Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Sure, let lawyers spam HN every year with this narrative.
Never do anything without a lawyer. Never self-host a website. Never use VPS either, use cloud. But don't try to setup cloud yourself - use our platform in the middle. Don't accept payments, use our solution in the middle. Connect with your customers by using our [A-Z]AAS, powered by AI, but don't use AI provider, use intermediate provider, which proxies your requests to providers. Don't bother with analytics, just install our analytics service that will charge you just a $ per one thousand lines of logs. And if you feel sick of this - consult a doctor, but don't try to find the solution yourself.
Yours sincerely, man in the middle.
by Lockal - But lawyers are expensive, and if it turns out you are just a witness, you are going to be spending a lot of money for nothing.
And then consider if you are are the spouse or parent of a murder victim or missing person, and are innocent. You are almost certainly going to be a potential suspect, but you also want to help them find the actual criminal, and if hiring a lawyer makes you "look guilty", then the police might focus their investigation on you rather than finding the real perpetrator.
by thayne - Somebody else linked to a follow up talk by the lawyer in the video[0], in which he gives an example where this exact thing happened, and they wound up convicting the guy based on his attempts to help them. He was later exonerated.by mplanchard
- >But lawyers are expensive
Maybe, but it can also be VERY expensive to NOT have a lawyer.
I have a lawyer that offers free 30 minute initial conversations. But I also practically beg her to charge me for her time because it's valuable to me to get her take on the situation.
by linsomniac - >And then consider if you are are the spouse or parent of a murder victim or missing person, and are innocent. You are almost certainly going to be a potential suspect, but you also want to help them find the actual criminal, and if hiring a lawyer makes you "look guilty", then the police might focus their investigation on you rather than finding the real perpetrator.
I agree. This is a real problem in law enforcement. The issue is that while they're competing interests, my right to remain innocent should rationally supersede the deep profound desire for justice (but I recognize it rarely plays out this way).
by spelk - These topics are always far more complicated than these experts claim.
My case in point: A neighbor's child was violently mentally ill. I have made my house a safe haven for her children on occasion, and at times have gone into her house to discreetly escort them out past the violent child.
Then the police show up, either because she was able to call them, or I did.
At that point, a refusal to provide witness information to the police would increase the danger for both the child (who I stress is mentally ill, not simply being a violent asshole), the mother, and the police.
In situations involving the police reacting to 911 calls to that house, I always answer their questions. At this point, I get "I remember this guy - you're a neighbor, right?" - because we've done this dance so many times.
Another instance - I noted someone hiding (with really obvious peaks around the corner) at the side of a house while driving home. Found multiple police cars parked on and near my block. I walked up and told the first cop I met where the "hide-and-go-seek" loser was, and answered their questions about his appearance. Hell yes I wanted to answer them.
Rando policeman stopping you and asking you questions is very different from having a local emergency, and wanting your locale to be safer. Yeah, maybe in some fantasy situation the cops could have arrested me for something during that domestic situation at my neighbors, but I value her life and her kids' lives above that paranoid outlook.
by IAmBroom - Never frobnicate without a flangleharp, says the flangleharp salesman. He could be right, but you would probably want to ask someone else.
- If you watch the video (which is classic and the real content here), the lawyer cedes the second half to a career detective, who agrees with him in full.by RickS
- Sometimes it's smart to be silent.
Pro 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
by normalaccess - Note that in the US, you need to verbally assert your right to remain silent.
Merely being silent means the prosecution is able describe your communication as "refused to cooperate with or answer questions from law enforcement" which is a "negative" finding, whereas the right to remain silent is at least meant to be interpreted neutrally.
by FireBeyond - A lot of discussion in this thread about traffic stops. James Duane (the law professor from the video in the blog) himself makes a qualifier about traffic stops: https://youtu.be/-FENubmZGj8?si=bL_1vR0xFKQqkmC5&t=505by iwhalen
- Thanks for the link to this! The whole talk is a great follow up to the original, and convinced me to buy his bookby mplanchard
- James Duane, the lawyer from the famous video about never talking to the police, wrote a book called You Have the Right to Remain Innocent. It’s a great read if you want to feel very sad.by aomix
- I live in a country where you can now consider police to be "on your side": in other words, policing. It used not to be the case, so I can appreciate this.
In light of this, I find the comments of the police officer invited to the youtube talk about how lucky the listeners are to be in the US (because police in other countries is so terrible) somewhat amusing.
In the US one should generally be terrified of the police, especially if one's skin color doesn't happen to be white. Plus everything that was said in the talk.
by jwr - I suppose a grain of salt has to be taken for the fact that this is basically an adby bloppe
- Regardless, what they say here is genuinely true and it's worth knowing things like "police are allowed to lie to you". Some people find that sort of thing surprising.by rybosworld
- You can go find the linked video[0] which long pre-dates any advertisement around it.
