0:01 If you think being polite and
0:03 cooperative with the police will protect
0:04 you, you're about to make the most
0:07 expensive mistake of your life. Because
0:08 most people don't get arrested because
0:10 they're guilty, they get arrested
0:12 because they talk. And I've seen
0:14 two-minute conversations with a cop turn
0:17 into a search, handcuffs, and a court
0:19 date. All because someone answered one
0:21 question they didn't have to. I'm Jeff
0:23 Hampton, the people's lawyer, and in
0:24 this video, I'm breaking down every
0:27 single trick cops use to get you
0:29 talking, explaining, and consenting. and
0:32 the exact words you can use to shut them
0:34 down so that you don't accidentally help
0:36 them build a case against you. If you've
0:38 ever been pulled over for a traffic
0:40 stop, it's important to know that cops
0:42 have a grabag of tricks that they can
0:44 pull from to get you talking and you end
0:46 up giving consent so they can search
0:48 your car. First off, it's important to
0:50 know that cops may actually pull you
0:52 over for a minor violation, even if
0:54 they're really interested in something
0:56 else. For example, they could stop you
0:58 for a broken tail light, rolling through
0:59 a stop sign, or maybe they think your
1:01 license plate is out when their real
1:03 reason they pulled you over was to
1:05 investigate you for a more serious
1:07 crime. These are called pretext stops.
1:09 And in 1996, the Supreme Court held in
1:12 Ren versus United States that a traffic
1:13 stop is reasonable under the Fourth
1:15 Amendment when police have probable
1:17 cause to believe a traffic violation
1:20 occurred, even if the officer's real
1:21 motive was to investigate something
1:24 else. A tiny violation can open the door
1:27 to questioning, orders, and searches.
1:28 So, when you're pulled over, don't think
1:30 you can talk your way out of it by being
1:32 friendly and cooperative. The cop could
1:34 be using your minor traffic violation as
1:37 a way to trick you into saying something
1:38 that could open the door to a bigger
1:40 investigation. One of the first trick
1:42 questions cops will ask you is, "Do you
1:44 know why I stopped you?" Many people
1:46 will answer, "Was I speeding or did I
1:48 miss that stop sign?" If you admit to
1:50 wrongdoing, now the officer doesn't have
1:51 to prove it. you've just given yourself
1:54 a ticket or worse. In 1984, the Supreme
1:56 Court case of Burkmer versus McCarti
1:58 held that routine roadside questioning
2:00 during a typical traffic stop is
2:02 generally not custodial interrogation
2:05 for Miranda purposes. So, officers can
2:07 ask questions and those answers can be
2:09 used against you, even if you weren't
2:11 Mirandaized. Never give the cops
2:13 anything to use against you. So, when
2:15 the cops ask, "Do you know why I pulled
2:17 you over?" Simply say, "No, I don't. It
2:20 was polite, but you offered nothing."
2:22 Another most common trick question cops
2:24 love to use is where you coming from or
2:26 where you going. This isn't friendly
2:28 conversation. To answer these questions
2:30 is to give cops a timeline for them to
2:32 test against other information they're
2:34 fishing for or to see if your story adds
2:37 up. For example, I just left my friend's
2:39 house will lead to further questions
2:40 about what you were doing at your
2:42 friend's house and whether or not maybe
2:44 you were using drugs or alcohol. You're
2:46 better off not narrating your night to
2:48 the cops. Instead, you can say,
2:50 "Officer, with all due respect, I will
2:52 not answer that question." Now, what if
2:54 the officer plays hard ball and he
2:56 doesn't like that, so he asks you to
2:58 step out of the car. Now, many people
3:00 feel, "I have the right to refuse. I
3:02 don't have to get out of my car." But
3:04 unfortunately, they can't. Based on the
3:05 Supreme Court case of Pennsylvania
3:08 versus Mims, cops can demand you to step
3:10 out of the car in the name of officer
3:12 safety, even if they don't have any real
3:14 suspicion that you've committed a crime.
