AFAIK, New Jersey doesn't have a "Stop and Identify" law, so this was a Terry stop no-no (Terry v. Ohio). She was under no obligation to answer their questions. As long as she provided her license, registration and proof of insurance, it looked like they had no reasonable basis for the arrest. I'd guess those cops were "rookies" since, as reported, they only had a year-and-change of experience on the force. Supervisor was right to let her go and release her car from impound, but I don't think she'll get any kind of monetary settlement from her suit.

ugh, why not just act normal and not try to create a situation... just be polite. People that act all awkward and refuse to speak because they want to flex their rights in petty situations like this are just creating a headache for all involved. Save this shit for when it matters.

So we should only have rights when 'it matters'? Who will decide when that is?
Some people would say that the legally educated, freedom loving non-fascists reminding the cops they are not Gestapo is not a bad thing..

Who will decide? this woman will, or anyone having their rights threatened will decide. I'm saying she appeared to have made a poor decision in this case. While she may be within her rights, you have to remember that cops are just flawed people like everyone else and all she had to do is look at them, smile answer their standard, non-invasive question, and be on her way. Now if they said they wanted to look in the trunk or something then I'd agree with her. But refusing to say hello? or refusing to acknowledge that another human is even speaking to you? just why?

It isn't illegal to be an asshole.

This woman is an asshole.

And I agree with you.

Butt hurt cops that have no clue what the law is (THEIR JOB) and in turn violate peoples rights can go fuck themselves.

I applaud this woman for standing up for the rights of all US citizens, at great inconvenience to herself. There was no reason to arrest her, so she was actually kidnapped and held against her will. How is this scenario not part of basic police academy training?

If only we paid cops like we pay lawyers

I often wonder what would happen if you changed the requirements around to make the minimum at least a bachelor's degree and then a one year practical certificate program or internship or suchlike. Then you start them at $40-$50K a year.

The paramilitary approach they tend to take now seems to be almost entirely based on the practical aspects of policing, and even that seems weighted towards the tactical aspects. That's fine for soldiers, but policing ought to be a very different thing from soldiering.

I'd honestly charge her with wasting police time. This whole thing could have been so easily avoided.

She's no better than those people who let a car accident happen because they have 'right of way'.

She's lucky to have been taken into custody with all her teeth and without the beat down she would have gotten if she were a black or brown skinned male. Demonstrating a knowledge of the law has been proven to be the main cause of police escalating a minor road side stop to a violent and possibly deadly encounter if you are not white and male. Hope the settlement includes mandatory training for the municipalities police force.

You are talking about the cops right?
Why can't they just act normal and not try to create a situation.. just be polite. Cops that act all awkward and demand fear because they want to flex their rights in petty situations like this are just creating a headache for all involved. Save this shit for when it matters.

I found that last sentence pretty chilling.

"What are you in for?"
"Obeying the law when it didn't matter."
"I don't even understand what that means."
"It's a new criminal offence meaning i didn't unconditionally surrender my free will to a law enforcement agent in a routine stop."

Why not?

https://videosift.com/video/Dont-Talk-to-Cops-Part-2

I seem to recall a sifted video of a cop pulling over a concealed carry dude, who told him that he had a firearm and a concealed carry permit, but otherwise refused to answer questions.

The officer in that video had experience that these 2 guys apparently lack, and was very skilled at figuring out what he needed to without escalating things and/or overreacting.

Some of that could be wrong, I'm fuzzy on it. If I could remember it more clearly, I'd search and see if I could find it to tag as related. As I remember it, it seemed like the perfect contrast to this one -- the right way to do things compared to this one being the wrong way.

I don't think saying "hello, how are you?" and "no, I don't know why you pulled me over." are going to incriminate you... but it will make you look like a normal person with nothing to hide. Someone that sits there staring forward ignoring the cop like this lady just looks like they've come straight from robbing a bank.

This behavior reminds me of some friends when I was a teenager that would act suspicious in a dept store and then walk quickly for the exit so that security would chase them, and if caught they WOULD be innocent (and get to act like the victim), if not they get an adrenaline rush and a story.

If these cops had arrested this woman right away, THEN sure don't talk to them. But she jumped the gun and created the situation where she was being arrested from what looked like a routine traffic stop.(whether that was justified or not.)

I was stopped by a cop once on a freeway leaving a city and he said a car with the same description of mine had been stolen in the area. I showed my registration and he let me go on my way... If I had refused to say a word and just sat there, I would have looked very guilty and would probably have been arrested.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are places where they could add something like driving without due care and attention to, say, a speeding charge by claiming that the driver had no idea what speed they were going.

