Ten basic things everyone should know when cops want to talk

Whether you're pulled over by police or have an encounter on the sidewalk, here are some essential tips on how to preserve your rights.

I. It's insufficient to simply remain silent because police might construe that as uncooperative behavior.

II. In order to preserve your constitutional rights, you should never consent to forfeiting them.

III. By answering questions without the benefit of your lawyer, you are forfeiting your Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination and undermining your Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

IV. By consenting to searches, you forfeit whatever shred of Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search & seizure the Supreme Court hasn't yet eviscerated.

V. To preserve your 4th, 5th & 6th Amendment rights, say out loud that you refuse to answer any questions without your lawyer, and that you do not consent to any searches.

VI. A person’s refusal is insufficient cause for cops to suspect wrongdoing, which is the necessary legal justification for cops to detain you.

VII. If a cop can claim you committed an offence like speeding, he can then detain you long enough to write a summons. An offence also gives him adequate justification to demand your driver's license, insurance and registration. However he cannot arbitrarily expand the scope of the seizure (detention) without some other justification ... or your consent. Once the summons is signed, you are, de facto, free to go, so any subsequent encounter then becomes a voluntary (or consensual) one, to which you may refuse and politely depart.

VIII. Lacking reasonable suspicion or probable cause, a cop can't legally detain you ... unless you consent to it. Also, if no offense has been committed, he cannot demand identification (except in states with stop-and-ID laws; but even there, 'reasonable articulable suspicion' of wrongdoing is still needed).

IX. A casual conversation is a consensual encounter, but you may only know whether it's consensual or not if you ask specifically whether you're free to go. A trial verdict can turn on that fact alone.

X. Cops can and do con citizens out of their rights in order to bolster their arrest metrics and standing in their respective departments.

These tips are but a tip of the iceberg when it comes to criminal law. The more you know, the better prepared and more confident you can be if you have a run-in with police. And please don't take these items as wholesale facts; please let them be a trigger to get you started with your own research.

If you want to know more, you can start with the landmark Supreme Court Miranda case associated with the Miranda Warning, the case that defined modern day stop-and-frisk encounters called Terry v. Ohio, or Brown v. Texas, which established stop-and-ID standards.

Understand that I'm an informal student of criminal law and not an attorney. This article represents a few of the things I've learned throughout my adult life. It's not legal advise by any stretch, but rather a launching pad for your own legal research.

The cops have a plan for you

I've written about police encounters through the general advice of criminal defense attorneys and have shared a particular video that outlined one pretty important rule. You have the right to remain silent, so you should do it. The "Don't Talk to Cops" video was close to an hour. This lesson is not.

I've found another excellent video that covers the same essential bases, but it's much more condensed, yet well articulated and laid out. It's by defense attorney Mary Griego. Her basic message is that police have a plan for you, and that's to make you an informant ... against yourself. Your task is to have a plan of your own ... hopefully before cops come calling.

Instead of rehashing it in detail, I'll give you the recap version. When the cops come knocking, follow these steps to minimize the amount of evidence that is collected and used against you:

1. Shut up! Please shut up!
2. Stay shut up ... unless you're refusing consent, asking what you have to do, asking for your lawyer or giving your name and date of birth.
3. Do as you're ordered and not as you're asked. Make sure you're not being conned into thinking you have to unless it's a command.

Griego suggests you create crime fantasies and practice with friends how you'd handle yourself when police knock on the door. She says to do it with your kids because minors also have civil rights.

Source: Ignite New Mexico. Tags: Albuquerque, New Mexico | Albuquerque Police Department (APD) | Bernalillo County Sherrif's Office (BCSO)

Rights are like soil; mitigate erosion or lose them

I watched a video about a DUI checkpoint where the driver refused to answer questions and some of the subsequent comments were scathing. “All you had to say was that you hadn’t been drinking.” “Dude, you had your kid in the car, so you should have just cooperated.”

It disturbed me most to read some of those ignorant comments, so I made one of my own, thanking the person for posting the video.

[ Watch the video ]

Thank you, Corrie! In my opinion making an oath to the US Constitution means not conning or pressing people into forfeiting the very rights guaranteed by it, whether on a wholesale level such as this or individually. These suspicionless checkpoints are akin to the tactics British and Nazi officials used to use make people prove their innocence.

It's startling to see how many people that comment here lack even a basic understanding of American civics and why the revolutionary war was fought. Because our freedom was paid for with human lives throughout American history, the least we owe to that bravery is to not capitulate when someone with the government tries to trick us out of our just rights -- or at least not criticize people like you who exhibit the courage to stand your ground and refuse to capitulate.

This is how I feel when I believe our rights are being eroded. I see it as a slap in the face to anyone who ever served in our fighting forces because the very thing that’s fashionable to say about them, that “they’re fighting for our freedom,” is completely and irretrievably lost if we continue to bow to those who believe they have authority over us, or who would regard our rights as optional and conditional.

Those of us who self-govern, and would never contemplate trespassing on the rights of others, behave ourselves because we feel it’s a moral obligation to fellow men and women.

As someone who grew up in an agricultural community, I liken our natural rights to the top soil of our land, both of which will erode unless we take careful and deliberate steps to mitigate it.

I thanked Corrie from the video because I see him as one of the good people who is helping to mitigate the erosion of our rights and is very deserving our thanks.

Throughout history, people have paid with their lives so that you might enjoy the freedoms for which they made the ultimate investment. No one is asking that you thank, or even recognize, those brave souls, but you might at least honor them with a little integrity.

Would you rob freedom from your fellow citizen freedom is you were paid to do so? Would you use artificial authority to oppress your neighbors?

Please think before you blindly relay an unjust warrant upon those you pretend to protect.

I will tell you that I cannot afford the cost of your protection if the cost is my freedom.

If the cost of your protection is my freedom, then keep it.