3:16 Refusing this order, believe it or not,
3:18 can result in cops pulling you out of
3:19 your car and you can end up being
3:22 arrested for resisting arrest. However,
3:23 once you're out of the car, watch out
3:25 for more tricks because officers can
3:27 claim you are acting nervously or they
3:29 can split up everyone to question you
3:31 one by one or they can take their time
3:34 looking around the car for evidence that
3:36 could be sitting in plain sight. If
3:38 you're forced out of your car, protect
3:40 yourself by locking your car doors and
3:42 telling the officer you do not consent
3:44 to a search. If you ever feel like you
3:45 aren't able to leave the side of the
3:47 road or the cops keep asking you
3:49 questions to delay you being able to
3:51 leave, this is where you simply say,
3:53 "Officer, am I being detained?" If they
3:56 don't give a clear answer, ask, "Am I
3:58 free to go?" If the officers admit they
4:00 have no reason to detain you, leave
4:02 calmly. If they claim you are being
4:05 detained, now you know. Exercise your
4:07 right to remain silent and you will not
4:09 say anything further without your lawyer
4:10 present. Now, how do you know if you're
4:12 being detained? In the classic case of
4:14 United States versus Menhal, the US
4:17 Supreme Court ruled that a person is
4:20 considered seized or detained when under
4:22 all the circumstances a reasonable
4:25 person would not feel free to leave.
4:27 That test is the legal backbone for why
4:30 am I free to go matters and why cops
4:32 hope you don't ask that question so they
4:34 can use it against you. So, if the cops
4:36 are being ambiguous with their answer
4:37 and they don't clearly tell you that you
4:39 are free to leave, it's time for you to
4:42 exercise your right to remain silent and
4:43 don't say a word unless your lawyer is
4:45 present. So, now we see how cops can
4:48 trick you to get you talking. But cops
4:50 also have their own bag of tricks so
4:52 they can start searching your property.
4:54 Perhaps the most common way for cops to
4:56 get you to consent to search is to make
4:58 the most casual request of saying, "Mind
5:00 if I take a look?" And of course, they
5:02 won't tell you you have a right to say
5:04 no. Schnikloth versus Booamonte in
5:07 United States versus Drayton both held
5:09 that voluntary consent is a valid
5:11 exception to the warrant requirement and
5:13 police are not required to advise people
5:15 that they may refuse consent. And once
5:17 you consent, you lose the ability to
5:19 challenge that consent later in court.
5:21 Which is precisely why it's so important
5:23 that when cops start that small talk and
5:25 they ask questions like, "Mind if I take
5:27 a look?" You look at the officer and you
5:30 say, "Officer, I do not consent to any
5:32 searches." And remember, if cops don't
5:33 have a warrant, you always have a right
5:36 to refuse any search. And some people
5:38 only learn this the hard way. In 2018,
5:40 an Arizona woman consented to a search
5:42 during a traffic stop, and the cops
5:45 found 55 lbs of marijuana in her trunk.
5:46 Because she consented to that search,
5:48 that evidence could now be used against
5:51 her in court. But cops don't always ask,
5:53 sometimes they give orders and stare
5:55 back at you. Statements like, "Pop the
5:58 trunk." This sounds like a command you
6:00 can't refuse, but that would be another
6:02 one of their tricks. They are often
6:04 trained to speak with authority to
6:06 trigger your compliance. They are hoping
6:07 to make it seem as though you don't have
6:10 any choice or to just agree to what
6:12 they're demanding without even thinking.
6:13 And if you go ahead and comply
6:15 voluntarily, you can count on the police
6:18 framing it as consent even if you felt
6:20 pressured. Again, look right at the
6:22 officer. And I know it may feel hard to
6:24 do so, but look at the officer and say,
6:26 "Officer, I do not consent to a search."
6:28 But what if the cop doubles down, looks
6:30 back at you, and now he claims, "I think
6:32 I smell weed or a little alcohol in the
6:34 car." Watch out. This is just another
6:37 one of their tricks to pressure you into
6:39 consent to search. In the past, courts
6:41 have treated odors as a basis for
6:44 probable cause. But that standard has
6:46 now changed in many states. The various
6:48 levels of legalization for marijuana in
6:50 different states have changed whether or
6:53 not odor can be used as a basis to get
6:55 into your vehicle in search. For
6:57 example, the Illinois Supreme Court has
7:00 said that the smell of marijuana alone
7:02 is not enough for probable cause to
7:03 search a vehicle since cannabis
7:05 possession can be lawful and odor
7:08 doesn't automatically imply a crime. But
7:10 either way, it's not worth it to argue
7:12 with the cops here. If the cops want to
7:14 search you or your car based on odor
7:16 alone, you just stand firm on your
7:18 rights and you say, "Officer, I do not
7:20 consent to a search." Which leads us to
7:22 the next trick cops love to use. If you
7:24 don't comply with what they want,
7:25 they'll now threaten you that they're
7:28 going to get a warrant. Sometimes this
7:30 is a bluff. Sometimes they think they
7:32 can build probable cause. But either
7:34 way, it's another trick meant to make
7:36 you give up without forcing them to meet
7:38 their legal standards. If the cops stare
7:40 at you and threaten you with a warrant,
7:42 just look right back at them and say,
7:44 "Officer, I do not consent to a search."
