Know Your Rights: A Guide to Consciously Resisting Non-Consensual Police Encounters

Understanding your Rights:

Whether you are a U.S. citizen or a visitor to the country, it is crucial to familiarize yourself with your rights and learn how to use them effectively to protect yourself in any situation.

The Constitution and laws of the United States protect several important rights, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process of law, the right to equal protection under the law, and the right to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. By consciously resisting non-consensual police encounters, you can exercise and assert your rights peacefully and non-aggressively, and stay safe in most situations.

These six rights are particularly relevant to police encounters and protecting oneself from unreasonable searches, self-incrimination, and other violations of one’s civil liberties. They are:

• First Amendment: freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the press.
• Fourth Amendment: protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Fifth Amendment: protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
• Sixth Amendment: right to a fair and speedy trial, impartial jury, and the right to counsel.
• Eighth Amendment: protection against excessive bail and fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.
• Fourteenth Amendment: protection of due process and equal protection under the law.

These rights will not work for you unless you assert and exercise them. It is your responsibility to protect your civil liberties.

When interacting with officials or agents, it is generally recommended that you do not interact with them beyond giving reasonable compliance. However, blindly complying with unjust demands can lead to a dangerous standard of people complying with the authorities. In fact, the majority of people who interact with the police do not know how to or do not assert their rights. This sets a standard for law enforcement to assume that something is wrong if you assert your rights. Therefore, it is better to know your rights and how to assert them without escalating the situation.

Reasonable Compliance During Police Encounters:

During police encounters, it is essential to strike a balance between asserting your rights and complying with reasonable requests made by law enforcement officers. Reasonable compliance means cooperating with officers in a manner that does not jeopardize your rights or safety. This involves providing basic information, such as your name and address, when required by law, but not answering questions that could incriminate you or consenting to searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

To comply reasonably, understand the distinction between lawful and unlawful requests made by law enforcement officers. For example, if an officer asks you to step out of your vehicle during a traffic stop, it is generally considered a lawful request, and you should comply. However, if the officer then asks to search your vehicle without probable cause, you have the right to refuse.

In some situations, refusing to comply with an unlawful request may lead to temporary detainment or arrest. However, remember that asserting your rights may ultimately protect you from false charges or violations of your civil liberties. If you are arrested or detained after refusing an unlawful request, it is crucial to seek legal assistance as soon as possible.

Understanding Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion:

Probable cause is a legal standard that refers to the level of evidence required for a law enforcement official to conduct a search, make an arrest, or obtain a warrant. Probable cause means that the officer has a reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances, that a crime has been or is being committed, and that the person being searched or arrested is connected to that crime. This standard must be met before an officer can conduct a search or make an arrest without a warrant.

Reasonable suspicion, on the other hand, is a lower legal standard that allows law enforcement officials to briefly detain and investigate a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Reasonable suspicion requires less evidence than probable cause and is often used by officers during traffic stops, pedestrian stops, or other similar situations.

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are not the same thing, and an officer cannot conduct a search or make an arrest based solely on reasonable suspicion. Instead, reasonable suspicion may lead to probable cause if additional evidence is discovered during an investigation.

Some examples of officials violating Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion:

• The Smell of Pot:

Several federal circuit court rulings have established that the smell of marijuana alone is not sufficient justification for a search. These rulings include the Ninth Circuit’s Catz v. Barstow decision, the Seventh Circuit’s United States v. Sutter, the Tenth Circuit’s United States v. McKnight, the Second Circuit’s United States v. Howard, and the D.C. Circuit’s United States v. Pope.Collectively, these rulings apply to all states within the respective federal judicial circuits in which the cases were decided. For instance, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, while the Seventh Circuit’s ruling applies to Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The Tenth Circuit’s ruling pertains to Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. The Second Circuit’s ruling applies to Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, and the D.C. Circuit’s ruling covers the District of Columbia.

While these rulings offer protections against unwarranted searches, they do not imply that individuals can freely possess marijuana in all states. Marijuana laws vary widely across states and municipalities, and understanding the specific laws in one’s jurisdiction is crucial.

Individuals should be aware of their rights regarding searches, including their right to refuse a search if the officer lacks a warrant or probable cause. If a search is conducted without a warrant or probable cause, any evidence obtained during that search will be inadmissible in court.

• Consent Legalities and Sobriety Testing at DUI Checkpoints:

The legalities of refusing sobriety tests at DUI checkpoints vary depending on the state, and it’s crucial to know the laws in your state to understand your rights and potential legal consequences. In some states, such as Florida and Minnesota, refusing to take a breathalyzer test at a DUI checkpoint can result in automatic license suspension for up to a year. In other states, such as Georgia and Ohio, refusing a sobriety test at a DUI checkpoint can lead to additional criminal charges on top of a DUI charge. However, in all states, officers must have probable cause and reasonable suspicion before administering sobriety tests, and individuals have the right to refuse sobriety tests without facing additional legal consequences if there is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Note that sobriety tests administered at DUI checkpoints, including field sobriety tests, are subjective and can be influenced by a variety of factors. If you are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, refusing sobriety tests may protect you from false arrests and the legal complications that follow. However, refusing sobriety tests may result in additional legal consequences, such as license suspension or arrest, depending on the laws of your state. If you are asked to submit to sobriety tests at a DUI checkpoint and it is a fact that you are not under the influence, it is crucial to assert your rights and understand the legalities surrounding sobriety testing.