As we bicker with each other, we fail to notice the elephant in the room

I feel somewhat obsessed following some of the partisan bickering I encounter, although I can't say I have a stomach for it.

It sounds like some of you on the right are just as ignorant as your counterparts on the left; you both either have your heads in the sand or have been programmed by your favorite flavor of crony capitalist-owned media, who apparently manage public opinion and subsequent dialog -- which I'm sure is just as the absentee crony capitalists want it.

If they keep us fighting with each other, maybe we won't notice the elephant in the room.

On one end of the economy they pay their workers inequitable wages and on the other they steer Washington by the nose ring on tax (and other) policy, ensuring that they keep the wealth and the power to themselves. All the while we in the cheap seats get squeezed at both ends.

Look around. They don't live here. They're not your neighbors, they don't shop where you do, they don't go to your church, and they're definitely not your friends. They are, however, throwing lavish, celebrity-laced parties for your delegation.

But the poverty they are cultivating ultimately creates no demand ... and that's where we are headed as a collective, thanks to the gutless partisans we keep re-hiring.

Poverty creates no demand

Every year I have to unload on Walmart. It may be a sickness, but please bear with me just the same. The doctor says it’s therapeutic.

When someone admits to you who they are on the inside, believe them.

According to Walmart's own numbers, they employ 1,300,000 people across the country. By my math, a worker likely making under $13,000 per year needs to recognize that the fruits of his or her labor are padding the pockets of its owners to the tune of $13 billion in pure profit.

Again, this is by Walmart's own admission. If you got out your calculator like I did, you probably figured out that $13 billion equates to an average of $10,000 per year skimmed from the pockets of each and every Walmart employee across this bountiful land. And these poor people are on welfare, which is, as you well know, an array of taxpayer-funded programs.

While a manager gets to make a living wage – or at least today's median salary – which is $50,000, how do you suppose you'd feel as an associate knowing your supervisor is making at least 3 times your salary? Or that another manager is earning more than a dozen times what you're paid? Do you suppose any manager does 3-12 times the work of an associate? Or earns for the coffers 3-12 times more in revenue?

But wait. Walmart says they’re good citizens and they give to charity.

That's partly true. They do say they give to charity. But not much. And at the end of the day they’re absolutely not giving of themselves because taxpayers subsidize the right-offs.

Here’s how it plays out with Walmart’s own figures: 21% of this workforce, or 275,000 8-dollar-an-hour Walmart associates, were asked to donate a day's work to charity. The value placed on that herculean effort by the Walmart execs is $18 million.

Do the math on the numbers Walmart provides: 2.2 million hours at $18 million. That comes to $8.18 per hour. At 8 hours a day, that's 275,000 worker days.

I know that $18 million is a lot of money to most, and that's by design. But it’s really only .004% of the company's share of the American dream they capture annually. Not 10%. Not even 1%. I said it right; I did the math three times. $18 million is.004% of Walmart’s revenues, which they donated in the form of ... well, they presumably sent a few of its employees to help clean up Habitat for Humanity building sites, undoubtedly sporting blue smiley-face t-shirts, for a day … at a rate of $8.18 per hour. All expenses paid, mind you, by the US taxpayer.

This is what Walmart freely admits to. They've provided all the rope they need to hang themselves -- right on their own website! All I'm doing is a little math to give it some context and real-world prospective.

They said their foundation gave more than $1 billion in cash and "in-kind contributions around the world." That sounds pretty generous, right? Again, it's an impressive sum of generosity. But how much of that was actually cash and what portion was considered "in-kind"? And what precisely does "in-kind contributions" mean, anyway? Is that merchandise that fell out the backs of trucks? Floor scraps? And was it a tax write-off?

Bet on it.

Listen, if you think for a second that this might be a propaganda piece, then I invite you to go see the information with your own eyes: news.walmart.com/walmart-facts. (archived screenshot.)

I've heard a lot of arguments and many seem like logical points at first blush. Walmart employees should be happy to have jobs. No one is forcing them to work there. Lots of them get raises and promotions.

Well, that's sort of true. Kory Lundberg, a Walmart spokesman, told The Hill last month that the retailer promotes an average 430 staff per day. That’s basically true. I did the math. The precise daily average, using their figures, is 438.36 employees that are getting "jobs with more responsibility and higher pay."

I'll assume that's not an outright lie, but it might be veiling the real story. Isn’t it plausible, perhaps likely, that “higher” means some along the lines of 25-cents an hour – a measly $500 a year?

If the the details had been remotely impressive, we all know the Walmart spokesman would have shared a more revealing tale, but he remained ambiguous in his answers. If the average salary increase was $1 and 68% of employees got one, they'd be screaming that from the tallest buildings.

Lundberg says there are "...many associate positions that pay more than $25,000 per year." But again, the devil's in the details, isn't it? What percentage of non-supervisory associates earned more than $25,000 last year? Perhaps it's half of them. But more likely is closer to 50 people. And that would still qualify as a lot, even though it's only .00004% of their workers that can now afford to live in a trailer park instead of under the bridge thanks to the Walton family’s generosity.

The 'Hill' story’s here.

Hey, corporate America, in case you weren’t sure, poverty does in fact create no demand for the products and services you’re so incredibly proud of!

I believe more now than ever that the absentee big-box owners will not be satisfied until they lower the standard of living for everyone around the world. And eventually they will finally stop ... but only because it implodes from the very poverty it helped to create.

Meantime Walmart and others will wield their awesome power with schemes to force suppliers to all-new price lows, ensuring their places in the pockets of poor families' and the tax-payers who help feed them, as they continue to depress wages for workers, and of course continuing to enrich the absentee owners.

To conclude, I borrow the wise words of country music legends Alabama: “The fruits of their labor are worth more than their pay.”

I've changed the lyrics a little. I hope they don't mind.

