Never talk to the police & Know your rights

So I have been doing some research about my rights and realized that I do NOT ever have to talk to the police and I NEVER have to answer any of their questions.

I may be compelled/required by statute to show my drivers license, insurance and registration but I do not have to say anything or answer any questions.

I may be compelled/required by statute to provide my name, address and date of birth if I am being charged with a crime, but again I do not have to say anything or answer any questions.

Just my opinion, but the best thing you can do is say NOTHING ... do not give them the evidence they need to convict you!!!

Here are some excellent resources I have come across:

http://www.trafficticketparalegal.com/s ... s-victory/

http://www.criminaltriallawyers.ca/?q=know-your-rights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5EFAxVaUlA

http://www.hosseinilaw.com/talking-to-the-police/

And here is another great article about your right not to talk to police which addresses the "requirement" to identify yourself and give a statement if you are in an accident:

http://canadian-lawyers.ca/Understand-Y ... ident.html

I declined to give a statement once. It's a tough call.

Give a statement = might get charged.

Don't give a statement = definitely get charged.

Exactly that.

How does talking to the officer, and being nice, give them evidence to convict you? Being nice, and polite may mean you will get a reduced ticket, or only one when you could get more. You can still deny answering certain questions, just be nice about it. By doing what you are suggesting you have already tipped the officer off that you will be fighting your ticket anyway. So, if you are going to fight one, here's a couple more, fight them too...now you go into court with a boquet of tickets, it puts you in the position of wanting to make a deal. It makes it much easier for the prosecutor to make a deal by dropping one or two, or not, depending on your attitude on the roadside (along with your record)

My experience is this:

Don't give a statement = definitely get charged

Be nice, polite, apolgetic and give a statement = still definitely get charged.

I never suggested above that you should be rude or impolite. I simply say, very nicely "No comment." or "Am I required to answer that?"

This is your RIGHT to not say anything. The law says you do not have to say anything. I am doing nothing wrong. And in fact if a police officer gives you more tickets because they don't like your attitude then they are the ones breaking the law.

Here's the results from a University of Waterloo study on saying "sorry" when stopped: http://www.therecord.com/news-story/257 ... s-suggest/

Two University of Waterloo social psychology researchers decided to tackle the topic, asking more than 1,000 people in Canada and the U.S. how their responses to officers issuing a ticket affected just how much they had to pay.

Their findings? A simple "Im sorry," was the most effective and actually reduced the fine issued by an average of $51, according to study respondents.

While most people who answered the researchers survey, around 46 per cent, said they offered an excuse when confronted about their speeding, it didnt have a significant impact on the fine they were handed.

Staying silent or denying that theyd been speeding didnt help either. The only thing that drivers consistently reported as effective in reducing their fine was an apology. In fact, 30 per cent of drivers reported expressing remorse and receiving a reduced fine.

The "Im sorry," line only worked for drivers caught travelling around 40 km/h over the limit, though, according to the study. Those who were stopped going between 10 and 16 kilometres over the limit reported that their remorse didnt relate to the fine issued.

The findings confirmed the researchers anecdotal suspicions that showing regret for the action, especially in a situation like a speeding ticket where theres no immediate victim, was enough to prove a lesson had been learned and to act as a deterrent from repeating that offence.

The only problem with the study is that you do not know whether the officer might have reduced it anyways even if you did not say sorry! But interesting none the less!

And even a reduced fine with no demerits still affects your insurance the same, so for me I would fight it whether they reduced it or not. So I will just continue to stand up for my right not to talk to them before government takes that one away from us as well.

Police by nature are very suspicious of people. I do not work traffic division but I dot traffic when it is slow.

I rarely ticket unless you do something I consider dangerous.

I have had people answer no comment or do I have to answer this makes me suspicious. So I never ever give warning or reduction when confronted by this. Plus I make sure my notes are complete and review them to make sure I did not overlook anything.

You won't talk yourself out of a ticket in most cases. However you will talk yourself into one.

That's the discretion. It is totally up yo me to de ode if I charge.

Officer to driver 1: What happened?

Driver 1: He hit me

Officer to driver 2: What happened

Driver 2: He hit me.

