Where we sort out the who and what in the right and wrong of police interactions, unless this episode covers laws, i want to do that for the whole time and officer khan is brought to us by insuring transparency's channel, be sure to check out the description below And give them the credit that they deserve. On november 13, 2020 trooper jackson, little of the arkansas state police, pulled over an individual who only identified himself as james for allegedly speeding. Very little information is available about this interaction and it could not definitively confirm james's identity. However, for the sake of clarity, i will refer to james as mr transparency in this episode.

Howdy rolls down all the way man. Why is that roll down all the way, so i can talk to you better. We can talk right down all the way. Not ask me i'm telling you what law is that? Why are you starting this man well you're telling me to roll my win.

We can talk right, yeah roll it down more, but why so i can talk to you better man. I can talk to you through a crack like this. We can talk, i'm not trying to be rude, i'm really not trying to be rude to you either, but so what's the deal, why don't you want to roll it down all the way? Because i don't want you, i just you find me difficult, i'm not trying to be difficult. I do want my license: registration if you don't care trooper little orders, mr transparency, to roll down his window all the way, but mr transparency refuses, while section 27-49-107 of the arkansas code states that quote no person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful Order or direction of any police officer there is no guidance offered as to what constitutes a lawful order.

The issue of whether an order to roll down a window is a lawful order that would be covered by the statute is complicated and while there is no readily available arkansas case law analyzing the statute, other states have reviewed similar statutes and reached conflicting conclusions. For example, in the 1975 case of coughlin vs state, the alabama court of criminal appeals reviewed an identical, lawful order, statute and determined that quote for an order of a police officer to be lawful. Pursuant to that section, such order must be directly related to the direction, control and regulation of traffic and that the law quote was not intended to does not and cannot give police officers unbridled power to arrest for refusal to obey any order they may choose to direct At a citizen, however, in the 2016 case of state versus thigpen, the 8th district court of appeals of ohio reviewed a similar, lawful order statute and found that, because there is nothing in the plain language of the statute, limiting it solely to orders or signals of police Officers actively engaging in traffic direction, control or regulation the duty to comply exists, even if the police officer's order is not made in the context of enforcing any traffic law. I have covered this topic in further detail in previous episodes of ata, but there is little clarity to be had on the issue without a direct ruling from a higher court.

What does that mean? What's the reason for stopping me, okay, off okay, i'm trooper jackson with the arkansas state police, okay, i appreciate that i'm pulling you over, i mean he should do it or not. I do how fast are you going? I'm not going to answer that question. Okay, i got you going 87 in the 65 man. That's well, that's a little quick! I got this dash cam here yeah and it records my speed.

Okay, how fast you're going i'm not going to answer that question, but i know it wasn't that this is uh registration. I'm not gon na answer that. Okay, i'm really not trying to be difficult with you, sir! So what's the deal, then what what deal like? Why are you like? Why are you just being so defensive and argumentative with what everything i'm saying? Well, i don't believe not being cooperative on the window down. It's not a huge deal.

I'd like to talk to you better. You know, i think that we're talking fine, though aren't we we were, i just know it's not it's not well hold on hold on. Let's start over we're not going to argue, i don't want to argue with you, but let's start over okay. Can we do that? Yeah, my name is james.

You have my id here and uh. I just don't the reason for the window, i'm not trying to be defensive or argumentative or anything yeah. I just don't like to have it all the way down. Why is that? I just don't.

Why is that man? I just don't? Okay, okay, everyone's different, i guess everyone is a little different yeah you like it down. I don't you know: okay, okay. Everything looks good here interesting, so you don't think you're speeding. I don't uh want to answer any questions regarding that.

Why not trooper little asks mr transparency, if he thought he was speeding, and mr transparency replies that he does not want to answer any questions on that subject. Invoking his fifth amendment right to remain silent. The fifth amendment provides that quote: no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. In the 1951 case of hoffman versus united states, the u.s supreme court determined that this privilege, against testimonial compulsion quote not only extends to answers.