There are people in this country who work hard every day
Not for fame or fortune do they strive
But the fruits of their labor are worth more than their pay
And it's time a few of them were recognized

Hello, Detroit Walmart tire & auto center workers, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line

Hello, Pittsburgh Walmart warehouse workers, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line

This is for the one who swings the broom, sweeping up the spill
Or the one behind the counter, ringing up the sale

Or the one who stocks the shelves, the one who polishes the rails
For everyone who works behind the scenes

You can see them every morning in the trucks and in the stores
In the city streets and the quiet country towns

Working together like spokes inside a wheel
They try to keep their families afloat

Hello, Kansas Walmart associates, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line

Hello, West Virginia Walmart pharmacist, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line

This is for the one who drives the big rig, up and down the road
Or the one out in the warehouse, bringing in the load
Or the waitress, the mechanic, the loss prevention specialist on patrol
For everyone who works behind the scenes
With a spirit you can't replace with no machine

Hello America, let me thank you for your time

Police encounters and traffic stops

I'm not an attorney, so this article is merely a summary of what I've learned in the last five years researching a person's rights during police encounters. It's a common assumption that refusing to cooperate with police makes you look guilty, but there are three things you can say to an officer and he or she will recognize unequivocally that you're exercising rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Asserting your rights cannot give an officer justification to elevate an encounter from a consensual one to a seizure.

Most people believe, as I do, that most cops are good. It's innate in most of us to want to cooperate with authorities. We want to be regarded as honest and helpful. And we believe demonstrating courteous behavior will result in the best possible outcome. We'll even thank an officer after being handed a $150 speeding ticket.

But police officers are heavyweight fighters when it comes to citizen encounters and, believe me, you are no match for their ability to expose even the most honest and miner of infractions. They're experts in the art of inviting you to forfeit your rights, especially if they think they smell something fishy.

As a side note, I came across a blog called Pick Your Battles that has a very clean and helpful article about dealing with internal Border Patrol checkpoints, based on personal encounters, and it's complete with links to applicable legal precedent.

What I think you should do if stopped by police.
If you're driving and are pulled over, you'll be asked for your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. Calmly retrieve them and hand them over. If asked, you should exit you vehicle (but lock it). With exceptions described below, you're required to follow most police orders. You must also sign any citations you are issued as an acknowledgement that you received the citation(s) and that you promise to appear or otherwise satisfy the requirements of any tickets. Signing doesn't indicate guilt, nor does it mean you agree with the charge.

Some say that you should only roll your window down a few inches, just far enough to pass papers back and forth. Such a practice is designed to prevent an officer from leaning into your car and then later claiming he or she got a "good whiff" of a "strong odor" of an alcoholic beverage or marijuana. The hope, I gather, is that the officer won't want to be so obvious in seeking evidence that he would stick his nose through the cracked window.

You're not required to consent to any searches, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. If you're being arrested (probable cause is required), no consent is needed in order to conduct a thorough search of the person and vehicle (or the area occupied by the subject). If you're merely being detained (investigative detention requires reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime), then police may give you a once-over "pat-down" for weapons. "Plain view" (areas viewable from outside the car) and "plain feel" (felt during a frisk) doctrines give police authority to seize items and substances that are immediately identifiable as contraband, such as banned weapons, drugs or paraphernalia.

Police can play on your ignorance and manipulate you into consenting to a search. It gets to be an artform. There's one case where a gentleman was pulled over for speeding and was invited to sit in the state trooper's prowler "to stay in, out of the rain." But when the subject reached the door handle, the trooper told the guy he had to pat him down before he got in -- something that's "routine" and for his "own safety." The cursory frisk yielded a paraphernalia charge and resulted in a complete search incident to arrest, which subsequently revealed a novelty item that was nearly mistaken for a dangerous weapon. I guess the cop thought he'd screwed the guy badly enough with his trickery and let the whacky looking dagger slide.

It's a fact that you're not required to answer any questions, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment. Whether or not you are being detained or arrested, you are never under any obligation to answer any questions. If you're free to go, then obviously there is no requirement to give any information and the encounter should be terminated. In the case above, the trooper demanded to know what each item he felt was in the pockets. "What it that? Is that a pipe?" Sadly the victim helped convict himself by submitting that it was indeed a pipe used to smoke marijuana.

There are three general levels of police encounters:

I. Consensual
This is often described as casual conversation. It's absolutely consensual; in other words. you're free to terminate the encounter and you are free to go. This is important to recognize because any information an officer collects at this point is voluntary on your part and is admissible in court.

II. Investigative detention
At this point, you are not free to go. The officer may or may not inform you that you are being detained, but you might find yourself in cuffs, being patted down for weapons. In order for an officer to legally detain you, he or she must have more than a hunch, according to the high court. Police require "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that crime is afoot and that you are the perpetrator of said crime. While you have a right to know why, the officer may not be obligated to immediately disclose the nature of the suspected crime, even if you demand to know. Most good cops will be more than willing to detail the fishy circumstances justifying your inconvenient predicament.

III. Arrest
Once a police officer feels he or she has "probable cause" or enough evidence to arrest you for a crime, then you are probably being handcuffed and placed in custody. It's likely that you and your vehicle (or the area you occupy) will be thoroughly searched (called search incident to arrest).

Everyone ought to know and and exercise their rights. This tends to frustrate certain kinds of personalities that don't take well to being challenged. The following are commonly recommended utterances everyone should direct to police at every encounter:

1. "Am I free to go?" The answer will establish whether the encounter is consensual, an investigative detention or an arrest. That matters in court because it could mean that evidence against you will be suppressed and any case brought against you as a result of the suppressed evidence would be thrown out with it.

