We had a small discussion hereabouts yesterday about whether Tiger Woods should talk to the police. The answer is, of course, that no he shouldn’t. He has that right. We all have that right.
He doesn’t have to let them in the house either. He has that right. We all have that right.
But I have a question about a different kind of situation. Here in Albuquerque, as in many locations, we have routine roadblocks for DWI enforcement. The one time I’ve encountered one of these roadblocks, I was asked whether I had had anything to drink. I answered, truthfully, that I had not.
Did I have to answer that question?
No
Why is the answer “of course” that he shouldn’t?
Just because he doesn’t have to by law, he shouldn’t? Even if he didn’t do anything wrong?
Same with you wondering why you shouldn’t or don’t have to answer the roadblock question. Why shouldn’t you, if you hadn’t been drinking? Just to be ornery? Or just because you have the right?
Isn’t working with law enforcement part of our social contract to make the community safer for everyone? Obviously we don’t have to incriminate ourselves. But shouldn’t we try to help if it doesn’t hurt us? Why waste their time and resources just to exercise your right?
I have a lot of rights, as an American, that I don’t use. Having the right to do something doesn’t mean that it is, by default, the best (or only) solution at all times.
The answer is that you DON’T have to answer that question.
You have to be ready for the response, though. Likely by refusing to answer you’ll be deemed to have given probable cause that you should be arrested and forced to take a blood alcohol test at a local hospital.
There are so many laws that it doesn’t take much searching to find a law that you have broken.
The best thing to do if you’re being asked questions by a policeman is to GROVEL.
Great, now working with law enforcement to help them potentially charge you with a crime is “part of our social contract”? Under the same logic, you should let them search your car or even your home whenever they ask. You should also tell them where you are going whenever they ask. You have nothing to hide right.
I don’t agree with Ephraim that we need to grovel, but it doesn’t hurt to be pleasant. The phrase I use with myself is that, “It’s no skin off my nose.” However, that being said, I do tend to resent the constant hassle I encounter living near the Mexican border. Every single Arizona highway south of I-10 has a Border Patrol check-point on it now, and you have to stop every time you travel north. On busy roads, it can take up to 10 minutes of sitting there with your engine idling as you creep up to the stop one car length at a time. There are dogs, too. Most stops require you to turn off your cell phone and restrain your dog, if you have one. It’s just a nuisance, especially when you are already in your own country, to be stopped and asked, “Are you a U.S. citizen?” If I was crossing the border, I would expect it, but I am being pulled off the road 30 or 40 miles north of the border while simply going from one town to another, and asked if I am a citizen. At times, this is a daily event.
Ken,
You don’t have to answer the question but the police have the authority to test your breath/blood for alcohol just because you are driving. The NM statute says that “Any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state shall be deemed… to have given consent to chemical tests of his breath or blood or both…as determined by a law enforcement officer.” It is called the Implied Consent Act, NM Statutes 66-8. Maybe Ephraim’s response is due to his experience with the “chotas”(slang for police).
What Ken is this? It doesn’t read like my dad or my brother.
How is answering a question about whether you have been drinking helping the police “potentially charge you with a crime” if you haven’t been drinking? Ummmm….it’s not.
So your advice is that we should all just go around all the time acting as if we have committed a crime, even if we haven’t. Just because we can.
I guess I’ll go burn a flag, scream at people going into Planned Parenthood and join the Nazi party now. I mean, I have those rights.
I am writing a new post on this.
It is your brother.
As a practical matter, if stopped, and I had not been drinking, I would answer politely and hope to be on my way soon. But that approach would be born of self interest. I would not want them mad at me and looking for some way to cause me trouble. I strongly disagree that I have some obligation to respond to any questions about my own behavior as part of a social contract. (My reaction might differ if I was a witness to a crime–then I may have an obligation to society to contribute by describing what I saw.)
Why do you think we have an obligation as part of a social contract to answer police questions about our own activity? I would think the Bill of Rights is part of our social contract. More importantly, where do you think the obligation stops? How intrusive can they be? Do you think you should answer if they ask you where you are going, or coming from (which they do near open drug markets). Do you think you have to let them search your car if they ask and you have nothing to hide. Would you let them search your house if they came by and asked? Do you at least recognize that if everyone answers questions every time unless they have something to hide, that it devalues our important right not to answer. Do you recognize that it is valid for someone to not want to tell the police what they are doing or let them seach their body or belonging, even if they are not doing something wrong?
I am not sure I understand your last paragraph. Are these things you want to do, but don’t because of a “social contract”? Do you mean to suggest that wanting to preserve your privacy (not answering questions) is comparable to being a Nazi? If so, I think the point is just silly.
