theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
First, some housekeeping:
You're not entitled to stay in your car at a traffic stop. The US Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer has lawful authority throughout the country, to ask you to exit your vehicle. Refusal justifies lawful use of force everywhere that local law or policy do not supersede the national case law.
You're not entitled to be told what you are being arrested for, at the time of arrest. There's a whole due process step, called arraignment, where you get told your charges and the associated penalties. Almost all cops will tell you what they're arresting you for, at some point during the arrest/booking process, but you're not entitled to that information until your arraignment.
You're certainly not entitled to debate the justification for your arrest, nor to decline to be arrested if you don't agree with the arresting officer. I suspect this is why a lot (most? almost all?) officers don't bother explaining why they're arresting you until after you're in cuffs, in the back of their cruiser or paddywagon. Because they don't want to get stalled in a pointless debate over a decision that's already been made, that you can't actually override in that moment. Anyone who says they'll only cooperate if they're told the charges first is lying. They're not going to cooperate anyway, so might as well get on with the process of hooking up their intransigent ass.
You're not entitled to avoid a DUI arrest if you refuse to take the (optional) field sobriety tests, nor if you refuse to take the (optional) roadside breath test. It boggles my mind how many drunk people think they can't get arrested because they didn't let the cop get their BAC. Newsflash: They already decided to arrest you for DUI before they ever asked you to get out of the car. They saw your eyes, listened to your slurred speech, noted your slow reactions and failure to maintain focus, and reached their conclusion. The other stuff is a formality, a crossing of Ts and dotting of Is. When a cop says, "if you don't take the tests, I'll make a decision based on what I've seen so far", what they mean is, "I think you're impaired, and I'm taking you in whether you do these tests or not."
You're not entitled to a roadside lawyer. Halting the arrest and booking process, while you wait for a lawyer to show up and verify that the police are acting in accordance with the law, is not a thing. The first time you're entitled to a lawyer is when the court proceedings start. Typically, making sure you have a lawyer is part of the very first court proceeding. Everything before that? No lawyer entitlement.
You're not entitled to refuse an evidentiary chemical test of your breath or blood, consequence-free. The portable breath test at roadside is not evidentiary. It's just there to help the cop reach a conclusion (or it's just there as a pro forma step, if you like). Most states have what's sometimes called an "implied consent" law. When you got your driver's license, one of the documents you signed was agreement to submit to an evidentiary chemical test whenever the cops are charging you with a DUI. Most jurisdiction default to a test performed by a calibrated and audited breathalyzer, under controlled conditions. A blood or urine test may also be used, depending on the state and local policies. In any case, a typical Implied Consent law suspends your driver's license if you refuse to consent to an evidentiary test. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. It's not covered by the right to avoid self-incrimination. It's not covered by the right to a lawyer during questioning. It's just a straightforward, "you agreed to take this test when asked, or else give up your driving privileges."
Interestingly, the town of Pullman, WA, actually has a list of on-call lawyers for this question. If Pullman PD asks you for an evidentiary test, and you say you want to talk to a lawyer first, they call a lawyer, and give you some privacy. The upshot of such conversations is, of course, always "yeah, you have to do it or your license is suspended". But at least they let the person try.
You're not entitled to refuse a search of your vehicle in all cases. If the cop sees something they don't like, they can justify a search. If the cop can articulate a reasonable suspicion, they can justify a search. If they're impounding your car, they have to "inventory" your car, before they turn it over to the tow company.
You're not entitled to a potty break in the middle of an investigation. Once you've been pulled over, you're on the cop's program, not yours. If you have to pee, you'll need to hold it until they get you to the jail and finish booking you.
And that's pretty much all I have for right now. I might update this thread if I think of any non-entitlements.
Obviously, a lot (all?) of these probably seem debatable. Like, you could get a lawyer and dispute some of the outcomes of these "non-entitlements". But that's all for court. None of that lawyer stuff applies to the initial stop, investigation, charging, or booking process. You can come back later and argue that the cops acted unlawfully, but you're not entitled stop them from acting until you agree to their lawfulness.
What are things like in your jurisdiction? Are you entitled to involve lawyer's sooner in the process. Are there some things your cops cannot do, or must do, that differ from what I've described? Have you ever been pulled over? What was your experience?
- I'm not a lawyer. Seek professional assistance for any serious inquiries.
- Like the title says, this is US-centric. If it's different in your country, share!