2. "I won't answer any questions without my lawyer." Nobody knows how many laws exist, but the number is thought to be in excess of 10,000. Can you be certain you've never violated any of them? Can you be absolutely certain the officer can recount and characterize your statements accurately when called as an expert government witness to testify against you at trial? If you don't answer any questions, then none of your answers can be unintentionally mischaracterized or used to convict you. But it's not enough to merely remain silent; the US Supreme Court says a person must now explicitly assert that right before it is recognized. "Lawyering up" may well be the most prudent course.

3. "I do not consent to any searches." During consensual encounters and investigative detentions, police are always free to ask whether you mind if they "take a quick look" in your car. It's always phrased in a casual, no-big-deal way, but when you consent, a complete stranger is now free to rifle through your personal belongings, dumping your things on the road -- and even "inadvertently" breaking valuables. Are you 100% certain that you have nothing that could be construed as contraband? Giving police permission to "take a quick peek" is always a big deal. It can only give them extra rope to hang you with.

Fourth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Any involuntary detention is considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, so holding you requires some grounds. While the standard in the amendment is "probable cause," courts have allowed the lesser standard of "reasonable suspicion" of a crime to be enough to keep you in place while they determine whether they have enough to arrest you.

Any time you refuse consent for a search, an officer can always threaten to call in a K-9 unit (drug detection dog), but police don't have unlimited authority to expand the scope of the initial lawful detention unless their reasoning is well founded. Whether your car has ever had any amount of drugs in it, a dog may or may not give a legitimate indication that it detects drugs. This can be problematic for you because once an officer testifies in court that a detection dog indicated on your car, probable cause for a full search is established, even if no drugs are ever found.

Do I have to identify myself whenever an officer asks?
Beyond carrying a driver license while driving, there are no laws in Iowa that require you to carry identification at all times. Therefore you cannot be compelled to produce identification while generally being out in public, even if you're a passenger in a car or on the highway riding your bicycle. However, during a lawful detention, when they have reasonable suspicion to detain you, you may be asked to identify yourself. It's not clear exactly what that means in Iowa; do you have to answer, and if so, how detailed must one be in response to such an inquiry? Those answers should come from an attorney familiar with ID requirements in this state.

Here's what the ACLU has to say about dealing with police.

WHAT TO DO IF YOU’RE STOPPED BY POLICE, IMMIGRATION AGENTS OR THE FBI

YOUR RIGHTS
•You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
•You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
•If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
•You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
•Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
•Do stay calm and be polite.
•Do not interfere with or obstruct the police.
•Do not lie or give false documents.
•Do prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested.
•Do remember the details of the encounter.
•Do file a written complaint or call your local ACLU if you feel your rights have been violated.

IF YOU ARE QUESTIONED ABOUT YOUR IMMIGRATION STATUS

You have the right to remain silent and do not have to discuss your immigration or citizenship status with police, immigration agents or any other officials.

You do not have to answer questions about where you were born, whether you are a U.S. citizen, or how you entered the country. (Separate rules apply at international borders and airports, and for individuals on certain nonimmigrant visas, including tourists and business travelers.)

If you are not a U.S. citizen and an immigration agent requests your immigration papers, you must show them if you have them with you.

If you are over 18, carry your immigration documents with you at all times. If you do not have immigration papers, say you want to remain silent.

Do not lie about your citizenship status or provide fake documents.

IF YOU ARE ARRESTED

Do not resist arrest, even if you believe the arrest is unfair.

Say you wish to remain silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Don’t give any explanations or excuses. If you can’t pay for a lawyer, you have the right to a free one. Don’t say anything, sign anything or make any decisions without a lawyer.

You have the right to make a local phone call. The police cannot listen if you call a lawyer.

Prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested. Memorize the phone numbers of your family and your lawyer. Make emergency plans if you have children or take medication.

Special considerations for non-citizens:
•Ask your lawyer about the effect of a criminal conviction or plea on your immigration status.
•Don’t discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
•While you are in jail, an immigration agent may visit you. Do not answer questions or sign anything before talking to a lawyer.
•Read all papers fully. If you do not understand or cannot read the papers, tell the officer you need an interpreter.

IF YOU ARE TAKEN INTO IMMIGRATION (OR “ICE”) CUSTODY

You have the right to a lawyer, but the government does not have to provide one for you. If you do not have a lawyer, ask for a list of free or low-cost legal services.

You have the right to contact your consulate or have an officer inform the consulate of your arrest.

Tell the ICE agent you wish to remain silent. Do not discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.

Do not sign anything, such as a voluntary departure or stipulated removal, without talking to a lawyer. If you sign, you may be giving up your opportunity to try to stay in the U.S.

Remember your immigration number (“A” number) and give it to your family. It will help family members locate you.

Keep a copy of your immigration documents with someone you trust.

IF YOU FEEL YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED

Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don’t physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint.

Write down everything you remember, including officers’ badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses. If you are injured, take photographs of your injuries (but seek medical attention first).

File a written complaint with the agency’s internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish.

Should Senator Grassley run again?

I've said this isn't about Senator Grassley, but about the senior ruling class and the culture of submission to capitalistic gluttony they cultivate.

Continuing to say yes to rehiring our own Congressional delegation is hypocritical and irresponsible in the face of a 10% Congressional approval rating.

Members value their posture over their positions and getting re-elected over integrity.

It's now our civic duty to change the culture in Washington in every single district. We start by dismissing incumbents any way we can.

Don't Talk to Police

It's often thought that the Fifth Amendment is something you invoke to cover guilt. In court, an innocent man will certainly take the stand in his own defense, right? After all, only someone who is guilty would choose not to take the stand. Chances are pretty good that you, too, believe this. But if you have an hour, I believe I'll convince you otherwise -- and possibly give you an eye-opening experience along the way.

