Law School Lecture: "Don't ever talk to police!"

[Bloodwhiner]

excellent video and message. That will going into my folder for future reference when I'm teaching the constitution and bill of rights in American government. However I'll be interested to see what feedback I get from the administration after our School Resource Officer (ie deputy assigned to the school) goes crying to them that I am undermining the good rapport and respect he is building with the students.

 

[John Picard]

U.S. Supreme Court debates Miranda rights in Tampa case

 

[cultcross]

If you are held by police and they intend to prevent you leaving, you're under arrest in my eyes.

Agreed.

Thanks for the insights into the UK system by the way. I like that one can not voluntarily consent to a search and that the officer(s) must have probable cause to do so regardless. I'd like to see that implemented here.

I mean, even if it only happens rarely, what if it's your word versus that of the officers and they insist that you did give consent to search when you didn't? How would you prove otherwise? At least making them have to have probable cause gives you that extra bit of protection against potentially corrupt behavior.

Precisely - the rule about no consensual searches was brought in here for exactly that reason, and it is stringently enforced. More than arrest, more than use of force, more than pretty much any other power we have, 'stop and search' is a hot topic in the UK and open to most scrutiny - partly because inappropriate use of 'consensual' stop-search was partly responsible for the St Pauls and Brixton riots in the 80s. Every search that does not follow a formal arrest must have grounds (why you are searching them) a specific object (what you're searching for, which dictates what the appropriate extent is - do I really need to examine your trouser turn-ups if I'm searching for a machete?) and a specific legal power permitting the search - and all of that must be recorded and given to the subject at the end of the search. All these must exist before a search can be carried out - "do you mind if I take a look in your pockets" has no place in law.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I mean, even if it only happens rarely, what if it's your word versus that of the officers and they insist that you did give consent to search when you didn't? How would you prove otherwise?

If it's an instance where they've stopped your car, the dash cam footage could be used in your favor. It will have the whole encounter on tape.

As mentioned, only if they're equipped with one. Then apart from that, what if you talk too softly for the microphone to pick up your acknowledgment? What if the officer accepts a grunt or a nod that is too subtle to be noticeable on camera as your consent to search? What if you're sitting inside the car or your back is turned to the camera and your face is not visible?

Furthermore, you're relying on the good graces of the police officer and the department to not edit or erase the video. Yes, it can come back to bite them in the ass, but that's no guarantee that it's going to help you in your trial.