The change could lead to fewer stops, purportedly for minor traffic violations, with the actual intent of searching the driver’s car for contraband such as drugs or guns.
I’m not saying to go full sovereign-citizen-fringe-flag-maritime-law-Moorish-American. It is always your right not to answer questions without legal counsel. It is always your right not to consent to a search.
“No,” depending on why the officer stopped you, could be an admission of negligence (edit: or evidence of your level of intoxication,“He was so intoxicated he didn’t know why I’d pulled him over after he’d smashed into a guardrail”), if you “should have known.”
Exercising your rights is not “hostile and confrontational.”
The article I linked brings up the Salinas v. Texas case. My “For some reason” was more of a sarcastic nod to me thinking that ruling is wrong, that most rights don’t need to be invoked, the main reason counsel needs to be invoked is because you usually need someone else to do something (e.g. give you a phone to call your lawyer), but that doesn’t apply to being silent.
“I’m exercising my rights” is clearly stating a boundary, one which has basis in both state, federal, and repeated case law. You’re not a sov-cit inventing personhood or contract from whole cloth, it’s a very normal right that’s baked into our government
Accountability and boundaries are often perceived as hostile by narcissists and those who don’t respect other people’s agency. Interesting how you read that as hostile and doubled down.
In case anyone needs a reminder:
nowadays that’s just implied consent to a beat-down.
I’m not saying to go full sovereign-citizen-fringe-flag-maritime-law-Moorish-American. It is always your right not to answer questions without legal counsel. It is always your right not to consent to a search.
It is, but the cops will also fuck you up for it if they feel like it.
You’re also free to waive your rights if you so choose, but you’re more likely to get fucked up for that.
And add “Am I being detained?” and “Am I free to leave?”
Or you could choose to not immediately have a hostile and confrontational attitude.
“No” is also a valid answer to “do you know why I stopped you?”
“No,” depending on why the officer stopped you, could be an admission of negligence (edit: or evidence of your level of intoxication,“He was so intoxicated he didn’t know why I’d pulled him over after he’d smashed into a guardrail”), if you “should have known.”
Exercising your rights is not “hostile and confrontational.”
Exercising your rights is perhaps not hostile and confrontational.
Stating “I’m exercising my rights” is.
For some reason, your right to silence doesn’t count unless you say you’re invoking your right to silence.
This is why.
The article I linked brings up the Salinas v. Texas case. My “For some reason” was more of a sarcastic nod to me thinking that ruling is wrong, that most rights don’t need to be invoked, the main reason counsel needs to be invoked is because you usually need someone else to do something (e.g. give you a phone to call your lawyer), but that doesn’t apply to being silent.
One, it’s not. Two, where did anyone say to state that?
“I’m exercising my rights” is clearly stating a boundary, one which has basis in both state, federal, and repeated case law. You’re not a sov-cit inventing personhood or contract from whole cloth, it’s a very normal right that’s baked into our government
Accountability and boundaries are often perceived as hostile by narcissists and those who don’t respect other people’s agency. Interesting how you read that as hostile and doubled down.
You have to be extremely explicit with what you are saying or the system will misconstrued it. it is in your best interest to be clear with what you do and do not concent to. If the office has the right to do it, they will do it regardless of your concent.