If you're innocent of a crime, there is no possible benefit in talking to the police. You may want to be regarded as cooperative and helpful, but in fact, only bad things can come of this choice. If at any point during the course of a long interview (interrogation, actually) it's discovered that you have broken any one of tens of thousands of laws, you've just set yourself up for prosecution and possible conviction -- and most certainly ruined your credibility with any jury. If you are guilty, you will certainly be convicted on statements and admissions you make to police contrary to your rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Understand that police officers are experts who investigate thousands of crimes during their careers and have infinite opportunities to find something in your statements -- in or out of context -- that might sound peculiar to a jury. They are better at this that you are. Not even cops and lawyers can talk themselves out of arrest; all the truly wise ones say nothing at all. In court, cops are expert witnesses and it's always their word against yours.

Traffic cops can stop a thousand drivers every year and have become very good at asking the right probing questions, seemingly innocuous, getting people to admit guilt, getting them to forfeit their rights to privacy and protections from warrantless searches and seizures. When you encounter police, no matter how smart you think you are, no matter if you're a quick study or think good on your feet, you're a 90-pound weakling entering the ring with an olympic boxer; you will get knocked out.

If a cop wants to stop you, he can simply follow you until he or she observes faulty equipment or you violating a traffic law. Not if. When. Nobody is capable of driving perfectly. To avoid being stopped, you would have to make sure a thousand conditions are provably perfect, but the officer only needs one as a valid reason to stop you. Guess who always wins.

When you are stopped, it's pretty tough to sit in your car and be perfectly quiet with a cop at your window asking questions in an urgent or commanding tone -- or even in a very friendly and accommodating way. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "What's the hurry?" "Do you know how fast you were going?" "Do you know the speed limit here?" "Where are you headed?" "Do you have anything illegal in your car I need to know about? You don't mind if I take a quick look, do you?" You may not be compelled to tell him everything he wants to know, so you might exaggerate or say something not entirely true. People inherently want to be accommodating, to tell their story and even tell partial truths (yeah, I was speeding a little). If he or she detects one lie or catches you admitting to driving 1 MPH over the limit, they win. And if you lie, you can be arrested on the spot, which means your car is subject to search and you will be written up for as many violations as they can find.

Even if you’re guilty of some crime, there’s plenty of time to confess, so why rush to give a detailed account to the first officer that wants to interview you and possibly say something that might sound like a lie? Let your attorney help you decide the appropriate time and manner to provide details of your crimes, and possibly be able to negotiate a lighter sentence in exchange for your cooperation -- an opportunity that would otherwise vanish if you speak up right away. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Jackson famously opined in his 1949 decision in Watts v. Indiana that "...any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." Regent Law School Professor James Duane teaches this: 1) even perfectly innocent citizens may get themselves into trouble even when the police are trying to do their jobs properly, because police malfeasance is entirely unnecessary for the innocent to convict themselves by mistake; 2) talking to police may bring up erroneous but believable evidence against even innocent witnesses; and 3) individuals convinced of their own innocence may have unknowingly committed a crime which they inadvertently confess to during questioning.

There are three types of police encounters:
Consensual
Investigative detention
Arrest

In a consensual encounter you’re free to go about your business if you choose to. Any questions you answer are considered part of a casual conversation among regular people and not part of an investigation. But things can escalate to the next level rapidly, depending on the information you happen to share with the officer. You do not have to answer police questions.

An investigative detention means you’re not free to go and you may or may not be given a Miranda warning. At this point, there’s no probable cause to arrest you, but there are now circumstances that give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime or are illegally armed and a potential danger to the public or the officer. At this point you can be frisked (Terry v. Ohio) for weapons. In certain circumstances you may be handcuffed and even placed in the back of a police car. They still need your consent to do a thorough search of you and your vehicle, but if they should ask for your permission, you are within your rights to tell them you don’t consent. You still do not have to answer police questions.

Arrest means you’re going to jail in cuffs and you’re most certainly not free to go. Before an officer may legally arrest you, probable cause that you have committed a crime must be established and he or she may now search you and your vehicle, if for no other reason but their safety and that of the impound attendants. They don’t need your consent at this point, but you continue to have the right to not answer any questions.

Three things defense attorneys beg their clients to say -- and nothing else:

1) Am I free to go?
2) I have nothing to say without my lawyer.
3) I do not consent to any searches.

Every defense attorney and every police officer worth their weight can give dozens of examples of how you're at a disadvantage during any police encounter. Never consent to searches and don't answer any questions, but do ask if you're free to go. Do not debate the law, do not be rude and never resist or fail to follow a lawful order (refusing to answer questions does not equate to being uncooperative, so don't fall into that trap). Cops become very good at knowing when to be disarming and when to be commanding. In either case, if they succeed in engaging you in a friendly chat, you are at a serious disadvantage.

If you don't believe that, watch this presentation given by a former defense attorney and a police officer. To law-abiding citizens, this is eye-opening and alarming. To criminals, this knowledge could work like a get-out-of-jail-free card simply by refusing to incriminate themselves.

One video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Part I - Prof. James Duane at Regent Law School, a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Part II - Officer George Bruch, an experienced military investigator and police officer from Virginia Beach, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

My 26-year-old police scanner

This is a quick demonstration of my Realistic PRO-38 10-Channel Direct Entry Programmable Scanner. The activity you hear is traffic from Des Moines PD on Sept. 14, 2013. I bought this radio new 26 years ago from the Radio Shack at Crossroads Mall in Fort Dodge. It still works perfectly.



