It's always Shut The Fuck Up Friday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o

My preferred, more useful, go-to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (Don't Talk to the Police)

edit: haha, scrolling down this is linked another 3+ times

> The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police. They are not your friend, they are not trustworthy, and they will hurt you, badly, and suffer no consequences.

Would that have changed the outcome in this case?

Hard to say, but he voluntarily informed the police he had a large amount of money with him in the car during a routine traffic stop.

We know for sure that this cooperation led to the money being seized. We can't know if staying silent would have led to a different outcome.

Just a few days ago, I made the mistake of telling the police how much cash I had with me after they stopped the taxi I was sitting in (a few hundred euros). This happened in the middle of the night in a foreign country (France), so I didn't dare to disobey their orders. They took the cash and drove away. It turned out they were not real officers, but only dressed up as such for the purpose of robbing gullible tourists...

The taxi could have been in on it -- its a trick that is normally used in poorer countries but looks like its reached the EU.

I had this same thing happen to me in NYC, outside JFK airport. Not limited to poorer countries at all.

But remember, folks, rideshare services are unregulated and potentially unsafe.

/s

Over here (Uruguay), rideshare services are way more reliable for tourists.

I have family from the countryside, and while they're not robbed outright, they're driven on the most inefficient way that drives up the meter.

Tourists can pay up to 100 dollars for a trip from the airport for example (legally if morally questionable).

A similar trip on a rideshare is less than half, but they're banned from the airport.

Plus, taxi drivers are unionized and are terrible drivers, while rideshare drivers are regularly kicked out if they give substandard service.

The same situation in many developing countries around the world. The local taxi cartels have been using lobbying and outright violence to keep ride-sharing services away / banned.

NYC is poorer country, in a lot of people's cases.

Did you go to the police?

That sounds like an instance of the old saying, "Got a problem? Call the police. Now you have two problems."

According to the article, the officer directly asked him if he had a large amount of US currency in the car. There's no way to weasel out of answering that kind of direct question if you've already been cooperative with other questions. It's possible, though uncertain, that he might have kept his money by categorically refusing to talk from the start of the stop.

With state cops you are allowed to lie under many circumstances (exceptions: identification, under oath, on reports and forms).

He could have just straight up lied, or interpreted the question in a way favorable to him (I thought you meant millions, not less than $100k).

He cooperated at all points and was doing nothing wrong. The logical conclusion is that being truthful and cooperative is not going to keep you out of trouble.

Your statement is wrong. You are allowed to stop answering questions at any time and request legal council.

If you suddenly clam up when they get to a specific question, they're probably going to be able to guess the answer.

In the US, that doesn't mean anything legally speaking. They might know then that this means you have a lot of cash on you, but that's not probably cause for a search. They still have to get permission or a warrant to search.

I don’t know about probable cause for a search, but legally speaking, clamming up to a specific question, as opposed to explicitly invoking the 5th amendment right, currently means something in trial, as ruled in Salinas v. Texas.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246

I don’t see how telling the officer you have $87k is probable cause for a search, anyway.

Isn't it a probable cause to search your car, since it's the car and the cash that has broken the law, and has no rights to privacy?

No.

First, it is not illegal to have a car or cash.

Second, in the US at least the government does recognize a limited right to privacy in the form of the 4th amendment which spies to States as well. An officer cannot search you, your car or your home without a warrant from a judge or a tangible reason to believe you are committing a crime.

Or if you agree to a search!

That's why the statement at the top of this thread is

> The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police

Suddenly clamming up is a problem, doing so less suddenly is not (I'm elsewhere in this thread roughly advocating for clamming up about anything not directly related to the traffic stop)

Clamming up when a patrol officer goes off script means nothing more than you know that he knows that you know he's off script.

"This doesn't sound like it has anything to do with the traffic stop, so respectfully I'm going to exercise my fifth amendment rights on principle".

The correct way to handle this during a routine stop is to inform the officer that you do not answer questions. In the US, you are not required to answer any questions.

Also, the police have a limited time to conduct the stop. Once they give you back your license, you can immediately leave regardless of what the officer requests that you do. The stop is over at that point, and they cannot legally detain you any longer.

> the officer directly asked him if he had a large amount of US currency in the car.

That’s a very specific question. Did the officer already know the answer?

I think they ask everyone that question so they can take the money. It's a very profitable question when the cops get to keep the money

> officer directly asked him if he had a large amount of US currency

That reminds me of something I think I read. Is there are companies that specialize in identifying motorists that are carrying large amounts of cash. They make money by selling that info to the police.

Can you put more info on this? :)

There was no probable cause to search the car, so possibly. It is possible that the police would have used their drug dog to manufacture probable cause anyway.

