Sadly when you tell the police that you want them to honor your constitutional rights, most cops are pathological liars who will give you a line of BS that you Constitutional rights don't apply in the current case.
Every time I am stopped by the police I tell them I want them to exercise my 6th Amendment right and have my lawyer present during any questioning. They always ignore my request and continue questioning me. When the start questioning me, I am like a broken records and tell them I am taking the 5th and refusing to answer their questions. In almost every case the police give me a line of BS, that "in this case" I don't have any 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer questions. Which is a lie. Miranda v Arizona says that when a person takes the 5th the police shall immediately cease questioning the person. But the cops almost always continue to question me, and make threats that if I don't answer their questions bad, bad, bad things will happen to me. Since I won't tell the cops my name the pigs usually illegally search my wallet looking for ID. And that's the reason I don't carry ID. Because I don't want some mutherf*cking crooked pig to search it in my wallet when he illegally searches me. That's why we hate the police!!!! Now in my case I am always on foot, so I don't need a driver's license.
Arizona high court to rule on alcohol testing Associated Press 9:48 a.m. MST April 26, 2016 The Arizona Supreme Court plans to rule Tuesday on whether two men convicted of driving or boating under the influence were coerced into submitting to tests for alcohol. At issue is whether law enforcement officers violated the defendants' constitutional rights against unreasonable warrantless searches by saying Arizona law required the men to submit to alcohol testing. One case involves a man stopped by a Maricopa County sheriff's deputy while operating a boat. The other case involves a man arrested in Cochise County by a state trooper who found the man asleep while seated behind the wheel in a truck. Lower courts upheld the convictions but a dissenting judge in one case said what the officers said was inappropriate because suspects have a right to not consent to warrantless tests. |