Manufactured by Uniden and sold exclusively at Radio Shack, the Pro-38 was released on Sept. 22, 1987 and retailed for $139.95. From the catalog:

Ten Channels and 10-Band Coverage
139.95 [NEW FOR 88]
Low as $15 Per Month*
Available Sept. 22, 1987

29-29.7 Mhz 10-Meter Ham
29.7-50 Mhz VHF-Lo Band
50-54 and 144-148 Mhz Ham
136-144 Military Mobile
148-174 Mhz VHF-Hi Band
406-420 Mhz Government
420-450 Mhz Ham Band
450-470 Mhz UHF-Lo Band
470-512 Mhz UHF-Hi ("T")

Realistic Pro-38. High quality and extended coverage at a break-through low price! Features LCD channel display, review key to display frequencies, keyboard-lock switch, audible low-battery indicator. Built-in speaker, 1/8" jack for ear phone. Beltclip. Includes flexible antenna. 7 x 2-5/8 x 1-3/8. Requires 5 "AA" or rechargeable batteries, AC adaptor/charger or DC adaptor #270-1533. 20-139. .........139.95

It didn't come with one, but I found that a common US 12V DC power supply intended for a CCTV security camera is inexpensive and more than adequate. The manual suggests obtaining the Cat. No. 273-1652A adaptor, but they're quadruple the price. The unit will charge 5 NiCad AA cells with the proper dip switch setting inside the battery compartment.

Manual: http://support.radioshack.com/support_electronics/19817.htm
Ad found here: http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/radio_shac_recepteur_a_balayage_scanner_pro_38_catno20.html
Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=Realistic+Pro-38

Cherry Oh-My Pie

8 oz pkg Kraft Philadelphia Cream Cheese
8 oz can Borden Eagle Brand Sweetened Condensed Milk
1/3 C ReaLemon Lemon Juice
1 t. Mccormick Pure Vanilla Extract
6-oz Keebler Ready Crust Graham Cracker Pie Crust
21 oz can Comstock More Fruit Cherry Pie Filling

Beat one 8-oz package softened Philadelphia brand cream cheese until fluffy. Gradually add one can Eagle Brand Sweetened Condensed Milk until combined. Stir in 1/3 cup ReaLemon lemon juice and 1 teaspoon vanilla extract. Pour into a 6-oz prepared graham cracker pie crust. Cover and refrigerate for four hours. Top with a 21-oz can of pre-chilled cherry pie filling.

The letter that won't die.

An "open letter" writer apparently named "Jim" has lifted this, directly or indirectly, from a letter Kent Ashcroft actually wrote to Dr. Laura (ca 2000), which has been passed around and copied -- and sometimes claimed as columnists' own words -- for many years.

The spiel was countered last year by Des Moines radio talk show host Jan Mickelson.

Iowa's Steve King moves to block California law

I'm trying to figure out how Rep. Steve King (R-Ia) rationalizes his position that Congress ought to stop California from setting higher standards for eggs sold in its state -- flying in the face of the idea that states' sovereign rights are to be preserved. It's the strangest thing.

Well, California, acting well within its rights, enacted Proposition 2, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act of 2008, which requires that certain farm animals, such as chickens, have room enough to stand, lie, turn and extend their limbs, that eggs sold in California are produced in this manner. Not all chickens, just hens, and I'm sure there are exemptions. California's not telling other states how treat hens, just to keep your stinking, tear-stained eggs out of California.

The concept is really no different than how the US tells foreign manufacturers how they may not treat their factory workers if they wish to sell their goods in this country. Retailers largely support and pursue these standards because their customers demand it -- that the clothes they wear are not made by slave labor, for instance.

It's a moral issue to many. But apparently not for all Republicans.

Congressman King was behind this proposed measure in the farm bill that would have prevented California from making rules for itself, claiming that state "exceeded its authority and interfered with Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce."

I don't see it. Sure, the fed can set minimum food safety and anti-cruelty rules, but it can't tell a state it can't have more stringent rules. Congress can facilitate some uniformity in how interstate business is conducted, but it can't force unwanted products upon a state, particularly those produced to a lower quality standard or that proliferate suffering.

I wouldn't blame anyone for being disappointed that California made it harder to do business there. I know there are retailers in that state that opposed Prop 2 because it might make it more costly to treat farm animals better. It's completely fair and reasonable to hold a differing view. But no one is forcing Iowa producers to sell their eggs in California -- or even to come up to those standards. As always, sell your eggs to any willing buyers; it's free enterprise.

No worries though. King is defeated. The farm bill is dead.

Please learn how to shoot video

One of my biggest disappointments is watching a video I was lured into by a very interesting topic, but then annoyed by serious deficiencies in content, composure and quality. Please seek and accept a few pointers.

Stop zooming! You destroy the context and framing of your shot when you zoom in and out, not to mention drive your audience nuts!

Be smooth! You can't walk your camera around a subject with shaky hands and swift motions without making at least a few people nauseous.

Fix your audio! Cheap, crumby camcorders in the hands of competition shooters are acceptable because they get audo. Bad audio ruins video always. It's too faint, competes with background noise, it's overtaken by a music bed or otherwise muddy or shrill. You'll do better when you treat the internal camcorder microphone as a...that's right, microphone! That usually means the camcorder has to be within a foot or two of the subject in order for it to be effective.

Please by a cheap tripod! 90% of the amateur mistakes you could make will be masked if you drop the camcorder on a stable platform, frame the shot, and leave it alone! A bean bag on a dining room table or fireplace mantle is a good alternative to a tripod.

Did I mention background music? Please don't add it! You could have an amazing, killer video, but the second you choose a music bed, you seriously reduce your potential audience. It's fine in your bedroom or on your iPod headphones, but everyone else isn't crazy about it. I've never heard of most of the groups that put out rubbish, but for reasons unknown the producer of the bicycle video I recently saw thought it necessary to toss in some acid-punk-rap at 150% volume that made my ears bleed! I love bikes. I hated the music! If you want to limit channel subscriptions, then go ahead and keep slapping your favorite acid-punk-rap numbers on your videos. But know people will be clicking the 'X.'