7:46 But what if cops then suddenly claim
7:48 they already have a warrant and it's
7:49 going to go harder for you if you don't
7:51 cooperate? Well, watch out for this
7:53 trick because according to Bumper versus
7:55 North Carolina, consent is not voluntary
7:58 when it is given only after officers
8:00 claim they already have a warrant. At
8:02 this point, it is effectively submission
8:05 to authority, not consent. This is the
8:08 one warrant bluff line that courts take
8:09 very seriously. But those are tricks
8:11 cops use to search your vehicle. Now,
8:13 what if they want to patch you down for
8:15 weapons? Do they really need a warrant
8:17 for that? This is where cops will ask
8:19 you in advance if they can patch you
8:21 down for weapons for their own safety
8:22 sake. Under the Supreme Court case of
8:25 Terry versus Ohio, a police officer can
8:27 briefly stop someone on reasonable
8:29 suspicion and frisk for weapons only if
8:32 they reasonably believe the person may
8:34 be armed and dangerous. But what if the
8:36 cops feel something else other than a
8:38 weapon? Under the plain of view doctrine
8:40 in Terry versus Ohio, cops could still
8:43 seize any other illegal contraband, only
8:45 if it's immediately apparent that it's
8:48 illegal. But here's the trick. Cops are
8:50 always going to ask you for your consent
8:52 because they're afraid they may not be
8:54 able to navigate the legal minefield of
8:56 establishing they have the legal basis
8:58 to patch you down for weapons. So, if
9:00 you consent, you lower your ability to
9:02 challenge that stop later and you've
9:04 fallen for another trick. So, while you
9:06 may not be able to prevent the officer
9:08 from performing the pat down search on
9:10 you, you can always make it clear where
9:12 you stand and stand up for your legal
9:15 rights by refusing consent to that
9:17 search. Simply say, "I refuse consent to
9:19 a search." And remember, this legal
9:21 standard only allows them to do a pat
9:23 down of your outer clothing. And if they
9:25 go deeper than your outer clothing, you
9:28 now have a legal challenge in court. So,
9:29 what if you don't fall for any of these
9:31 police tricks and now all of a sudden
9:33 the cops claim, "Since you're not
9:35 cooperating, we're bringing a K-9 out to
9:37 sniff around your car." Most courts have
9:39 ruled that a well-trained narcotics dog,
9:42 sniffing around a car during a lawful
9:44 traffic stop doesn't technically count
9:47 as a search. However, in the 2015 United
9:49 States Supreme Court case of Rodriguez
9:51 versus United States, the Supreme Court
9:54 ruled that cops cannot extend a traffic
9:56 stop just to make you wait around for a
9:58 drug dog to show up. In other words,
10:00 they can't drag their feet to make you
10:02 wait around for a drug dog to show up
10:04 when they don't have reasonable
10:06 suspicion you've committed a crime. But
10:08 this doesn't stop cops from using some
10:10 of their triedand-true tricks to keep
10:12 you waiting around so that they can
10:15 justify having the K-9 come out. tricks
10:18 like doing a slow walk routine around
10:19 your car looking for any type of
10:21 equipment malfunctions. Or maybe they
10:23 decided they want to keep you standing
10:25 around asking you a bunch of irrelevant
10:27 questions. Finally, another great trick
10:29 they use is they'll claim they're still
10:32 working to stop and looking into a few
10:34 things while they wait for the K9 to
10:35 show up. If you feel like this is
10:37 happening, remember you have a
10:39 constitutional right to not answer any
10:41 questions. You have a right to exercise
10:43 your right to an attorney. You also have
10:46 your right to ask the officer, "Officer,
10:48 am I being detained or am I free to
10:50 leave?" This is really critical when it
10:52 comes to drug dog searches because now
10:54 you're creating a record and making it
10:56 crystal clear you're not consenting to
10:57 sitting around waiting and you've
10:59 started that clock of unreasonable time
11:02 that's lapsing by when cops don't let
11:04 you go. So, what if the cops now realize
11:05 you're not going to fall for the drug
11:07 dog trick, but they look over and see
11:08 that you're holding a phone? And they
11:10 may ask you the question, "Mind if I
11:12 take a look at your phone real quick?"