- This is based almost entirely on the impressions I've formed from watching arbitrary police bodycam videos. #notalljurisdictions. If it's different in your jurisdiction, share!
You're not entitled to stay in your car at a traffic stop. The US Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer has lawful authority throughout the country, to ask you to exit your vehicle. Refusal justifies lawful use of force everywhere that local law or policy do not supersede the national case law.
You're not entitled to be told what you are being arrested for, at the time of arrest. There's a whole due process step, called arraignment, where you get told your charges and the associated penalties. Almost all cops will tell you what they're arresting you for, at some point during the arrest/booking process, but you're not entitled to that information until your arraignment.
You're certainly not entitled to debate the justification for your arrest, nor to decline to be arrested if you don't agree with the arresting officer. I suspect this is why a lot (most? almost all?) officers don't bother explaining why they're arresting you until after you're in cuffs, in the back of their cruiser or paddywagon. Because they don't want to get stalled in a pointless debate over a decision that's already been made, that you can't actually override in that moment. Anyone who says they'll only cooperate if they're told the charges first is lying. They're not going to cooperate anyway, so might as well get on with the process of hooking up their intransigent ass.
You're not entitled to avoid a DUI arrest if you refuse to take the (optional) field sobriety tests, nor if you refuse to take the (optional) roadside breath test. It boggles my mind how many drunk people think they can't get arrested because they didn't let the cop get their BAC. Newsflash: They already decided to arrest you for DUI before they ever asked you to get out of the car. They saw your eyes, listened to your slurred speech, noted your slow reactions and failure to maintain focus, and reached their conclusion. The other stuff is a formality, a crossing of Ts and dotting of Is. When a cop says, "if you don't take the tests, I'll make a decision based on what I've seen so far", what they mean is, "I think you're impaired, and I'm taking you in whether you do these tests or not."
You're not entitled to a roadside lawyer. Halting the arrest and booking process, while you wait for a lawyer to show up and verify that the police are acting in accordance with the law, is not a thing. The first time you're entitled to a lawyer is when the court proceedings start. Typically, making sure you have a lawyer is part of the very first court proceeding. Everything before that? No lawyer entitlement.
You're not entitled to refuse an evidentiary chemical test of your breath or blood, consequence-free. The portable breath test at roadside is not evidentiary. It's just there to help the cop reach a conclusion (or it's just there as a pro forma step, if you like). Most states have what's sometimes called an "implied consent" law. When you got your driver's license, one of the documents you signed was agreement to submit to an evidentiary chemical test whenever the cops are charging you with a DUI. Most jurisdiction default to a test performed by a calibrated and audited breathalyzer, under controlled conditions. A blood or urine test may also be used, depending on the state and local policies. In any case, a typical Implied Consent law suspends your driver's license if you refuse to consent to an evidentiary test. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. It's not covered by the right to avoid self-incrimination. It's not covered by the right to a lawyer during questioning. It's just a straightforward, "you agreed to take this test when asked, or else give up your driving privileges."
Interestingly, the town of Pullman, WA, actually has a list of on-call lawyers for this question. If Pullman PD asks you for an evidentiary test, and you say you want to talk to a lawyer first, they call a lawyer, and give you some privacy. The upshot of such conversations is, of course, always "yeah, you have to do it or your license is suspended". But at least they let the person try.
You're not entitled to refuse a search of your vehicle in all cases. If the cop sees something they don't like, they can justify a search. If the cop can articulate a reasonable suspicion, they can justify a search. If they're impounding your car, they have to "inventory" your car, before they turn it over to the tow company.
You're not entitled to a potty break in the middle of an investigation. Once you've been pulled over, you're on the cop's program, not yours. If you have to pee, you'll need to hold it until they get you to the jail and finish booking you.
And that's pretty much all I have for right now. I might update this thread if I think of any non-entitlements.
Obviously, a lot (all?) of these probably seem debatable. Like, you could get a lawyer and dispute some of the outcomes of these "non-entitlements". But that's all for court. None of that lawyer stuff applies to the initial stop, investigation, charging, or booking process. You can come back later and argue that the cops acted unlawfully, but you're not entitled stop them from acting until you agree to their lawfulness.
What are things like in your jurisdiction? Are you entitled to involve lawyer's sooner in the process. Are there some things your cops cannot do, or must do, that differ from what I've described? Have you ever been pulled over? What was your experience?