Edit! The cheapest editing suite known to man is Windows Movie Maker. It has the ability to cut out boring scenes. Please use it! One of the most meaningless phrases known to man is, "next what we're gonna do is we're gonna..." Leave that out. Also, "...and I'm gonna pause it here and show you (whatever)...okay we're back with the..." Yeah, that's not exactly instrumental to your story. Delete.

Transitions. No! Just no! Just because your editing suite has a number of cool-seeming transitions doesn't mean you have to experiment with them all. A simple cut is perfect for almost all scene transitions and a basic crossfade will almost always be adequate between topic changes. Blocks, page turns, diamonds, curtains and nearly every other style of wipe is for amateurs trying to be cute. It takes away from the subject matter in a very obnoxious way and should not be used unless you truly understand video story telling and mood crafting.

Buy a mic. Understand audio is 80% of the art of shooting video. This could have been the first bit of advice, but it's so often not a an option for modern, of-the-shelf consumer camcorders that it's barely worth mentioning. But if your camcorder has an external mic input, or your video editing suite permits you to replace the camcorder's audio, then please consider using one of those options. The typical camcorder has the most horrible-sounding audio, so in almost every situation, it's better to find an alternate means of recording audio.

Hold still, for crying out loud! If you have to "run & gun," that is to shoot from the hip or in handheld mode, as opposed to shooting from a tripod or other stable platform, then please tuck your elbows in, find the shot quickly, and finally...hold that shot!

Does any of this help? I hope so. There's so much more to tell about shooting video, but heeding the advice you've just read will dramatically improve your chances of escaping notice by those who are happy with the ominous thumbs-down and the beloved composure hecklers.

Happy YouTubing!

Christian group: Think you might be gay? Stay out of the Boy Scouts!

A group sponsored by the out-of-state National Christian Foundation of Tampa, Florida held a rally in Des Moines Friday in an effort to convince Iowa BSA delegates to vote to deny youth who think they might be gay from joining the religious organization. The ban on openly gay scout leaders will not be affected by the organizational referendum.

Demonstrators for N.C.F. held placards in front of news cameras that read, "NO ON THE RESOLUTION - OnMyHonor.net."

First of all, it's an ugly notion that a personal development group for American youth would ostracize and categorically oust one of its 8-year-old members after admitting to a mentor that he thinks he might be gay. How the hell does that work and how can it be rationalized?

Fortunately Channel 13 was on the ground sniffing out the truth. They inform us that the Boy Scouts of America will be voting next week on whether to maintain the ban and produced an unnamed spokesperson for N.C.F. (possibly Scott Russell), who said, "Unfortunately I don't want my troop turning into a battle ground for the gay agenda. I'd just as soon to keep sex and politics out of boy scouts."

It's absurd that a professional religious activist whose actions scream classic politics says he wants to keep sex and politics out of scouting when sadly he thinks people are stupid enough to accept his bigoted reduction of the issue, that if local scout leaders vote yes, they'll somehow be condoning tent sex parties among little boys.

B.S.A. Mid-Iowa Council spokesperson Bob Hopper was less radical: "We have a set of ethics that we try to hold up to all of our members and we're going to keep focused on that. Um. But it's a real sensitive topic, and-uh, from all the perspectives, and we're going to do the best we can."

Let's hope "ethics" isn't Hopper's code word for anti-gay, that he does in fact support youth development without regard for a child's personal sexual orientation.

The story also cited famed Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout who founded Scouts for Equality, saying simply that "discrimination has no place in scouting." A supporting graphic showed that Wahl's group has the support of 6,821 openly gay Eagle scouts and has obtained 1,815,304 signatures on a petition in support of the policy change.

While the domain ONMYHONOR.NET is registered anonymously, the website states; "Donate to The OnMyHonor.Net Fund!...mail your donation to OnMyHonor.net c/o National Christian Foundation, PO Box 22774, Tampa, FL 33622"

It's more than a little unsettling that a religious fundamentalist mob out of Tampa, Florida adorns the ubiquitous scout uniform, buses radical members to Iowa and pretends to speak for our scouting organizations -- and creates an illusion that sexual deviance is sure to result if we don't go along with their sick, twisted hate agenda.

As we now know, the far greater threat is scout leaders who regard raping little boys at the Jamboree an annual sport.

Digitus Impudicus: is flipping the bird illegal?

I recently read a federal appeals court ruling that says cops can't stop people for merely giving them the finger. That would make Roger Roots, author of Are Cops Constitutional, proud.

The case begins in May of 2006, when a man and his wife were visiting their daughter in Johnsonville, NY and came across a police cruiser running radar. Demonstrating his displeasure, John Swartz flipped-off the cop as the couple drove past.

Piqued by this insulting gesture, officer Richard Insogna took off after the offending motorists. Long story short, he arrested Mr. Swartz for disorderly conduct. While that charge was eventually dropped, there were several court appearances, legal expenses and inconveniences associated with the charges.

Swartz filed suit in district court seeking damages for illegal seizure, a disorderly conduct arrest and an alleged malicious prosecution, but his lawsuit was dismissed on grounds that cops are protected from civil actions based on qualified immunity.

But that's not the end of the story. On appeal, a federal judge wrote...

This ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity. Surely no passenger planning some wrongful conduct toward another occupant of an automobile would call attention to himself by giving the finger to a police officer. And if there might be an automobile passenger somewhere who will give the finger to a police officer as an ill-advised signal for help, it is far more consistent with all citizens’ protection against improper police apprehension to leave that highly unlikely signal without a response than to lend judicial approval to the stopping of every vehicle from which a passenger makes that gesture.

The whole decision is here.

The court partly used Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law by Ira Robbins, whose abstract is here.

God and politics

I don't look to religion to measure a candidate’s worthiness. I could get behind someone who proposes, supports and defends public policies that respect the well-being of the people – someone who respects Constitutional principles like freedom and liberty – without regard to their faithful viewpoint.