I prefer to spell it ‘shotas’.
Ken (The Younger), your points are very well stated. Thank you for expressing so clearly what are my sentiments, as well.
Okay, Ken, if you are all about the hypotheticals: what if the police ring my doorbell and say there is a prowler/rapist/kidnapper loose in the neighborhood and they want to search my house?
You are saying I should not let them in just because I have a Constitutional right not to let them in. That’s stupid. You can’t argue that one answer is always the right answer. No, I wouldn’t let the police in my house if there was no reason for them to do so. Or if I had a bag of cocaine on the counter. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t let them in if there IS a reason to do so – and since I wouldn’t be incriminating myself.
You are being ridiculous if you say that there is never any reason to just let the police check things out, even if you aren’t legally obligated to do so. And you are ridiculous to hint that – because I can see that different conditions would call for different responses – that means I want to stomp all over the Constitution.
I said that one should not play games with police doing sobriety checkpoints. I didn’t say that society should be a free for all where all of our privacies are vacated. You took my statement – which related to one example – and made a rant that completely exaggerated my point. Maybe you should look into a job at Fox News.
And yes, I believe that sometimes the social obligation is more important than protection of my personal privacy. Not by law, but by decency. If I could possibly help law enforcement find a dangerous person, then I would happily do so, especially considering it costs me nothing. I would want my neighbors to cooperate. Why shouldn’t I?
However, would I tell a cop at the park where I was going if he asked for no reason? No. Would I let the school check my kids’ underpants for drugs? No. Are my different (hypothetical) responses in conflict? No. It is about the conditions of the incident, and my attitude should be flexible depending on the circumstances.
I don’t understand why my simple assertion that sometimes we owe society – our neighbors, maybe, or the people driving in cars around us – our cooperation makes you so upset. I’m not ignorant of the law, and I’m not telling other people what to do. But it is insane to act as if because I would cooperate if I could and it didn’t hurt me, I am sort sort of fascist.
Oh, and you asked about my final paragraph. My point was simply that we are a free society and therefore full of people doing ridiculous things I would never do. But we don’t stop them, because they have those rights.
As do I – I have the right to do any of those things. But I would never invoke those rights. Just like I would never invoke my right to waste a cop’s time when he’s trying to get drunk drivers off the road.
Which obviously means I think we should throw out the Fourth Amendment completely.
Ultimately we just disagree. You seem to think drunk driving is a bigger threat than creating a culture of unquestioning obedience to authority. I don’t. You also seem to think I am saying that people should never talk to police no matter the circumstances, which, of course, I am not.
Frankly, I think the police should be out and about looking for drivers who are demonstrating impairment. Although it is constitutional for them to do so, I don’t think they should pull over cars randomly and ask questions. I also think minorities, poorer people, and less educated people are far more likely to not know their rights and be abused by police in these situations (I suspect they are also more likely to have their neighborhoods targeted by police for roadblocks). So, I think there is value for everyone when individuals assert their rights. Unfortunately, like the rest of the sheep, I generally don’t because I don’t want trouble. I am concerned that this dynamic has eroded, and will continue to erode, important freedoms.
Your hypothetical misses the point. There are important differences in this area between situations where the police have reason to think a law is actually being broken and when they are just checking randomly, and between situations where the police are questioning you about your behavior (especially randomly) and when they are seeking your help with respect to a crime by someone else. In the last case at least, I have already said I agree that an individual probably has social obligations to help the police. Your discussion mixes these concepts together.
I understand the question we are considering to be: when the police are asking you questions without any basis for suspicion about your behavior, does a “social contract” require you to answer even if you are not lawfully required to do so. Your hypothetical relates to police looking for a proven danger to you and others. It is not the same thing. I don’t understand in your hypothetical why the dangerous person might be in your house, but of course you let the police in if you think he may be there—it is in your own interest, if not part of a “social contract.” I could argue you don’t let them in if you know he is not in the house because it saves them time to look elsewhere, but that is complicated by the fact they would then be suspicious of you and may be diverted (because so few people assert their rights, so it stands out).
Here is, I think, a hypothetical that is comparable to the drunk driving roadblock. The police come to your neighborhood and announce that there have been a number of drug arrests in the area and they believe people in the neighborhood are using drugs and even selling drugs to children. They then walk door to door and ask for permission to search every house for drugs. Do you think the people with no drugs should let the police search their homes? If I am reading your comments correctly, your answer is yes.
My answer would be no. Not because I want to keep police from catching people selling drugs to children, but because I think it is unhealthy for us as a societly to allow authorities with special powers, like police, to treat us all as suspects when they have no basis for suspicion we have done anything wrong.