11:13 According to the Supreme Court case of
11:15 Riley versus California, the court ruled
11:17 specifically police need a search
11:19 warrant in order to search the digital
11:21 contents of your phone because the court
11:24 said our cell phones inherently have a
11:26 unique privacy interest because of all
11:28 the data and all the important documents
11:31 and information we keep on our phone.
11:33 But this doesn't stop cops from using
11:35 that old trick that they love to use by
11:37 asking, "Hey, listen. If you'll just
11:39 unlock your phone, I'll take a look so
11:40 we can clear all this up and have you on
11:42 your way." But in reality, cops are
11:45 hoping you'll just unlock it because you
11:46 will have now given them what they would
11:48 normally have needed a warrant for.
11:51 Never unlock your phone in front of a
11:53 police officer without a lawyer. And
11:55 equally more important, don't use
11:57 biometrics on your phone. Courts have
12:00 ruled that cops can literally force your
12:02 finger or your face in front of that
12:04 computer or onto the actual screen. And
12:06 if that will unlock the phone, there is
12:09 no fifth amendment right to protect cops
12:11 from using something physical to gain
12:13 access to the phone. So don't use any of
12:15 these. And don't unlock the phone in
12:17 front of a cop. But tricks don't just
12:19 happen on the roadside. Cops have a
12:21 handful of tricks they love to use when
12:23 they come to your front door. The number
12:25 one classic trick cops are trained to
12:27 use when they want to get inside your
12:30 home is to come by, knock on that front
12:32 door, and just say, "Hello, sir. We're
12:34 going around asking a few questions
12:35 about some things that we heard about
12:37 going on in the neighborhood and we just
12:38 wanted to talk for a minute. This is
12:40 known as the old-fashioned knock and
12:42 talk. The Supreme Court case of Florida
12:44 versus Jardines explains that police
12:46 officers generally have an implied
12:49 license to approach a home's front door,
12:51 knock and attempt a conversation. But
12:54 that same case of Jardines ruled that if
12:56 police officers were to bring a drug dog
12:59 into walking around your front door
13:00 smelling to see what's going on, that
13:02 would be considered a search. and they
13:04 must have a warrant. Under the Fourth
13:06 Amendment, you have no responsibility
13:08 whatsoever to ever open that front door
13:10 when a police officer comes and knocks
13:12 on your door. You legally have a right
13:14 to completely ignore that police officer
13:16 at the front door unless they claim they
13:18 have a warrant. Your house is your
13:21 castle and you don't have to answer the
13:22 door. If they have a warrant, they can
13:25 prove it to you by showing it there at a
13:27 window and make making sure you see it
13:29 that it's signed by a judge and it's a
13:31 valid warrant. If they don't have a
13:32 warrant, you can literally keep the door
13:35 shut, ignore them, and not say a word.
13:36 So, what if the old knock and talk
13:38 doesn't work, and instead of saying they
13:39 want to come in and talk, they decide,
13:41 "Don't worry, we're just going to look
13:43 around." This brings us to your Fourth
13:46 Amendment right that cops do not have a
13:48 legal right to walk around what's known
13:50 as the curtilage of your home to just
13:51 snoop around and see whatever they can
13:53 find. The Supreme Court case of Payton
13:55 versus New York says that cops must have
13:57 a warrant in order to enter into your
13:59 home and look around. And they also must
14:01 have a warrant if they want to search
14:03 around the curtilage of your home,
14:06 meaning the area uniquely and exactly
14:09 precisely around the outside of your
14:10 home. So, they can't just go into your
14:11 backyard and do whatever they want to
14:13 do. They've got to have a warrant. So,
14:15 the trick here, saying, "Oh, we're just
14:17 going to look around," is a way to get
14:19 your attention and hopefully get you to
14:21 come outside so now they can confront
14:24 you. It's essentially a sneaky way to
14:26 try to see if they can get your consent
14:28 to do something they otherwise couldn't
14:30 do. What do we say here? We stay inside
14:32 our home. We talk through the door and
14:34 say, "Officer, I do not consent to a
14:37 search. Do you have a warrant?" So, what
14:38 if they don't have a warrant, but now
14:40 all of a sudden they claim they're there
14:41 for a welfare check? They're there to
14:43 check on your safety. This is known as a
14:45 welfare check. But the Supreme Court
14:48 ruled in Kigula versus Stro that police
14:49 using this community caretaking
14:51 justification doesn't work in order for
14:54 them to get into your home unless they
14:56 use the emergency aid doctrine. Which
14:58 means now if cops claim that, oh my
15:00 goodness, I think this person's suicidal
15:02 or there's some problem here. They they
15:04 can now use this doctrine under the
15:06 Supreme Court law to allow them to get
15:08 into your home without a warrant and
15:10 then seek that legal justification after
15:11 the fact. So, how do you stop cops from
15:13 using this trick against you? go to your
15:15 door, but keep the door shut. If you can
15:17 pull back a window and show the officer,
15:19 "Officer, I am perfectly fine. There is
15:21 nothing for you to check on. I am not in
15:23 harm's way. I do not consent to search."