I trust no government, or candidate for an office thereto, to have a hand in the implementation of policy that would define or regulate my marriage. I believe in giving women and men control over their own reproductive systems, unencumbered by government’s meddling.

As a military man, I defend your right to form private or exclusive organizations that promote various ideologies among its members under the guise of some faith, so long as it doesn't impose restrictions or injury upon those who don’t share their worldview.

I've got my viewpoint. You've got yours. Can we agree that government is not an institution that could appreciate or care about either? I would prefer you help the rest of us keep government out of our way.

It’s very problematic for many thinking people to accept that there’s a prime mover that not only created the world in which we live, but all its inhabitants, and one who also knows us personally, cares about us, and is concerned with the positions in which we have sex, and have our genitals carved.

If the scripture to which you refer is truly divine, then one would hope it would have something more useful and advanced to say than, “Don’t touch dead pigs;” any educated person of the first century could have extolled such wisdom.

Ghost printing

My printer inexplicably generated a paper airline boarding pass bearing my name for a flight I didn't book. I immediately checked my bank account online for any charges that might be related to that purchase, but I found none. I called the police, the airline and my bank to investigate this potential fraud. I had all working feverishly on this most alarming matter.



Long story short: the email address associated with my HP printer's ePrint account is apparently similar to that of another person sharing my name, who evidently inadvertently gave the airline my ePrint email address. United then emailed his boarding pass to the address given, which was then received and processed by my printer, handily, albeit mysteriously, producing a paper boarding pass that landed on the printer receiving tray.

Longer version.

I called United Airlines. After sitting in a queue for nearly 40 minutes and after ascertaining identifying information from me, they confirmed that the person who booked the flight was not me, and that the boarding pass was sent to me by mistake and therefore didn't indicate fraud. They couldn't explain how my printer was involved, which still had me quite concerned.

I called my bank. Not knowing amount or date of a transaction, my bank was not able to immediately find any record of a transaction that might be attributed to the purchase of an airline ticket under my name, fraudulently or otherwise.

I then turned to my printer setup pages. as I discovered there is an "ePrint" feature which sends documents to my printer via email. The email address associated with my ePrint service bears my name. I had forgotten I set this up this account and feature when I installed the printer.

It is now conceivable to me that another person with my name also owns this style printer and the ability to send documents to it. It is plausible that the email address associated with his ePrint service is similar to mine. In fact, on inspection, my ePrint log revealed that an email bearing the subject "Boarding pass for confirmation xxxxxx" was sent from unitedairlines@united.com to my printer around the time the boarding pass began printing.

I have since restricted received ePrint emails to reject all but those addresses I have supplied. There will be no more mysterious boarding passes landing in my receiving tray unless a hacker manages to make that happen.

Drone warfare for dummies

Drone technology is shrinking, which should terrify you. More so even than the small aircraft we've been seeing on the news.

When the technology is so easily available to hobbyists, then organizations and individuals can handily eliminate their threats without personal risk, we have a problem. When thew can overwhelm you, there's literally no defense; no guns or toxins will stop them.

Today's hobby style RC (radio-controlled) planes, tricopters and quadcopters are capable of delivering payloads of insect-sized microdrones in significant numbers. And the term radio-controlled is an enigma, really, because these drones can easily be made autonomous using cheap programmable computer modules and sensors. Arduino is one. See how cheap.

Others are developing rather fast, like the newer Hobbyking KK2.0 Multi-rotor LCD Flight Control Board. Think of it as advanced avionics capabilities for electronics novices.

Armed with one of these inexpensive controllers, you command your aircraft with a list of if/then statements based on specific states of sensors, commanding a swarm of tiny-but-deadly attack robots.

These little buggers are smart, too. Every control surface can be pre-programmed to adjust its course, just like their full-sized counterparts with autopilot. And the computer chips inside keep track of the same kinds of information good pilots do, such as:

• Location
• Air speed
• Bearing
• Altitude & attitude

Also conditions like:

• Wind speed & direction
• Temperature
• Humidity
• Barometric pressure

You can now send your drone on pre-programmed mission. Imagine telling yours to go to coordinates x and y at an altitude of z and energize switch n. Basic instructions like that might send the drone to an elementary school playground during recess and release poisonous gas.

I was enjoying watching Iowa radio talkshow host Simon Conway and Iowa Dept. of Education director Jason Glass go at it this afternoon in a Twitter war.

@simonradio1776 dude, switch to decaf & stop being a goon. I don't think there is a need to question my patriotism or knwldge of country.

— Jason E. Glass (@jasonglassIA) January 31, 2013

Formed by the framers as a republic in which only 6% of the population were allowed to vote, the United States has taken on some democratic attributes over the years. It might be said that we have a democratic republic, or even an indirect democracy, but at its foundation the country is in fact a republic, with at least some protection against the tyranny of the majority.

But this is not the amusing part of the story. How does the state representative on education look when he addresses a member of the media as "dude" and calls him a "goon" on Twitter?

Is Subway shorting customers?

I find recent news reports on the lawsuits being filed against Subway for selling shorter-than-12-inch subs curious.

Why are people concerned with the actual length, which to me seems somewhat arbitrary? What if I promised you a foot of gold but delivered on 11? How much does an inch of gold weigh?

How much less sandwich are people receiving in an eleven-inch sub compared to a 12" sandwich? I imagine it matters whether you judge strictly by length, as opposed to volume or weight. For my money, I'd rather use the weight of the various parts, bun and contents, to determine the answer.

Length can be affected by shape or density of the bun without affecting weight, assuming strict adherence to portion control of the dough is maintained.

If I were asked to decide the damages, I would demand to know what criteria the plaintiff values and at what rate. I might also ascertain whether the plaintiff bothered measuring depth and width, because those dimensions could make up for any loss in length.