Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldcode | Hacker News Reader

Just say no. In fact these agents have no authority to force you to submit to a search without a warrant, probable cause or a dog. Most people either don't understand that, or fear the consequences. What can happen of course is intimidation and causing you to miss the train entirely. Papers, please, may be a stereotype but one agents like these heartily believe in.

View on HN

It's weird that the first thing they teach you in Drug Courier 101 isn't "don't consent to a search, Dummy, you've got a brick of cocaine on you". And then a few rounds of role play just to be sure.

The dog will alert on who they want it to alert on.

I've had the fuzz try "the dog" on me in the past. As a living creature the dog is rarely where they need it to be. Knowing my rights, and also knowing I'm not holding, I just repeat over and over again, "am I being detained. Am I free to go?" That usually clues them in I know the law just enough to cause them problems and they go away.

Typically the only probable cause they have is their own racist bias and once I point that out, a hit dog will holler.

I've always wondered how dog hits are seen by courts as different from officer testimony. Of course they're well trained and qualified and accurate, one would hope. But they can also get a subtle cue off the handler to simply sit because they've learned it's expected. So back in court, you're back to officer testimony that they did or didn't cue the dog to show a hit; it might even be subconscious. If that's the case, the dog isn't neutral and might as well be skipped as theater.

They're quite inaccurate in fact. They barely have a 50% ratio. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/...

According to the article the agents don't have dogs

But they have to go and get the dog. They can't just pull one out of a pocket, and a dog can only work so many hours - fewer than a human.

And in any case, so what? If that's the attitude we take to overreaches, why not just pre-emptively empty our pockets at any patrolling law enforcement officer?

Then they'll try the old "You're papers are not in order." to see how you react.

Sometimes, but not anyways. Admittedly my sample size is limited to ~3, but asserting my right to decline searches (outside of borders, where you don't get such right), have resulted in 0 searches.

Usually they keep questioning you for a while, but it's not hard to respond in a way that doesn't give them probable cause.

>> Usually they keep questioning you for a while, but it's not hard to respond in a way that doesn't give them probable cause.

You should try exercising your fifth amendment right to remain silent. The police explicitly remind people who are arrested that anything they say "can and will" be used against them in a court of law.

Most people want to talk there way out of a bad situation. Like the police will Mirandize them and they still won't shut up! Dude! shut up, weight for your lawyer, and under no circumstance waive your right to a speedy trial until you have counsel.

This generic advice isn't always the best one. Only do this if you're actually guilty and they can't come up with PC. You have to play it by ear, I've talked my way out of more than a few tickets by just getting a sympathetic police officer, if I had annoyed him by doing the 5th I'm sure he would've just written a ticket etc.

A ticket is a vastly different situation than one in which you could be subject to criminal prosecution. If I say something dumb which causes me to not be able to get a ticket dismissed, I'm out a hundred and fifty bucks. If I say something stupid that causes me to get convicted of a felony...

Wife & I have started watching LivePD. The big thing with the police is "be honest with me and I can be lenient", and a lot of times they are, at least on TV. So the suspect says what's in the car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com