Know Your Rights: Answering Police Questions

In any instance where you are stopped by law enforcement, you are most certainly going to be asked questions by police officers. They'll ask you to identify yourself[b]*[/b], what you're doing, where you live, where you're from, where you're going, etc. However, you are under no obligation to answer any of their questions. It doesn't matter if you're detained or under arrest, your right to silence prevents you from being required to answer any police questions or to even speak to police.

From many interactions I've seen of people refusing to answer questions from police, many officers interpret it as a form of aggression. They take refusal to answer questions personally or one being defensive. When refusing to answer questions, just politely explain you're simply invoking your right to remain silent. Do all you can reduce risk to yourself. Remain calm, do not give any false information and keep your hands where police can see them.

If you wish to end the interaction and leave, ask the officer(s) if you are free to do so. If you are being detained or under arrest, no matter what, keep invoking your right to silence. Don't say anything unless it's to ask for a lawyer.

[b][i]*Not being obligated to provide your identification is not universal. In many parts of the world and in some US states, there are stop and identify statutes where you are legally required to provide identification upon request by law enforcement. I'll go more into that on another post.[/i][/b]

[i]Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, this is just something I'm posting for informative purposes. Most of it is ripped from a segment of the same name on my sister's podcast, so credit to her for giving me something to post about here.[/i]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

JesseInTX · 51-55, M

That’s a slippery slope you’re riding on. First of you are detained (not free to leave, not under arrest, officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has or is about to be committed) you are required to identify yourself. If you don’t you are subject to arrest. Secondly if it is found after you’re identified by the police that you have an active warrant for your arrest the penalty is enhanced. Third you have no right to an attorney until you are placed in custody (arrested). Simply being detained does not afford a person the right to an attorney. Lastly a traffic stop for a violation is an arrest. You can be jailed for a traffic offense (in Texas the only 2 things you can’t go to jail for are speeding and open container). You receive a PR bond basically with you signature of a promise to appear. Be very careful with how you use this approach that you lined out above.

Ducky · 31-35, F

@JesseInTX You are not required to identify yourself even if you are detained and you have the right to consult with an attorney before any charges or arrests are made. This approach is sound, provided the other factors you mentioned don't come into play but that goes without saying.

JesseInTX · 51-55, M

@Ducky yes you have to identify yourself when detained. If you don’t you will be arrested and charged. The official offense title does vary from state to state. Also you do not have a right to an attorney attached until you are formally accused (charged, i.e. arrested) of a crime. Mere detention does not attach this right to an individual. The 5th amendment is the legal basis for that right. Miranda v Arizona established what is now known as the Miranda Warning which was affirmed later in Edwards v Arizona that the accused has the right to consult with legal counsel. Being detained does not equal being accused.

Ducky · 31-35, F

@JesseInTX In states where stop and identify statutes are in place, you do have to provide identification even if you're not being detained. But in states where such statutes are not in place, you don't ever have to provide identification to police whether you're detained or arrested. And I'm sorry but that is not correct. I will concede that it may vary on the situation or from place to place, but in most situations, your right to counsel begins before any charges have been filed and any arrests made.

After reading your comment again, I believe you may be misinterpreting the notion of one being entitled to a lawyer [i]at or after[/i] the time charges have been filed against them. That merely states that the accused have that right during those instances, but I haven't found anything that states one does not have the right to counsel only if they're charged and/or arrested. I looked this up too, just to be sure I did have my facts right. Unless all the sources I found are the ones who are mistaken, there's nothing to suggest we don't have the right to counsel before any charges are made.

JesseInTX · 51-55, M

@Ducky it’s nothing personal but legally your personal thoughts are 100% wrong. You’re mistaking so many things. Detention as I stated before is reasonable suspicion a crime has been or will be committed necessitating further investigation. You are obligated, in all 50 states, to identify yourself. Period. The right to counsel only applies when you are formally accused or arrested of a criminal offense. You can say you want an attorney while you’re detained all you want, but a police officer is under no obligation to release you from being detained or stop asking questions. The Miranda Warning, informing you of your right to counsel and asking if you will waive that right, only attaches when you are in custody. And an officer doesn’t even have to read you Miranda once you’re arrested. They only have to do that if they want to question you further once you’ve been placed in custody.

Ducky · 31-35, F

@JesseInTX I edited my previous comment. I was unable to find anything that supports what you're saying. I would encourage you to look this up for yourself as well. Otherwise, I suppose we'll just have to disagree.

JesseInTX · 51-55, M

@Ducky I’d suggest you start by reading the two cases I mentioned above. As well as Minnik v Mississippi, Terry v Ohio and Mendenhall v US. Not just some criminal defense attorney’s website, but the cases themselves. You can find them on the Supreme Court website. I do have a master’s degree in criminal justice. These are things I have studied extensively.

Ducky · 31-35, F

@JesseInTX I'll stick to our constitutional amendments and what they entail, thank you. But I did concede that it may vary on certain occasions. I hope you understand your claims of having a degree and studied extensively are meaningless here. Anything short of providing your valid documentation online, anyone can make those claims even if they're telling the truth. Just saying.

Let's just agree to disagree. But I'll ask you to please not challenge me on these posts again. I can respect if you're in full support of the police, but people do have rights that prevent them from having to cooperate with police and all I'm doing is informing them of what they are and advising on how they can exercise them. I'm sorry if you see this as me somehow spreading misinformation or promoting aversion toward police, but that is not my intention.

JesseInTX · 51-55, M

@Ducky I would caution anyone, yourself included, to follow what you have said here. We can agree to disagree but my points are made off decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States. You must understand that there is a difference between the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. Case law has been established and has not changed. It may in the future but the cases I asked you to read are still, at this point, the law of the land. I’d also suggest you do a little more research before you give legal advice here because if someone takes it, you are wrong and they suffer consequences you could be held civilly liable. Same advice to your sister and her podcast. Disclaimers do not hold up in a civil court where only a simple majority is needed for a finding for the plaintiff.

Ducky · 31-35, F

@JesseInTX Duly noted. Thank you.

JesseInTX · 51-55, M

@Ducky I’m not trying to be an ass at all so hope you don’t think that. I’m versed in the law, criminal law especially, and have seen people’s opinions of the law and case law have adverse effects. Don’t want that to happen to anyone over misinterpretations. That’s all. Stay safe.