I suspect there are some missing details. Why was the original stopping officer following him for so long looking for an excuse to pull him over?

They need probable cause to bring in a dog. He should have refused to allow them to search his vehicle or answer any of their questions.

>They need probable cause to bring in a dog.

Cops have lots of practice with the rights words to say about the person's driving, behavior, appearance, and so on. Or the right things to see. Like a ziploc bag, even if there's sandwich crumbs in it. Or ashes, "residue" (i.e. brown spots on anything), etc. Or constricted pupils, even though it's sunny outside and therefore expected.

My favorite one I saw was Krispy Kreme leftovers being "meth". https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/16/558147669...

Yep. I had a cop tell me he would use anything hanging from a rearview mirror as a pretense for a traffic stop.

(That is to say: hanging things from the rearview, legally speaking, is against law in many jurisdictions — and distracting, for many humans!)

Know the law if you want to avoid being harassed by bad factions of it.

Technically, they only need probable cause if they don't have the dogs with them.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-police-use-dogs-...

He still should not have cooperated, of course. Any extra effort you force the cops to go through gives you some protection.

> They need probable cause to bring in a dog.

AFAIK this is only true in a very limited set of local jurisdictions.

The use of drug dogs to manufacture probable cause is pretty well documented.

My understanding of US law (which could be wrong) is that they need probable cause everywhere in the US if it's going to extend the duration of the stop.

You have to explicitly ask to leave, and they'll ask you to get out of the car anyway as soon as you say you don't consent to a search. Depending on how long it takes the dogs to arrive you could argue about it in court, but good luck.

"I smelled marijuana".

In many rural areas the police harrassing out of towners is normal

The "Don't talk to the Police" lecture should be required viewing for everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Yes, in case nobody have seen this video before: Don't talk to the police: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

Never talk to the police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

It doesn't really matter if you talk or don't talk. If they don't like you, they will find a reason to arrest you and hold you. If you do not put yourself in the stress position required to cuff you, they will charge you with "Resisting arrest without violence." If you are out of town, you won't be able to make bail, and you'll wait in jail for a few weeks before your first hearing.

The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" and "you won't be punished before being found guilty" is long, long gone in the USA.

Not talking to the police will not protect you - what will protect you is not being there when the police arrive. Don't answer the door if the police knock. If anyone has called the police for any reason, including those not involving you, leave immediately.

If you have to interact with the police, behave in a respectful-to-the-point-of-obsequious; be warm, friendly and cooperative. Maybe they'll ignore you. But if you stubbornly insist on your rights, and refuse to talk, they will see that as disrespect and aggression and they will hurt you.

This gentleman acted exactly the way you recommend, and look what it got him.

He didn't say throw up your sins onto your shoes — he said be polite, and forgettable.

Watch the video above if you never did. Then watch part II :-)

"Don't Talk to the Police Part 2" https://youtu.be/tIt-l2YmH8M

To be extremely frank, that only applies if you're white.

(Thanks for the downvote, I guess HN is also mostly white.)

If you're of a minority race and don't consent to searches and things there's a very high chance you will be tasered and arrested.

I was always taught by people of non-white races that if I value my life, I should always do what the police say, and file lawsuits later.

Upvoted, but it's got little to do with race. What you describe happens to everyone, regardless of gender or race. You're more likely to get this treatment if you're black, but it's probably like a 30% margin.

It doesn't apply if you're poor and white, probably why you got down voted.

> do not cooperate with the police. They are not your friend, they are not trustworthy, and they will hurt you, badly, and suffer no consequences.

This is exactly what I teach my children. Every time we are driving around and see a police car I repeat the lesson.

Giving civil asset forfeiture hasn't actually been tried in enough courts to establish enough constitutional case law what you say is an uneducated inaccuracy at best.

Also the Constitution United States isn't a law or statue. Laws can violate the Constitution because the constitution sets out limits for laws it's not a law in of itself.

I'm pretty sure you already knew the first part... but given Hacker News doesn't like illogical claims without evidence I figure I'd make sure you knew why you were getting downvoted.

You’re not wrong about Civil Forfeiture not being given enough time in court, but in regards to your commentary about the Constitution serving as law, well the Constitution makes this part clear:

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Now whilst the Constitution was written to be understood by a learned 18th Century gentleman, or the average Joe of the time, not just the lawyers, the problematic part comes from the fact that it is law and laws require enforcement and penalties for its violation. Each branch of the Federal Government is bound by oath to uphold it (in the legislative process, prior to the Executive signing off on it and issuing new rules, as well as when it is in dispute before the courts). Clearly that does not evenly occur.