15:26 And leave it at that. But what if you do
15:27 everything right and lock down your
15:29 constitutional rights inside your home?
15:31 And then you're out in public walking
15:32 around and the cops walk up and say,
15:34 "Hey, hey, you're not under arrest. We
15:36 just want to talk." This is one of the
15:39 areas I see many people fold like a
15:41 cheap tent. A common misconception I see
15:43 people have is that because an officer
15:45 walked up and had what was known as a
15:47 consensual encounter that hey, he didn't
15:49 read me my rights, so this isn't really
15:51 an interrogation and they can't use what
15:53 I say against me. That's completely
15:55 wrong. Any statement you make during a
15:57 consensual encounter with a cop can be
15:59 used against you and is absolutely
16:02 admissible in court. It's only when
16:05 you're in custody and detained and under
16:07 interrogation do cops have an obligation
16:09 to read you your Miranda rights. But
16:11 cops, they don't expect you to know
16:12 that. So they treat it as a nice little
16:14 consensual encounter, hoping you'll
16:16 volunteer information and they can twist
16:18 and turn it and manipulate it into
16:20 something that now could land you behind
16:22 bars. So you choose to do the right
16:24 thing. You look at that officer and you
16:26 say, "Officer, I exercise my right to
16:28 remain silent and I will not answer any
16:29 questions unless my attorney is
16:31 present." That's when cops pull the next
16:32 trick out of their tool belt where they
16:34 look at you and they say, "Well, listen.
16:36 We're going to just continue to find you
16:38 and approach you about this. If you'll
16:40 just come down to the station, we can
16:42 clear everything up. Going down to the
16:44 station to clear things up is one of the
16:46 most dangerous things you can do. In
16:49 fact, clear things up is essentially
16:51 code for we believe you've done
16:52 something wrong and we're putting you in
16:54 a room and you're going to be
16:56 outnumbered and outspoken to and out
16:58 interrogated and we're planning on
16:59 getting evidence out of you. Even if
17:01 you're in a situation where you can't
17:03 leave and they're asking you questions,
17:06 you can always memorize these words. I
17:08 exercise my right to remain silent and I
17:10 will not answer a question unless my
17:13 attorney is present. But remember, if
17:14 you're going to stand up for your rights
17:16 and you're going to exercise your
17:17 rights, none of it will matter if you
17:20 don't verbalize your rights. In the
17:21 Supreme Court case of Bergus versus
17:23 Tomkins, the Supreme Court says that
17:25 your right to remain silent only works
17:28 if you unambiguously invoke your right
17:30 to remain silent. So if you choose to
17:33 remain silent, that silence can actually
17:35 be used against you. And to make matters
17:37 worse, in Davis versus United States,
17:39 the Supreme Court said that cops can
17:41 continue to interrogate you and they
17:42 don't have to stop unless you
17:45 unambiguously say you want a lawyer. So,
17:47 you must plainly state that you want
17:50 your lawyer and then stop talking. Never
17:52 say, "I think I might need a lawyer or
17:54 maybe I should consider a lawyer." That
17:56 won't work. You have to say very
17:58 clearly, "Officer, I exercise my right
18:00 to remain silent, I will not speak
18:02 unless I have my lawyer present." And
18:04 remember, even after you invoked your
18:06 right to a lawyer, if you keep talking,
18:08 those words can still be used against
18:11 you, too. So, stop talking. There is no
18:14 such thing as being off the record. But
18:16 even if you do exercise your right to
18:17 remain silent here, you still got to
18:19 watch out for the good cop bad cop
18:22 trick. We've all seen it on TV. The bad
18:23 cop comes in and threatens you with the
18:25 worst case scenario and claims you're
18:26 going to get the book thrown at you.