Officer to eye witness: What happened?

Eye Witness: Driver 1 hit driver 2.

Officer to Driver 1: Witness agrees with driver 2. I'm going to charge you with dangerous driving under the criminal code unless you have something else to tell me.

Driver 1: PC, he hit me. Look at the marks. I urge you to call in your accident specialist to get his opinion before you charge me. I have nothing more to say officer.

Officer to Driver 1: I am then charging you with DOOMV under the criminal code you have the right to remain silent........

OPS Copper wrote:

You won't talk yourself out of a ticket in most cases. However you will talk yourself into one.

THIS.

OPS Copper wrote:

You won't talk yourself out of a ticket in most cases. However you will talk yourself into one.

Exactly... so just don't say anything!!

jsherk wrote:

My experience is this:

Don't give a statement = definitely get charged

Be nice, polite, apolgetic and give a statement = still definitely get charged.

I never suggested above that you should be rude or impolite. I simply say, very nicely "No comment." or "Am I required to answer that?"

This is your RIGHT to not say anything. The law says you do not have to say anything. I am doing nothing wrong. And in fact if a police officer gives you more tickets because they don't like your attitude then they are the ones breaking the law.

And what law exactly would be being broken by an officer charging based on attitude ?

My point was that they can't make up charges and give you invalid tickets for having a bad attitude. If they charge you for something, then it had better be a valid charge.

I really don't think showing your stripes at the roadside is smart.

When pulled over there are ways to be sociable and apologetic without admitting the offence or signaling to the officer that you intend to fight the ticket. Ideally you want the officer to think you are just some regular idiot that is going to seek out a plea bargain or pay the ticket because of a roadside reduction.

Something like, "I'm sorry, I don't know what else to say." then change the subject to something that sounds like an excuse and say "I was on my way to my exlover's, husband's, sister's, brother-in-law's, cat's funeral....blah blah blah." Even a slight denial with an apology might help, "I didn't think I was doing X, but if I was I am sorry." If you get a reduction be thankful.

jsherk wrote:

My point was that they can't make up charges and give you invalid tickets for having a bad attitude. If they charge you for something, then it had better be a valid charge.

That isn't what you said

I know that's not what I said, but it is what I meant to say which is why I clarified it.

My fingers don't always type what my brain is thinking.

Here is another good article on the Right to Silence:

http://robichaudlaw.ca/right-to-silence ... n-sinclair

jsherk wrote:

Here is another good article on the Right to Silence:

http://robichaudlaw.ca/right-to-silence ... n-sinclair

No, i'd disagree. This forum deals mostly with run of the mill Highway Traffic Act charges. You've linked to something barely relevant to continue your "stick it to the man" routine here on the forum. Anyone seeking advice for criminal charges where they find themselves in an interrogation room, in jail, or need a criminal lawyers checklist, shouldn't and wouldn't be seeking the advice of this forum.

I still don't understand why people think I am trying to "stick it to the man" ... the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees us the Right to Remain Silent and the Right to Not Incriminate ourselves and this right applies even to minor traffic violations.

The article gives a great overview (albeit from a criminal charge perspective) of those rights and the advice can be easily applied to traffic stops as well.

You can disagree and you can talk to police all you want (whether at the side of the road or an interogartion room), but the law says I have the right not to talk to them and I think most people do know about this right and/or do not understand this right.

I am not suggesting that anybody ever be rude or impolite to police, and I am not trying to stick it to anybody... just letting people know what their legal rights are, even in non-criminal situations.

I don't think a criminal charge and a minor traffic matter are analagous.

I find the whole "I don't have to talk to you" attitude of some people as akin to teenage angst and thumbing their nose at authority. The danger in advising people to exercise their rights in this manner is that if they do not understand what they are REQUIRED to do they may find themselves in a jackpot by refusing to cooperate with a police officer in the lawful execution of their duty, and as a result may find themselves facing a MUCH MORE SERIOUS jackpot such as an obstruct charge.

I'm all for being aware of your rights, but there are circumstances where exercising them seems foolish, and just complicates matters.

I choose to try and educate people on what their rights are, including what is also required of them. This is what I said in my very first post:

jsherk wrote:

So I have been doing some research about my rights and realized that I do NOT ever have to talk to the police and I NEVER have to answer any of their questions.