That would in themselves support a conviction, but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant. The court also explained that individuals do not need to answer questions when they have quote reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer and that to claim the privilege quote. It need only be evident from the implications of the question in the setting in which it is asked that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered, might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result building on the hoffman decision. The supreme court held in the 2001 case of ohio versus reiner that the privilege against self-incrimination applied to the innocent, as well as the guilty, because quote truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence.

From the speaker's own mouth and that, as the suspect of an investigation, it was reasonable for an individual to fear might incriminate them in this situation. Mr transparency was clearly entitled to invoke his right to remain silent. In response to the questions trooper little asked about his speed, as he could very reasonably fear that his answers could be used against him. It's just it's not a huge deal.

Man just be just me, i mean they will literally i get it and uh. I don't think it's a huge deal tonight. You know if you don't think you're going that fast. Something could be wrong with your fire, something man.

You know you never know that it's 20 21.. Nothing like that! I'm not trying to be rude either. I know you're being nice now, so i appreciate that. Well, i feel like i've been nice yeah, it's it's.

The deal is man. We go up, you know. If uh, we you give us signs by not being qualified by the little things. We're not cooperating.

Just listen! Let me talk okay, sure, sure, okay, those little things to me a lot, sometimes man for all. You know you could be trying to hide something anything like that. Those are just little clues. I'm not saying you are not we're just operating within the bounds of the law right now.

Are we just operating within the bounds of the law right now we are then, but those are just little clues. May i mean it's nights? It's because you don't want to really win it out on the way. It's just a little weird man, it's a little weird that you're just demanding. I do something.

You said that you're not you're, not asking you're telling me and you don't have the legal grounds to tell me to roll my window all the way down. That's the only thing that was a lie, a lie. Yeah, it's not a lie. Do i have to roll? My window, i can make a bigger deal out of that, i'm not going through, though, do i have to roll my window down all the way.

Is that all i don't know what i asked man is that some law, if you think that's the violating whatever we can take it to court, that's right. We can take that one to court. There's not a lot that i have to have my window like that. But, like i said, it's speeding, man, it's not a huge deal, and i i understand that and that's why i feel like we got off on the wrong foot, because you were telling me to do uh, something that i don't have to do.

I can tell you to do whatever i want. If you think it's violent, you can tell me to whatever you want if you think it's a violation of whatever thing you're talking about, we can take it. Well, i don't think you violated anything right now. Okay, okay, good deal good deal.

No, i just i don't! I think we have a disagreement on what the law says on the window, honestly like what there's a zero deal. Okay, so just what you've got me stopped? Yeah yeah you're, accusing me of um speeding, you say: yeah, i've handed you my documents, i'm doing everything i'm legally required to do. Trooper little continues to question mr transparency about why he will not roll down the window all the way and seems to interpret mr transparency's reluctance to aid the investigation as some form of hostility in many situations. The refusal to assist in an officer's investigation does not, on its own, give the officer reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

For example, in the 1983 case of florida versus royer, the u.s supreme court held that when an officer approaches an individual quote, the person approached need not answer any question put to him. Indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable objective grounds for doing so, and his refusal to listen or answer does not without more furnish those grounds. However, an individual's refusal to answer questions can later be used against them in a criminal prosecution if they fail to expressly invoke their fifth amendment privilege.

In the 2013 case of salinas versus texas, the supreme court held that a defendant, who simply remained silent in response to questioning, had not invoked his right to remain silent, because quote the privilege generally is not self-executing and a witness who desires its protection must claim it. A suspect who stands mute has not done enough to put police on notice that he is relying on his fifth amendment privilege. The court also noted that popular miscon i feel lawfully yet, but i feel like him, you're gon na be subject to more scrutiny and they're gon na look at your way more, it's like for you. I feel like it.

If you decide to to be reluctant to everything right and they find something and what i mean i mean they're, probably gon na look more and be more yeah to a higher level of scrutiny. I mean conception's, not working backfires. Amendment guarantees take him back in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. It does not establish an unqualified right to remain silent.