18:28 Then the good cop magically walks in,
18:30 says he's your best friend, and he wants
18:32 to protect you from the bad cop. This
18:34 trick is very effective because it makes
18:35 you feel like you have a friend in the
18:37 room, and you're a little afraid of the
18:39 boogeyman who wants to throw the book at
18:41 you. But remember, this is a trick, and
18:43 these two cops are working together. Why
18:45 are they allowed to do this? Well, under
18:46 the Supreme Court case of Colorado
18:48 versus Connelly, the Supreme Court
18:50 emphasized that in order for a
18:52 confession to be deemed involuntary
18:54 under due process, there generally must
18:56 be coercive political activity that
18:59 overbears the will of the suspect. This
19:02 means courts say they'll allow as much
19:05 manipulation as possible by the police
19:07 and deem it to be legal as long as it
19:09 doesn't bleed over into the realm of
19:12 coercion. Which brings me to the most
19:13 common trick and the trick I speak about
19:15 on this channel all the time. Cops are
19:18 legally allowed to lie to you. If you
19:19 lie to the cops, you can be charged with
19:21 false report to a peace officer. But
19:23 cops can lie to you all the time. They
19:25 can claim they found your fingerprints
19:26 at the scene. They can turn around and
19:29 say, "We already know your best buddy
19:30 over here, he already told us you did
19:33 it." In fact, Ted Bradford of Washington
19:35 State sat in prison for over a decade
19:37 after confessing to a crime he didn't
19:40 commit because police had lied to him.
19:42 They claimed they had DNA evidence when
19:44 they didn't, and that scared Ted, so he
19:46 admitted to something he didn't do. The
19:48 most common example of this is you may
19:50 try to explain away evidence that wasn't
19:53 even real. For example, maybe you were
19:54 at the scene earlier in the day, and
19:56 then cops claim that they have your
19:58 fingerprints there, which might exist,
19:59 but now you're trying to explain all
20:01 these reasons why they may have your
20:03 fingerprints to begin with, which now
20:05 what do you do? You put yourself at the
20:08 scene. You become a suspect. Cops use
20:09 lies because they know it leads to
20:11 people talking, which then can be used
20:13 as evidence against them in court. And
20:15 one of their favorite lies they love to
20:17 use is to make false promises to you.
20:19 Cops love to extend interrogations for
20:22 hours, sometimes days, and then promise
20:24 you relief if you'll just start talking
20:26 to them and tell them what they want.
20:28 Many cops are notorious for promising
20:31 juveniles and younger suspects the
20:33 opportunity to just go home if they'll
20:35 tell them what they want to hear. Never
20:37 believe a single promise a cop makes to
20:39 you. They're not lawyers. They're not
20:41 the judge. And they're certainly not
20:43 prosecutors. So, why do cops use these
20:46 tricks? Because cops know they can use
20:48 your normal human behavior to manipulate
20:51 you into doing what they want. They rely
20:53 on their authority and your desire to be
20:56 polite, helpful, and cooperative.
20:58 They've been trained to get information
21:00 out of you without even realizing you're
21:03 giving it. And cops love to use the
21:05 common phrase that if you're innocent,
21:07 you have nothing to hide. And innocent
21:10 people always tell everything when asked
21:12 by cops. I mean, after all, it's only
21:14 the guilty people that stay quiet or
21:16 push back. But thankfully, the United
21:18 States Constitution says standing up for
21:20 your rights doesn't make you guilty. In
21:22 fact, our Constitution says that
21:24 assuming the police are on your side
21:26 probably makes you a lot more
21:28 vulnerable. In reality, the police's job
21:30 is not just to protect and serve. It is
21:33 their job to try to gather evidence and
21:35 point a finger. The safest move you can
21:36 always make and the magic word you
21:39 should always say is, "Officer, I
21:41 exercise my right to remain silent. I do
21:43 not consent to searches and I will not
21:46 answer questions unless my attorney is
21:48 present." Speaking of tricks, do you
21:49 know cops have a whole new bag of tricks
21:52 if they pull you over and suspect you of
21:54 DWI? Check out this next video where I
21:56 break down five favorite tricks cops
21:59 love to use during DWI stops and what