As for 'Hello, how are you', I can imagine that an officer could claim your speech was slurred (especially if you had something in your mouth at the time) and that gave them a reason to search the car for drugs or alcohol.

I'm not saying that either of these are likely, but in a situation where a cop is out to get you for any reason, pretty much anything can be used against you, so your best defence is to say nothing.

You are wrong.
ANYTHING you say will be used against you. Time and time again officers use "hello" and "no, I don't know why you pulled me over" as excuse for escalation, claiming aggressive or impaired demeanor.

Rights only exist if exercised. They can and should be applied at all times. If they can only be invoked when one is guilty, then exercising them IS an indication of guilt, so that's not how they work.

She clearly told them what she was doing, there was no bank robbery, and she didn't look comatose or impaired.

This is nothing like your douchbag friends. They intentionally created suspicion, she stood on her right to avoid any suggestion of suspicion, and was arrested for contempt of cop plain and simple. There is no charge of "won't answer incriminating questioning"....not in America, maybe in China and North Korea.

Again, you show you simply don't understand legal rights....are you a cop?

So, you think it's proper to be arrested on suspicion of......nothing....based on a cop's biased judgement on how you look, but with ZERO crime committed?!? I'm incredibly glad you aren't a judge.

The really sad part is, this woman may get more for this violation than the family of the black man murdered for following officer's directions to get his ID....they got $3 million, but she's a white lawyer, so may fare far better in our system.

what are you talking about? did we watch the same video? Have you read my previous comments? I feel like there a ton of anti-establishment Americans in here that don't even read what I wrote and get all up-in-arms just because of the subject matter.

I never said the cops were right to arrest, or that she should cooperate with an illegal search or detainment. In fact I said the opposite. But, I am saying her ridiculous, uncalled-for behavior upfront exposed her to a much greater chance of being harassed by inexperienced/incompetent cops.

I have no sympathy for people who instigate to seek out conflict just as in my previous example which does apply.

you say "She clearly told them what she was doing", but no, she does the completely unnatural and suspicious silent treatment from the get-go, when pulled over for a routine-appearing traffic stop.

You start your response with "you are wrong". That is a pretty close-minded statement. Especially when you make so many incorrect assumptions and missed so much of what I've already said? I'm not going to assume you are wrong about this encounter because we don't have all the facts about what caused the stop, but I can say you (and a few others here) are getting what I'm saying wrong.

Perhaps not directly, but you certainly implied it by saying they would arrest you for just not talking.(Edit: I took that as an endorsement)

Again, you simply don't understand rights if you say it's ridiculous, uncalled-for behavior to actually exercise them, which is precisely what she did.

1 1/2 years on duty is not inexperienced or rookie IMO.
EDIT: Nor is being inexperienced or a rookie any excuse for violating civil rights....it's sad that I think that needs to be stated explicitly.

Exercising your legal right to not say a word, because saying any word has PROVEN REPEATEDLY to be enough to cause exactly the kind of trouble you say she's inviting by being silent, is absolutely NOT instigation. It is being patriotic and standing up for your hard won rights. My forefathers actually fought and died to secure those rights, it is my duty to defend them by using them, as is the case with every American citizen. Period. (I am inflexible in this line of thought, as it conforms to everything I was taught to believe about citizenship, patriotism, and respect)

Before they manhandle her, she tells them she's a lawyer and has no duty to speak....enough? If not, why?


You said "I don't think saying "hello, how are you?" and "no, I don't know why you pulled me over." are going to incriminate you...", I explained why you are wrong in that assessment (as did others by pointing you to a video that explains it in detail and much better than I can). There's no question, it's not an opinion, it's historical, verifiable fact. Talking to police can get you in more trouble than remaining silent, but I do agree it's prudent to explain to powertripping ignorant cops what's happening....with a pre-printed card you let them read through your closed window that simply says "Any questioning must be in the presence of my lawyer, and I won't respond, standing on my constitutional right to refuse any self incrimination." or something close to that. I'm usually willing to simply and flatly say " I can't talk to you without my attorney" and they go away, but that's because I'm a pussy.

I feel like you don't quite understand the concept of a RIGHT.
As in the RIGHT to REMAIN SILENT.
As in you can't be physiclaly attacked, kidnapped and/or shot for REMAINING SILENT.
It really is that simple.
Otherwise it's no longer a right, but a favour occasionally gifted from omnipotent state power.
And unless you are in North Korea and kinda like it, you DON'T WANT THAT and the rest of us DONT WANT GUYS LIKE YOU TELLING CORRUPT/INCOMPETENT/MURDEROUS POWER THEY'RE COOL because it actually KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE.