I think this discussion has gotten a little sidetracked. The video at issue isn't about the new "immigrant law" in Arizona (which I think is a bad law and will probably be repealed soon) or the outlandish notion of private police forces (which made me think of the scene in "Gangs of New York" involving private fire departments). It isn't about that looney sheriff in Phoenix who treats pretrial detainees (who've been convicted of no crime) like his own private slave labor force. Rather, the video presents suggestions on how to act during a police stop. Let's examine those suggestions.
I think the first principle to follow during an encounter with LE is:
1. The ruder the cop is, the nicer you are. I think the fictional driver in the video repeatedly violates this principle. He drives way too long before stopping. He tries to go one up on the cop by initiating the conversation. He only opens his window a slit. He locks the doors to the car. His tone is a little smartassy. But must important, he talks WAY too much. The driver's behavior is provocative, leading to the (rather hammy) reaction by the officer.
I don't think any of us here on this particular board (other than our snooping friends from LE) would disagree that cops lie to make cases that can fuck up our lives. I think we should approach contacts with LE not as a game to be "won" with verbal acuity, but rather as an opportunity to use our wits. After all, isn't the goal to avoid a charge? That's one reason I don't understand the gleefulness of the backseat passenger in the video. I mean, the driver got a ticket that he's going to have to pay. Where's the victory in that?
The other basic problem I have with the video is the Average Joe just won't have the verbal mastery of the actor/driver, especially with John Law in his face. That leads to my second principle to follow during an encounter with LE:
2. Say nothing, do nothing. Cops ask questions during a stop to gather evidence against the suspect. Ever notice how a cop will have their pen poised over their ticket pad while they ask their leading questions? It's so they can write down your damaging admissions on that little line on the bottom of the ticket, like "Driver said he's sorry for speeding." If there's a trial 6 months from now (or even longer in many cities), the officer can refresh his memory and testify you admitted your guilt to him or her.
So I wouldn't suggest blabbing on and on like some smartass yuppie who's had too much Starbucks. If the cop asks you why you were speeding, give the cop a wry smile, nothing more. Trust me, he won't write "Driver made wry smile" on his pad -- he'll write nothing. Sure, answer questions about where you were going and where you live and such because it's no skin off your nose to answer. Be cooperative and hand the cop your license and proof of insurance. Chances are the cop will send you on your way -- without a ticket.
Now if you're carrying a dead body or large sacks of white powder in your back seat, that's a different story. It may be worth the risk to aggressively assert your constitutional rights. What have you got to lose? You're probably going to the Big House anyway.
But I think there are some readers, the anti-guvmit type (recently, they've adopted the fashionable moniker "Tea Party," but their philosophy is basically the same as ole John C. Calhoun in the early 19th Century), who think that every contact with LE should be a confrontation over "aw rats." I say, more power to you! Hew the path of liberty for others! Yee-HAAAW! I'm a criminal defense lawyer and I could use the business defending you, assuming you can get a second mortgage on your double-wide.
Two final thoughts. First, you might download and print this (one for you and one for a buddy):
American Civil Liberties Union Bustcard
I've kept a laminated Bustcard with me since the olden days when I used to commit crimes. It has some very practical advice about what to do during an encounter with LE. Even if you're in the Tea Party you can use it. Light it on fire and shout anti-guvmit slogans at the cop who stopped you.
Finally, the law recently changed regarding traffic stops. For years, the police have used a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision (called
New York v. Belton) to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles even when the searches were unrelated to the reason for the stop. For example, a cop would stop and arrest a suspect for driving with a suspended license, then search the vehicle's interior (and maybe even the trunk), although there would be no reason to think there was evidence in the vehicle directly related to the crime of DWSL. The rule was, "if arrest, then search."
In 2009, the Supreme Court, in
Arizona v. Gant, held that the Fourth Amendment requires LE to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to an arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. The ruling is still being filtered through the lower courts, but hopefully cops busting people for possession for contraband recovered in vehicles during routine traffic stops will go the way of other LE techniques, like thumb screws and billy clubs.
What to do if you are pulled over
