Learn, print and carry this, could be useful one day  
Full article here: http://current.com/1hs8o4c

1. Miranda rights – According to the new supreme court ruling these
are not required to be read to you, so if they are not you may still be
in handcuffs later. However it is important to note that if you’re
arrested you may still remain silent as you have that right, you also
may ask for your attorney. JUST SHUT UP

2. Right to search and seizure No cop has the right to search your car
without asking first or probable cause has been determined. If he
asks to search your car say no. If they have a warrant check it, SSN
mistakes and name mistakes are common. If you last name is
Johnson, a warrant for Johnsfield is bogus

3. You do not have to answer any questions a cop asks you; other
than Name, Date of Birth, and Social Security Number. After that you
can say I’d like to remain silent.

4. If you are truly innocent of a ticket or another violation; fight it
often times they are just paid and never fought, if you fight it you can
bring in all of your evidence against the officer to include his own lack
of report filing and dash cam videos.

5. If you are arrested you have a right to know what for and how
serious the charge. Remember this is by a street cop, if you are
detained by a detective it can be up to 24 hours until they charge you.

6. Once you invoke your right to an attorney they cannot question you
any further, if they do it is a 5th amendment right violation.

7. Some states take away state troopers power when they are off
duty, they cannot detain you, cannot question you and cannot arrest
you, be sure to check your local laws. The key to this is state troopers
as legally they are only allowed to enforce laws on interstate
highways.

8. If a cop asks you to step out of the car, ask why, you have a right
to know why he wants you out of YOUR car.

9. If you feel he was improper with procedure file a complaint all you
need is his last name and badge number. Cops do have to be friendly
and courteous at all times as they represent your state/city.

10. If you have a concealed carry license and the cop asks you if you
have any weapons, let him know you have a CCL and a CCW, for him
to take it away from you he has to feel in danger, so be sure to hand
him your license before your gun. Let him know what you are
reaching for unless you like the taste of concrete.

11. Lastly remember that you are the person paying his salary, if you
don’t like what he is doing no matter what it is, complain. The system
never changes if you do not speak up. Cops get away with crimes and
violations every day because of the lack of people speaking up and
the unions.

12. Don’t get into a fist fight with a cop as you will never win, you may
beat him into a bloody lump on the concrete, but 30 of his pals are
going to drop you. It is much more effective to battle him or her in
court. The more strikes against that officer the harder it is for them to
stay on the force. What you should take away from this is to use what
you have; your brain. If you don’t like his/her questions don’t answer,
if your innocent and arrested complain. Don’t lie down and take it
because he has Police over his name and badge.

...any cops/lawyers/etc in the forum that care to comment?

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that criminal suspects must clearly state that they don't want to talk with police to exercise their Miranda rights. Silence during interrogation is not enough.
Criminal suspects may not invoke their right remain silent by simply remaining silent during a police interrogation, the US Supreme Court declared on Tuesday.
In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court said that a suspect in police custody must make a simple, unambiguous statement that he or she wants to remain silent or that he or she does not want to talk to the police.
Without such a verbal declaration, any incriminating admissions made after a suspect has been given Miranda warnings about the right to remain silent may be used against that suspect in court, the high court said.
“A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling marked “a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination” dating from the Supreme Court’s landmark 1966 opinion in Miranda v. Arizona.
“The court today creates an unworkable and conflicting set of presumptions that will undermine Miranda’s goal of providing ‘concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow,’ “ Justice Sotomayor wrote.
Miranda v. Arizona is the decision that created the requirement that police advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to the assistance of a lawyer. The requirement is designed to prevent police from attempting to solve crimes by beating or otherwise coercing confessions from suspects. It is also designed to ensure that any statements made in police custody are voluntary and, thus, more reliable as evidence.
Silent During Questioning ... Mostly
Tuesday’s decision comes via an appeal stemming from a fatal shooting in January 2000 outside a shopping mall in Southfield, Mich.
Van Chester Thompkins was arrested about a year later and interrogated by police. During the questioning, Mr. Thompkins was advised of his Miranda rights and given a form to sign. He refused to sign it.
Nonetheless, police say Thompkins verbally confirmed that he understood his rights. Thompkins disputes this.
Thompkins remained largely silent during most of a three-hour interrogation. About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the questioning, one of the officers asked Thompkins if he believed in God. When he answered, “Yes,” police say his eyes welled up with tears.
The officer then asked: “Do you pray to God?”
The suspect answered: “Yes.”
Another question: “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”
Thompkins answered: “Yes."
Thompkins was charged with first-degree murder. At trial, his lawyer tried to keep the incriminating statement out of the trial by arguing that his client had invoked his right to remain silent.
The trial judge allowed the statement to be introduced as evidence. Thompkins was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
On appeal, a federal judge rejected Thompkins’ claim that he had invoked his right to remain silent during the interrogation. That decision was reversed by a panel of the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
The appeals court said Thompkins’ incriminating statement must be thrown out because his nearly three hours of silence in the interrogation room amounted to an invocation of his right to remain silent.
Ambiguity by the Suspect
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reversed that decision. In a majority opinion joined by the court’s conservative wing, Justice Kennedy said Thompkins’ actions during the interrogation were ambiguous.
“Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police,” Kennedy wrote. “Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his right to cut off questioning.”
Kennedy added: “Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.”
Writing in dissent for the court’s liberal wing, Sotomayor said the majority opinion “turns Miranda upside down.”
“Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent – which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak,” she wrote. “At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.”
Kennedy said Thompkins’ reply to the police question about praying to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim is a course of conduct that indicated that the suspect had waived his right to remain silent.
“If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to [the officer’s] questions, or he could have unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation,” Kennedy said.
“The fact that Thompkins made the statement about three hours after receiving a Miranda warning does not overcome the fact that he engaged in a course of conduct indicating waiver,” he wrote. “Thompkins knowingly and voluntarily made a statement to police, so he waived his right to remain silent.”
A Green Light for Lengthy Interrogations?
Sotomayor disagreed. “Today’s clear-statement rule for invocation invites police to question a suspect at length – notwithstanding his persistent refusal to answer questions – in the hope of eventually obtaining a single inculpatory response which will suffice to prove waiver of rights,” she said.
The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