A witness's constitutional right to refuse to answer questions depends on his reasons for doing so, and courts need to know those reasons to evaluate the merits of a fifth amendment claim using this rationale. The court determined that, because an individual is the only person who can know why they are not answering a question, it is their burden to make a timely assertion of the privilege and if they do not, their silence can be used as evidence of their guilt. Therefore, individuals who wish to invoke their right to remain silent must explicitly say that they wish to do so. Yeah yeah.

I don't understand why you think i haven't done it. I just don't my use really like what what's this what's so hard about just click. Well, what's wrong with you said that so we can talk, but we're talking right now, so there's nothing. What other reason is that i'm just curious honestly why you can't just roll it down all the way? I i don't know why i'm just curious of why you're so stuck on it.

It's just it just blows my mind like. Why can't you just roll it down all the way man like what it blows, my mind that you can't let it go. I thought we moved past this. It's just a little funny to me.

Man, i'm just behind the whole cop thing, i'm just kind of curious. Why why he won't do it he's being annoying about other questions, but he's also being annoying with the what the window i'm going to be honestly, i don't uh think that i am legally obliged to do that yeah, because at the end of the day, it's a Civil interaction believe it or not, it's kind of a simple interaction, and you want to have like a still conversation. You want another person to be to be like, like that over a window or or yell through the window, if you don't want to roll it down, it's just annoying dude like playing beyond that. Why don't you just want to like civil? It's not lawfully civil.

I mean like civil, as in you're too adult that are civilized. Having a conversation, you want it to be a civil conversation like, are you afraid, or what i like my window? Well, i think that yeah, a man, approaches my car with a gun and yeah. I'm not here to hurt you anything like that. I fully believe you know, but i'm not i'm not.

Do you believe i'm gon na hurt you well, i don't, but you got your defenses up right. Yeah yeah, it's just a natural all the stuff's going on. I guess sure yeah yeah, i have nothing against you as a person yeah, but i'm just you got ta. Think man, not not every cop's about cops yeah.

I was just saying behind the whole cough thing. I was just kind of curious. If i didn't want to go like behind the whole, i'm the cop you're, the you know, violate or whatever, but i'm just kind of curious why i didn't want to roll it down so yeah. I just i just like it where it is: okay, yeah, everyone's different sure anyway, man just hangs out here.

Okay sure get yourself back man this, if you guys are so like, like weird and like hassan viewers, you're, so like anti everything, they don't realize that dude, a civil conversation isn't the end of the world, man, here's what we're doing! Okay, it's all right, like dude, your record looks pretty dang good. Is that going to be a pleasant anybody out there? That's? What i was going to ask is, if you're on radar, because oh yeah, i'm not lying to you - i wasn't going that bad for beyond that. How okay, then you go to another public servant, then go to like the dmv or some right and go to the counter right. What is the lady? That's not a guy on the counter right as a big-ass, all the way, the up right and she's just sitting down like this, and you have to go on youtube.

That was going it's annoying. I really can't it's just annoying dude like holy man. I understand, but there's a formality: that's got to take place there um i just what do you mean formality? Um? I don't know i'm right to remain silent on things. I'm not gon na walk back there and rewrite a ticket.

Now i can promise you i'm just curious. I i can promise. I won't even have my word, i'm not going to do that. I promise you that's on cam, that's not my camera.

Mr transparency continues to refuse to answer questions even after trooper little issues, him a warning and assures him that he will not write him a ticket. However, nothing would legally prevent trooper little from changing his mind and issuing a citation after the warning was given. So mr transparency's privilege against self-incrimination remained intact after the warning was issued. Additionally, mr transparency's dash cam footage could be obtained by the police and used against him in court if he were to confess to speeding provided that they obtain a warrant for the digital data.

In the 2014 case of riley vs california, the u.s supreme court determined that, although the police could seize an individual's cell phone during a lawful arrest, they could not gain warrantless access to digital data without violating the fourth amendment. The court explained that quote in the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirements such as mitigating potential dangers when conducting an arrest or preventing the destruction of evidence. In the 2019 case of people versus blakesly, the new york city court of tompkins county applied the reasoning used in the riley decision to a defendant's dash cam memory card. While the officers obtained a search warrant for the memory card itself, the warrant did not authorize a search of the digital data stored on the memory card.