I may be compelled/required by statute to show my drivers license, insurance and registration but I do not have to say anything or answer any questions.

I may be compelled/required by statute to provide my name, address and date of birth if I am being charged with a crime, but again I do not have to say anything or answer any questions.

Just my opinion, but the best thing you can do is say NOTHING ... do not give them the evidence they need to convict you!!!

Mugwug wrote:

I'm all for being aware of your rights, but there are circumstances where exercising them seems foolish, and just complicates matters.

You don't see a problem in this country when exercising your legal rights becomes "foolish and complicates matters"?

You don't see a problem in this country when the police are allowed to lie/deceive you when questioning you, but if you lie to them you can be charged?

You don't see a problem in this country when the police using the law to charge somebody is okay, but when the average person uses the law to try and get those charges dismissed they are "sticking it to the man" or "thumbing their nose at authority"?

Being questioned by the police on your doorstep and being stopped by the police in your vehicle are two different things. Driving is not a right, therefore you are not afforded some of the same rights and are required to follow certain orders by an officer. Posting links on what to do during a criminal investigation interrogation is getting a bit ridiculous...

And yes, your "stick it to the man" routine is dangerous. In this post here you tell a user who has hit another vehicle and took off to not talk to the police and don't answer their questions while linking to this thread. It's not her luxury to avoid the police anymore. You told the user to commit a hit and run, plain and simple. Your advice to her was to break the law and put her in more trouble than she was in before. Quite frankly, you should have been banned as it goes against the rules of the forum.

Not the first time either

jsherk wrote:

You don't see a problem in this country when exercising your legal rights becomes "foolish and complicates matters"?

You don't see a problem in this country when the police are allowed to lie/deceive you when questioning you, but if you lie to them you can be charged?

You don't see a problem in this country when the police using the law to charge somebody is okay, but when the average person uses the law to try and get those charges dismissed they are "sticking it to the man" or "thumbing their nose at authority"?

I guess we'll do this one at a time;

a) The Police lying to you. I see a problem with people suggesting that ALL police are seeking to jack the populace on all sorts of provincial and federal matters and that I should surrender any societal obligation to assist the police as they protect us all. That the police can lie to you during their investigation is merely a fact of life endorsed by the courts subject to certain restrictions, and is balanced by the fact that you do not need to submit to questioning. Refusing to cooperate with ANY police because you could conceivably have your words used against you sounds more like paranoia than the noble fight for civil rights.

b) The police keep the peace, a large part of that is enforcing the laws that are passed by the elected representatives of us all. If you get charged odds are good that you committed the offence. If they made a procedural error OR if the evidence does not support the charge then the courts will sort that out. Exercising your rights when you are being charged is prudent, exercising your rights in a routine interaction with the police screams of angst and thumbing your nose at authority - and undoubtedly extends your interaction with the police (as has been previously discussed at length).

Robert Peel said the police are the people and the people are the police. I happen to believe that, and it's based on my experience from both sides of that equation. We all have rights that are guaranteed by the charter, violations of those rights are addressed by the courts in the fullness of time. "Freedom from minor inconvenience" is not listed among them.

I was pulled over by a NY state trooper once. I got you for 72 in a 55 he said. "Yes", I said " I'm grossing 80,000 lbs today. I must have a loose wire in my jake brake harness because I hit a pot hole half way down the hill and my jake stopped working. Next thing I know I looked at my speedo and I'm going 72. Sorry about that. I have a clean record."

Trooper gave me a ticket for 72 and noted on the ticket that I admitted to speeding and having a faulty jake brake. Now I don't say so much.

Not talking is going to pretty much guarantee you get the worst possible ticket and guarantees a court appearance.

Talking might get you a lighter ticket.... but you might hang yourself too.

Perhaps I need to learn how to talk without saying anything.

bend wrote:

In this post here you tell a user who has hit another vehicle and took off to not talk to the police and don't answer their questions while linking to this thread.

It has not been my intention to offer any advice that is illegal or perceived as illegal. I will try to be more diligent in the future and consider my answers more carefully to avoid this.