All good points, and correct. I was referring to them continuing the tactics after you invoke your right. Once you talk, even if they tricked you, is hard to prove. Just keep your mouth shut.
It is not illegal for a cop to try and trick you into talking. They are allowed to use what ever means they want including intimidation. They only thing they can't do is touch you in any way. And once they read you your rights, once you say your not talking and want a lawyer they have to walk out of the room
Someone just posted on the general boards and I think it's worth repeating again and again and again. Too many people (especially the guys who are usually hobbying on the sly from a family life) fear arrest and think talking will help them get out of arrest.
"I was just visiting a friend"
"I was having an affair"
"I was not in there"
"I was (fill in the blank)"
...if you lie to a police officer they can arrest you. Period.
Invoke your rights. Don't say a word. Unless they were in the room with you or they have other proof, they don't know what happened in there, and it's none of their business.
Invoke your rights and shut up.
Police may not detain or demand ID from you unless you committed a crime & they have proof of claim( a warrant with your name on it signed by a judge or other proof ( your words.) They can't arrest or search based on speculation that would qualify as false arrest and illegal search/seizure and won't hold up in court if you get that far.
You can be detained on probable cause but, that still needs to be proven in court as well.
So, if you're detained on probable cause the best thing you can do is DON'T SPEAK at all, the whole silence = guilty is a lie & not valid here in Mn.
Visiting with an escort or talking to a massage parlor worker is not illegal in itself either as long as you're not soliciting sexual services in exchange for cash explicitly, you're not doing anything wrong.
Play safe !
Xo-V.
-- Modified on 9/1/2014 5:37:39 AM
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled specifically, not so long ago, that law enforcement is entitled to ask for identity and it must be provided or they can take you into custody. I don't believe that ruling was based on any specific state statute, though I might be wrong. But I would say when you are asked for name and address that is, you should give it. After all, if it's a hotel room, the name of the person who booked the room is easy to get.
If you refuse to give your identity, the cops may decide to look in a purse or wallet to get ID information and it might, I say might, be upheld as a reasonable search for that purpose. Or if they take you into custody because you refused, they will certainly inventory the purse/wallet during booking. And of course, anything in plain sight during a reasonable search is admissable. So if, for instance, condoms or lube or other "suspicious" materials were found, it could be usable against you.
I think the best advice is to give name and address when requested, but refuse to answer any other questions. That way any arrest has to be based upon probably cause rather than a technicality.
From a recent KARE11 story on an arrest when the LE request for identification was refused and the individual was then arrested. I did not link to the story for obvious reasons but here is the text (edited only to remove names). Bottom line, if you are under suspicion of committing a crime (prostitution) LE can and will ask for ID. We all need to decide ahead of time (like now) what to do if faced with this situation.
"ST. PAUL, Minn. – A cell phone video of a man being arrested in a St. Paul skyway brings up an important question about citizens' rights, raising the question -- when must you identify yourself to police?
In the video, police are investigating a trespassing call, and while doing so they ask for the man's identification.
The man says, "Why do I have to let you know who I am? Who I am isn't the problem."
The officer responds, "…because it's what police do when they get calls."
The man replies, "I don't have to let you know who I am if I haven't broken any laws."
In theory, the man is correct.
For instance, if you are walking down the middle of the state fair, and for no reason a cop asks you for ID, you don't have to show it, but if police have reasonable suspicion that you are doing something illegal, then you do have to identify yourself.
"Police have the right to enforce the laws of Minnesota, and if they are investigating criminal activity and they need to identify who you are to either give you a ticket or arrest you, that is their lawful duty and you can't hinder those lawful duties," said a noted criminal defense attorney.
In Minnesota, there is no statute that specifically deals with when police can ask for ID and when you have to give it.
Two dozen other states are much clearer about this by passing "stop and identify" laws.
Wisconsin is one of them. The statute says if an officer suspects someone of committing a crime, they "... may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct."
If you don't comply, you can be arrested.
According to the ACLU of Minnesota, "Unless suspected of a crime, law enforcement can't lawfully require you to identify yourself or produce identification. However refusal could lead to your arrest even if it's unjustified."
The law remains ambiguous.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled when police ask for your name while suspecting illegal activity, it does not violate your constitutional rights.
But the court has never made the decision on a Minnesota case."
-- Modified on 9/1/2014 9:14:04 PM
You are obligated to identify yourself. Beyond that tell them nothing.
This is a muddy issue in Minnesota, so you have to be really careful. We are not governed by statute alone. Many of the rules we have to follow are based on:
1. Precedents established in previous cases
2. The outcome of appeals, including to the state and federal supreme courts
3. Evidentiary rules and trials rules set individually by each county or circuit
This is why it gets so muddy. By statue in MN, police cannot asked for your ID "just because." If you are operating a vehicle or are in a location (like a bar) that requires ID, then you can be asked for, and MUST provide ID. Aside from those circumstances, by Minnesota law, you aren't supposed to be asked for ID unless the officer has specific, reasonable, credible probable cause to believe you have committed a crime. Perfectly black and white, right?