The court found that the warrantless search of the data violated the fourth amendment, because quote once law enforcement found the memory card and seized it. No exigency existed, which prevented the procurement of an additional search warrant, authorizing the search preservation and copying of the relevant digital content stored on the memory card due to the potential of self-incrimination and the dash cam video being used, as evidenced against him. Mr transparency was well within his rights to continue to refuse to answer questions. Well, yeah man.

What's your name again, my name is james. Okay, nice to meet you, i'm jackson, nice to meet you you too um. What was your badge number 587.? Is any of that going to be on the the oh? Let's see it should be yeah names right. There badge number's right there: okay, perfect man, but yeah.

Besides that man uh just uh. I know you don't thank your speed. My radar said you were, but just be careful. Okay, absolutely you too, for yourself for sure man uh, like i said not every cop is bad man.

No, i'm just here to the saying goes a few bad apples spoiled the bunch yeah. I think. That's that's a bad case of what's happening after receiving his warning. Mr transparency requested trooper little's badge number and left the scene without further incidents.

Mr transparency shared the dashcam video on his youtube channel on the same day as the incident, but it is unclear if he took any further action. Overall, trooper little gets a b-minus because, although he remained relatively calm and cordial throughout the interaction he issued questionably lawful, commands and consistently pressured mr transparency to surrender his right to silence. While i do commend trooper little for engaging in a challenging and productive dialogue with mr transparency, wait, i don't think i agree with that. Either asking questions is wait.

The guy didn't ask me silence. He wouldn't answer that question specifically right. He just said: i'm answering this question asking another question: isn't pressing him just to give up his right while i do commend trooper little for engaging in a challenging and productive dialogue with mr transparency, it is clear that a majority of the trooper's conversational intent was focused On convincing mr transparency, why keep pushing okay? Then? If you ask if you're in a dialogue with somebody in real life and then you you ask about questions, that's sensitive to their life and say i'm not gon na answer that right i mean, can you not answer? Other questions you can ask not any any other question: you're not allowed to do anything at all in some way shape, not nominal. Nearly every question he asked.

Mr transparency had the potential to incriminate him and his shameless persistence is a testament to the true tone of his questioning. Ultimately, the trooper did not violate any of mr transparency's rights, but that was likely due to mr transparency's refusal guys. If he wants to be silent, you say i choose to remain silent, gigi, he means they. Don't even said that to allow him to do so, and the accountability offered by the dash cam little is not necessarily she's a bad officer and many other members of law enforcement failed.

He did not say like that. Right is not an inherent act of defiance. He did not say silence he's a powerful asset for citizenship, police encounters and members of law enforcement should respect and uphold that right as diligently as any other laws they choose to enforce. Mr transparency gets an a for challenging the logic and legitimacy of the trooper statements.

Respectfully declining to answer any questions and for engaging in a peaceful and productive dialogue with the trooper, mr transparency did a fantastic job of declining to answer. Trooper little's questions without being rude or hostile, but his failure to verbally acknowledge the invocation of his right to silence. Could have been used as evidence against him in court outside of this small critique. Mr transparency demonstrated a thorough understanding of his rights and obligations during a traffic stop and ensured that those rights were respected and those obligations were met without issue.

I commend mr transparency for his ability to effectively communicate with the trooper without sacrificing his rights and without becoming vulgar or insulting. I highly recommend giving ensuring transparency chances. You can find a link in the description below. Let us know if there's an interaction or legal.

I want to give them that b plus, i think the dialogue was fine and the window shit's annoying that that's the only thing. Another problem with the entire thing is the window topic. You would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching and be sure to check out my second channel from the window.

Annoying man. It says right, yeah, yeah, just like in real life. You are you, have the right to lovely, be a you can, do you can be a if you want to right. I still think it's moronic, you.