right to counsel under Miranda.
Obviously, you can pay to have an attorney represent you, which means he/she will argue the facts most favorable for you, but that alone does not guarantee anything, which I'm sure most of you all realize.
From what the OP stated, it appears the primary motivation/purpose of the police questioning him was to write him a traffic ticket for speeding, excessive noise, etc.......which is considered a civil violation in California, therefore does not raise 5th or 6th amendment right to counsel issues, and which further explains why the police never read the OP his Miranda rights.
My recommendation, tone down the "loud" factor, both figuratively and literally, and exercise common courtesy. If you follow this advice, I doubt you'll run into this situation again.
Last edited:
Excellent clarification. Look at all the free legal advice flying around this post! I thought about the custodial interrogation part before I wrote it, and in my opinion based on the way baynsac described the situation, I think his lawyer could argue for it. He was cornered/surrounded by three armed officers. I think if he just turned his back and walked over to his table, they would have stopped him and forcibly held him, probably not in a friendly way either. CPI doesn't have to be you sitting in the interview room with them shining the light bulb in your face...as long as he reasonably felt like he was not free to leave, I think he's got something to go on.
As for the 5th and 6th rights, they were asking him about a DUI (DWI in NY), which is a misdemeanor offense in New York, or even a felony under certain circumstances. Is it a civil traffic violation in CA? Like a first offense type thing that is coverted to a misdemeanor if you get stopped a second time? If it is a misdemeanor, it is arguable that his rights were activated once they started questioning him about DUI. I agree about the civil violations, so please folks don't start spouting off about your 5th amendment rights and demanding counsel when stopped for a bad tail light!
I completely agree with your advice-- tone down the car and do less to draw attention and you can avoid all this trouble in the first place.
I thought about the custodial interrogation part before I wrote it, and in my opinion based on the way baynsac described the situation, I think his lawyer could argue for it. He was cornered/surrounded by three armed officers. I think if he just turned his back and walked over to his table, they would have stopped him and forcibly held him, probably not in a friendly way either. CPI doesn't have to be you sitting in the interview room with them shining the light bulb in your face...as long as he reasonably felt like he was not free to leave, I think he's got something to go on.As for the 5th and 6th rights, they were asking him about a DUI (DWI in NY), which is a misdemeanor offense in New York, or even a felony under certain circumstances. Is it a civil traffic violation in CA? Like a first offense type thing that is coverted to a misdemeanor if you get stopped a second time? If it is a misdemeanor, it is arguable that his rights were activated once they started questioning him about DUI. I agree about the civil violations, so please folks don't start spouting off about your 5th amendment rights and demanding counsel when stopped for a bad tail light!
I completely agree with your advice-- tone down the car and do less to draw attention and you can avoid all this trouble in the first place.
great thread.
Your absolutely right about custodial interrogation applying in situations outside of the interview room. But from my experience, its usually a high standard to meet, ie. officer's gun drawn, several officers surrounding suspect, etc....but I see your point. The question is, is it reasonable to believe you are not free to leave if 3 officers are present? Definitely debatable either way.....
In California, DUI's are also considered misdemeanor or felony offenses. I also agree, if you are the defendant's attorney, you argue that he was in custody the minute the officers pulled him over and started asking questions. Unfortunately, I just don't believe a reasonable juror or judge would buy that. Its fairly common practice for police officers in CA to question drivers about drinking long before any Miranda warnings are read. But nonetheless, great analysis of the situation.
In California, DUI's are also considered misdemeanor or felony offenses. I also agree, if you are the defendant's attorney, you argue that he was in custody the minute the officers pulled him over and started asking questions. Unfortunately, I just don't believe a reasonable juror or judge would buy that. Its fairly common practice for police officers in CA to question drivers about drinking long before any Miranda warnings are read. But nonetheless, great analysis of the situation.
NSFW (language)
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uj0mtxXEGE8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uj0mtxXEGE8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uj0mtxXEGE8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uj0mtxXEGE8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