I am not a criminal defense or traffic offense lawyer, so I have no special expertise in this area.

My favorite gripe is the "human monkey walk", better known as the field sobriety test given folks stopped for suspected DUI.

It is almost imposssible to pass if you haven't had a drink in ten years, and if you're older than about 25.

The cop will ask you if you have any physical impairments - say "Yes".  I'm age 63.  Can I stand on one foot without wobbling?  Maybe some days; not others.  Can I do the famous walk heel to toe for 15 feet?  Again, maybe some days, not on others.  I have the normal and natural impairments of my age group - I'm not as limber as a 25 year old is.

One thing you can't fake is the light in the eyes test.   The cop is looking for what's called "nystagmus", which is an uncontrollable twitching back to center of your eyes when you don't move your head, but do move your eyes to the limit of one side or the other.  This action increases when you're tipsy, and again, you can't control it.  So tell him not to point the light in your eyes, as you have sensitive eyes (don't we all?)

bill67 wrote on 06/23/10 at 12:26:30:

Next time that happens, ask someone to make a video so we can all enjoy it

Doesn't seem that long ago when you got pulled over and were a bit tipsy, the police would either call someone to come get you, offer to drive you home or let you sleep it off in the car. Ok, so I'm going back to the 70's which was a bit more liberal. People could smoke a joint on the street (i don't smoke, but don't have a problem with people that do partake) without getting thrown to the ground by an PO wearing a swat uniform who plants his knee in the back of the pothead's neck.

Criminal justice is big business. They more people they book and print into the system, the more money the town makes.

Our elected officials cave to pressure from anti-everything groups, and that's a shame. Not related, but does anyone notice how many liberties we've lost in the past 20 years? I mean, we're still taking our choes off at the airport. Mother's drinking their own breast milk before getting on a plane Give me liberty or give me death. I am not concerned enough to give up my freedom.

LA -

The reason there are so many people with multiple DUIs these days is two fold:

1.  The limit is so stupidly low when in the past the same people in the same condidtion weren't over the limit,

2.  Cops cut no slack these days, as judges don't either.  Come to court some day and see the MADD women in the courtrooms with notepads, seeing what judges are tough and who is lenient - then they publicize this info at election time.

As for always staying on the right side - bull.  On a straight, narrow country road in the midwest, that doesn't have a curve for miles, you can see oncoming traffic a mile ahead.  Screw some stupid statute - I've hit a couple of deer at night, and it ain't no fun.  Arbitrarily saying to never cruise in the center of a narrow country road is just that - totally arbitrary and without logic.  Also, in this limited circumstance of a straight and narrow country road, getting over to the center a bit protects joggers, walkers (both of whom use my road) and bicyclists and motor scooters - anyone slower than you.

Dr. Harveys -

Erring on the side of caution is always good.

What has me so torqued off is the political correctness of lowering the DUI limit to ridiculous extremes to satisfy MADD.

None of us is perfect - we are all impaired at some time to some degree.

For instance, in Ohio we allow:

1.  totally deaf people to drive,

2.  paraplegics to drive in a car equipped with only hand controls - how well can they truly handle a car, especially in an emergency?,

3.  of course, use of cell phones while driving, any time and anywhere;

4.  unrestricted, automatic renewal of drivers' licenses by the elderly, as long as they can pass the vision test every 4 years, which only requires corrected acuity of 20/40.

5.  one-eyed people to drive, who naturally have very impaired depth perception compared to normal, two-eyed people.

There are other examples, such as allowing one armed people to drive, who obviously can't control the steering as well as a normal person can.

So my beef is simple - some degree of impairment is allowed in many situations - I only say that the .08 alcohol limit is too low - that's all.  Raise it back to .15, where a person is truly too impaired to drive.

An idea for someone who is unemployed and needs money - start a business where two people can come together in one car to a bar and one of the two can drive a person home in the person's own car, then depart together in the car they drove to the bar to get the patron who needed the ride, leaving the patron at home with his own car there.  One of the big reasons many of my friends have told me that they have risked it and have driven themselves home is the hassle of taking a cab, and then having to go back the next day, via some means, to retrieve their car that they left at the restaurant or bar.

I was reading that in British Columbia Canada they've introduced legislation to lower the limit to .06 and then to possibly .04. That means that if you happen to have a beer in the fridge you won't be able to drive.