Well, here it comes. All of the following have, at one time or another, been upheld upon appeal in MN:
1. Cases have been upheld where people were arrested for not providing their name. Some courts hold that even though ID is not required, you are required to provide your name, and if you do, it must be your real name. Of course, this starts the slippery slope. The officer can go into court and say "I do NOT believe the person was committing a crime. But I asked them for their name, and I DID have probable cause to believe they were not giving me their real name. Misleading an officer by misrepresenting yourself IS a crime, and therefore, I now had probable cause to require them to give me their ID."
2. There were landmark cases here in MN about whether you had to reveal your face when requested by an officer, even without probable cause. Women wearing religious facial covers were arrested for failing to remove the covers when asked. The case I believe went to the Supreme Court in the 90s. These kinds of cases establish a precedent that officers ARE entitled to know who you are even without probable cause, which totally waters down the whole "we're a no-ID state."
3. Police have won appeals repeatedly where they have forcefully retrieved the IDs of people they know are not criminals. This tactic will be used in the recent Skyway case in St. Paul. The logic is "we have probable cause that a crime has been committed, and even though we don't think YOU are the criminal, we can legally require your ID to screen you out as a suspect, because eliminating you as a suspect helps us narrow in on the actual criminal."
Again and again and again, the police win appeals using this kind of logic. Even the state and federal supreme courts often just give in, instead of standing up for constitutional principles.
I TOTALLY agree that you should exercise your right to stay silent. But, I totally disagree with this blanket statement that we don't have to show ID when asked. When those cases go to appeal, the citizen almost always loses and the police almost always win, even though the state's statutes say otherwise. You BETTER have video of the incident, and it better be in a place online that will survive the confiscation of your phone. Remember the Skyway guy... His phone was confiscated on January 31, and even though he was not suspected or charged with a crime, was not returned to him until August 26. Had he been charged back in February, the only proof of his innocence would have been in the trunk of the officer's car, and there's no way he would have been acquitted.
Here's my recommendation in MN: As has been said, ask if you are free to go. If so, GO at once. If not, then you are being detained, which means right or wrong, the officers either believe, or are pretending to believe, they have probable cause, which establishes their right to ask you for ID. They don't have to be right, they just have to say they believed they were right. If you are in a public place and others are recording the exchange, you can considering refusing to show ID until you are told what the specific probable cause is. But if no one is recording the exchange, or the only one recording it likely to be detained, then you are opening one seriously messy can of worms refusing to identify yourself, and you have to do so accepting that it is unlikely you will prevail.
I am not anti-cop, anti-government, anti-establishment. But I do believe with all my heart what our founding fathers said. That government oppression comes about as the result of good people, with good intentions. We are always on the lookout for the next evil guy, the next Hitler or the next Stalin. But that's not how civilizations fall. They fall because good people (cops) doing good work (policing) with good intentions, inevitably come to see themselves as "keepers of the peace" and not as sacred guardians of the constitution FIRST and keepers of the peace second.
and I believe you can't say it enough, so thank you. M.J.
... but I think it's good advice worth repeating. If you say anything at all, to any question, just say:
"Am I free to go now?"
And the only time you should give a straight answer to any question is if they ask you, "Are you going to give us an answer to any question?" In which case, you should answer:
"No."
(This was posted awhile ago on the General Discussion, but I repeat it here because the post to which the OP provided a link is no longer there.)
-- Modified on 9/1/2014 9:07:49 AM
Well that sucks the post was pulled, but the guy said to just repeat over and over that you will not speak without your attorney present, or you are invoking your right to remain silent. They can try to trick you to talk and they have. They can try to intimidate and they have. None of that is legal but try to prove that it happened. Best you just keep your mouth shut until they get frustrated with you and tell set you free.
Edit: it was moved.
-- Modified on 9/1/2014 12:15:37 PM
It is not illegal for a cop to try and trick you into talking. They are allowed to use what ever means they want including intimidation. They only thing they can't do is touch you in any way. And once they read you your rights, once you say your not talking and want a lawyer they have to walk out of the room
All good points, and correct. I was referring to them continuing the tactics after you invoke your right. Once you talk, even if they tricked you, is hard to prove. Just keep your mouth shut.
It is not illegal for a cop to try and trick you into talking. They are allowed to use what ever means they want including intimidation. They only thing they can't do is touch you in any way. And once they read you your rights, once you say your not talking and want a lawyer they have to walk out of the room
Google "Court says Mpls. officer went too far in fondling during prostitution sting". Can't post the link for obvious reasons. But, cases have been dismissed or appealed due to the police taking things too far as far as touching goes
The problem is that it is cheaper and less hassle to just take the misdemeanor charge and promise to be good than to fight the charges in court with an atty.
"I was just visiting a friend"
"I was having an affair"
"I was not in there"
"I was (fill in the blank)"
...if you lie to a police officer they can arrest you. Period.
Invoke your rights. Don't say a word. Unless they were in the room with you or they have other proof, they don't know what happened in there, and it's none of their business.
Invoke your rights and shut up.
The problem is that despite repeated PSAs on this, when some guys are facing a cop, they get scared shitless and start yabbering. I understand the getting scared part, but you need to have some courage to face a cop down and STFU. Keep in mind that we have many guys who are cheating on their spouses, so they are paranoid to begin with, add the cop in the room and they melt down, that is a fact! So, I agree with the advice on this thread, but no matter how often it is repeated some guys (and gals) cannot or will not STFU when confronted by LE.