In fact, the video is 14 years old and doesn't have anyone[1] from the law firm that linked to it in the video.
by nobody9999 - >that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect.
While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved.
So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do:
1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case
2. I talk, and it screws me
3. I don't talk, and it contributes to a case not being solved
4. I don't talk, and it screws me
I read stuff like this article and it tells you about 2, but it doesn't really put that into a broader context about the likelihood that 2 is the outcome. And there is a real decision to be made here!
by Brendinooo - What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.by Arainach
- 4 doesn't really happen, unless you're a mandated reporter and don't report child abuse.
I used to have to testify in civil and criminal proceedings a few times a year as part of my job. If you aren't trained to talk to police or adversarial attorneys, don't.
The magic is essentially talk to them like you would a call center agent. One topic per interaction. Use simple language. Answer a question directly. "He went that way." "I don't know."
Don't answer unasked questions. Don't demonstrate how smart you are. Don't try to "help". If you help, do an Irish goodbye asap.
At the end of the day or incident, the officer is going to write an incident report. You never want to stand out or be interesting that report. The more interesting you are, the more likely you are to get sucked in. I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case.
by Spooky23 - The point of the article (and any similar advice) is that 4 is not possible
- I recommend watching the video, he makes an IMO excellent case that #1 without a lawyer really is a bad idea. You can still help solve the case in way that protects you, the stakes here are often incredibly high.by mattnewton
- If you genuinely have evidence as a witness that can help police solve the case, then you get an attorney present.by Maxatar
- Related:
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45317167 - Sept 2025 (2 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24754163 - Oct 2020 (1 comment)
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390344 - June 2020 (6 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police – James Duane - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717507 - April 2019 (4 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886628 - Dec 2017 (165 comments)
Don't talk to the police [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001859 - July 2013 (37 comments)
Don't talk to the police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758 - June 2008 (35 comments)
by dang - There is a reprise, too. In 2014 the SCOTUS weakened 5A rights significantly, so now you are best off asserting your 6A rights (i.e., say you won't talk without your lawyer present, and then really don't talk).by cryptonector
- It’s really important to know your rights. A lot of people think they know, but often times they don’t. And it gets those people in trouble.
For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No exceptions. Don’t get hung up on the reason for the stop, it doesn’t matter. Additionally, police can articulate in virtually any situation that they fear for officer safety, which is reason enough in many states to order you out of the vehicle. At this point they have a foundation to frisk you for a weapon.
Resisting at any point of this is very risky.
Understanding when and where an officer doesn’t have the legal authority to do the above gets very nuanced. But generally I encourage Americans to learn the rights they have when operating a car seeing as their lives revolve around driving.
by lwansbrough - > For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr...
> The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
by ceejayoz - Yes. However: it's always safe to say, as you are complying: "I do not consent to this." It should also be safe to ask "Are you giving me a lawful order?", but situations will vary. Beware that they can be very good at giving answers that sound like "yes" but are not "yes". ("I need to see your drivers license." "Are you giving me a lawful order?" "I need to see your drivers license." That is not a yes.)by linsomniac
- I live in a small central California town. My wife and I enjoy a local band that plays occasionally at the local pub. I couldn't make it last weekend but my wife went with a friend and I picked her up after at about 10:00pm. Neither of us had anything to drink. Cop lights me up and pulls me over and claims I didn't stop at a stop sign, was weaving on the road and that my license plate light is out. All complete and utter lies. Cop said "Are you willing to take a sobriety test right now?" and I thought about it. My stubborn side wanted to say "hell yes, I'll take the test" but I've heard enough stories about cops fucking people over here that I just calmly said "No." He said "I can haul you in for that.." and I replied "And you'll look really bad in front of a judge if you force it and you find out I'm completely sober. I'll fight it the whole way." I was polite. Gave him my license and registration and cooperated as asked otherwise. He made us sit there on the main street for about 20 minutes while he sat in his car with his spotlight on us and didn't appear to do anything else. Then came back and tossed my license and registration at me and said he was giving me a verbal warning. Fuck these guys. I hear these stories all the time locally and I don't really see how anyone that experiences the petty lies can "back the blue".by itbeho
- This is so true, and it's surprising how many people don't know what they are obligated to do when asked by an officer. It's even fuzzy for me at times.
It should be well known that you are required to show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States (1996)], your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] , and you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) & Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)].
All of these requirements have been litigated to the supreme court. You should also know the difference between probably cause and reasonable suspicion. We should add these topics to high school civics or something.
by m348e912