Don’t talk to the police - Professor James Duane

[Fenway]

Talking to the Police by Professor James Duane - Jul 15, 2008



Professor James Duane’s now famous 5th Amendment lecture - popularly known as “Don’t talk to the police!” - has amassed a considerab...all » Professor James Duane’s now famous 5th Amendment lecture - popularly known as “Don’t talk to the police!” - has amassed a considerable internet following. The lecture, given as part of Regent Law School’s spring preview weekend

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik]YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE]YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2[/ame]

 

[turkeykiller]

Very interesting !!!!

 

[turnandshoot4]

Awesome videos. Never saying what speed I was going again!

 

[Pami]

Awesome videos. I wish more of my profs I've studied with were as animated as the instructor in the first part of the videos.

 

[Ri22o]

So what do you say when you get pulled over for speeding? Anything?

 

[turkeykiller]

"do you know how fast you were going" NOPE!

 

[Windwalker]

Boy, was that eye opening.

 

[jeremy]

Just my name and my SSN. THat is all I have to tell according to the Geneva Convention

 

[Shay]

Do not talk to the police

Don't Talk to the Police- Prof. James Duane - Regent University

Watch the video and post your thoughts.

 

[Scutter01]

Duplicate threads merged.

 

[Shay]

How did I not see that new thread?

Thanks for the merger.

 

[Bill of Rights]

"do you know how fast you were going" NOPE!

I think even that might get you in trouble in that they'd say you were displaying reckless disregard and even told the officer you didn't know how fast you were going.

I think I'm more partial to "Do you know how fast you were going?" "How fast?" This doesn't admit anything, nor does it deny anything. Beyond that, I'll likely clam up and do what I must, handing them what they request-license, registration, LTC- and if requested for permission to search my vehicle or my person, "Officer, I don't consent to any searches."

If they want to search, there are procedures they have to follow. Some say that if I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide and should allow the search. I say I've done nothing wrong, but if they think they have evidence to the contrary, they're welcome to attempt to obtain the judge's permission to override my refusal of consent. I'll look on any violation of that as a financial opportunity.
The Fourth Amendment has been bent over and buggered, but it hasn't been repealed.

Blessings,
B

 

[DodgebyDave]

I saw this posted on another webboard I post on, good to see it posted here

The day of reckoning is coming for the handlers and the trained lapdogs

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[indyjoe]

Finally had a chance to watch these. Great stuff. Thanks for posting.

 

[Fenway]

Thanks for your insight Metro!

A judge's permission is not always necessary for the police to search a vehicle. In fact, a search warrant is almost NEVER obtained for a search of a vehicle in a traffic stop situation. Most of the time, an officer will not want to search a vehicle unless there is a reasonable suspicion that there is evidence of a crime. Speeding or traffic violations are not sufficient to use as suspicion of a crime, but marijuana smoke rolling out of the driver's side window is.

The supreme court has ruled that there is a reduced expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle (as compared to one's home). A search of a vehicle can be legally conducted, without the driver's consent, based on an officer's observation of contraband in plain view or probable cause that criminal activity has taken place. No warrant is necessary.

Honestly.....I don't know of any officers that I work with that routinely ask drivers for permission to search their vehicles, without any suspicion of a crime. We're too busy for that. More times than not, the kinds of vehicles that have contraband in them are being driven by suspended or unlicensed drivers, so they are going to get searched anyway. (Incident to an arrest or vehicle tow)

I don't mind people who don't want to talk to me during a traffic stop. As long as I get what's required by law (license and registration) and there's no probable cause to believe you have a body in the trunk, the traffic stop will go quick and easy, and you'll be on your way. Probably without a ticket, unless you were doing something really dumb. (Like drag racing in a school zone) It's the people (usually drunks) that won't shut up that are the problem!

 

[TRWXXA]

"do you know how fast you were going"

"Are you asking me because you don't know, officer?"

Unfortunately, this attorney, while he makes very good points, touches on one of the biggest scams being perpetrated on the innocent citizens of this country. Despite what any of the criminal-loving, liberal defense attorneys and judges say, DNA EVIDENCE IS NOT EXCUPLATORY!! The lack of an individual's DNA, and/or the presence of another individual's DNA at a crime scene DOES NOT exonorate the first individual.

In this lawyer's own example story, the criminal SIGNED A CONFESSION. The story about how he made the confession as a way of helping the police find "the real killer" is defense lawyer . Does anybody with an IQ above 70, and not a card-carry member of the "Free Tookie" crowd, not find the story to be a little phony?

 

[Ri22o]

In this lawyer's own example story, the criminal SIGNED A CONFESSION. The story about how he made the confession as a way of helping the police find "the real killer" is defense lawyer . Does anybody with an IQ above 70, and not a card-carry member of the "Free Tookie" crowd, not find the story to be a little phony?

The man was mentally handicapped (or so he said), so it is plausible that he could have done that.

 

[TRWXXA]

The man was mentally handicapped (or so he said), so it is plausible that he could have done that.

Of course, nobody under criminal indictment, having no other relavent defense, has ever claimed they're not responsible due to mental defect.

This attorney (remember... he's a CRIMINAL DEFENSE attorney) claimed one of these killers had been "proven" mentally defective (he said they both were, but used the work "proven" to descibe only the second one). It doesn't ring true, because if it had been proven, he wouldn't have wound up in prison, and would either be found "not guilty due to mental defect", or even unable to stand trial at all because he could not assist in his own defense. If there was a history of mental incapacitation with these guys, it wasn't to a level where it was determined that they: (a) could not understand right from wrong; (b) could not understand the consequences of their actions, and; (c) could not assist in their own defense.

Being "just plain stupid" is not a defense.

 

[xamsx]

I just watched this last night before bed.

I had downloaded it from a torrent site awhile back and just got around to watching it.

Great insight/info! Although I think his audience is a bunch of other lawyers and such, it doesn't matter.. Can be interpreted just as well by any other citizen not involved in criminal justice.

(hotrodtba re-posted this earlier today, 11-15-09, in a new thread, and it was closed. I thought it was because of the content, but it turns out the vids were already posted in this thread! Glad what I thought wasn't the case! heh)