There are also states where sobriety tests cannot be forced without consent, even at DUI checkpoints. In these states, officers are required to have probable cause and reasonable suspicion before administering sobriety tests, and individuals have the right to refuse sobriety tests without facing additional legal consequences. For example, in states like Arizona and Michigan, sobriety tests at DUI checkpoints cannot be forced without consent, and individuals have the right to refuse them. Knowing the laws in your state regarding sobriety testing and refusal at DUI checkpoints is crucial to understand your rights and potential legal consequences.

Also, understand that sobriety tests administered at DUI checkpoints are not foolproof, and false positives can occur. Factors such as weather conditions, physical disabilities, and even certain medical conditions can influence the results of sobriety tests. If you believe that you were falsely arrested for DUI, fighting the charges without a lawyer is possible but challenging. You may need to gather evidence, such as video footage or witness statements, to prove that you were not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

• Border Patrol and Agricultural Checkpoints:

Border Patrol and Agricultural Checkpoints have long been a source of controversy and concern among civil rights advocates. These checkpoints are often set up within 100 miles of the border and are used to search vehicles and individuals for evidence of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and other criminal activities.

Many argue that these checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has ruled that immigration checkpoints must be conducted in a way that minimizes intrusiveness, and that officers must have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search individuals or their vehicles.

Despite these protections, many individuals have reported experiencing unreasonable searches, racial profiling, and other civil rights violations at Border Patrol and Agricultural Checkpoints. As a result, some civil rights advocates have called for resistance to these checkpoints and for individuals to assert their rights when faced with searches and seizures.

While these checkpoints can be intimidating, individuals have the right to refuse searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. If you are faced with a search at a checkpoint, you have the right to remain silent and to assert your Fourth Amendment rights.

Color of Law & Color of Office:

Color of Law and Color of Office are two related concepts that address the abuse of power or authority by public officials. Understanding these concepts is essential when asserting your rights during encounters with law enforcement and other public officials.

Color of Law: Color of Law specifically applies to law enforcement officials who exceed their legal authority or engage in illegal or unethical behavior. When officers act outside the law or use their power to discriminate against individuals based on race, ethnicity, or other protected statuses, they are acting under the Color of Law, and this constitutes a violation of civil rights.

Color of Office: Color of Office refers to any public official who oversteps their legal authority or participates in illegal or unethical conduct. This includes discriminatory behavior, such as denying services to certain individuals or groups based on race or ethnicity. Such behavior not only infringes on the rights of individuals but also undermines the principles of fairness and equality that are fundamental to society.

Asserting your rights during encounters with law enforcement or other public officials requires a clear understanding of your rights and the appropriate response when those rights are violated. Being aware of the concepts of Color of Law and Color of Office is crucial in recognizing when a law enforcement or public official is acting beyond their legal authority.

If you believe you have experienced a violation of your civil rights under the Color of Law or Color of Office, seeking legal assistance is essential. A civil rights attorney can help you comprehend your rights, gather evidence to support your case, and hold the responsible public officials accountable for their actions.

It is vital to report any instance of Color of Law or Color of Office to the proper authorities, such as internal affairs or the Department of Justice. However, keep in mind that some agencies responsible for investigating civil rights violations by law enforcement officials, like the FBI, have been implicated in such violations themselves. In these cases, pursuing legal action through the courts may be a more effective option than reporting the violation to an agency with a history of violations.

Conspiracy Against Rights:

Conspiracy Against Rights is a federal crime that involves individuals conspiring to deprive someone of their constitutional rights. This includes the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Under 18 U.S.C. § 241, it is illegal for two or more people to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the exercise or enjoyment of any constitutional right or privilege.

In the context of police encounters, conspiracy against rights can occur when officers work together to violate someone’s constitutional rights. For example, if two officers agree to falsely arrest someone because they disagree with their political views, they are engaging in a conspiracy against rights.

Another example of conspiracy against rights in police encounters is when officers use excessive force against someone during an arrest or detention. If two or more officers agree to use excessive force to subdue a suspect, they could be charged with conspiracy against rights.

Individuals do not have to be law enforcement officers to be charged with conspiracy against rights. Anyone who conspires with others to deprive someone of their constitutional rights can be charged under this federal law.

If you believe that you have been a victim of conspiracy against rights during a police encounter, it is important to seek legal help immediately. A civil rights attorney can help you understand your rights, gather evidence to support your case, and hold the responsible parties accountable for their actions.

Final Thoughts: 

As agorists and anti-statists, we may not agree with the rules and regulations imposed by the state. However, it is equally important to be aware of these rules and regulations so that we can hold those in power accountable to their own principles.

By knowing and asserting our rights, we can effectively resist and challenge the unjust actions of law enforcement officials and protect our civil liberties. It is crucial to exercise our right to film and record police interactions, as this can provide valuable evidence in cases of police misconduct.

We must also remember that the power of the state lies in its ability to maintain a monopoly on force. As such, we must be prepared to defend ourselves and our communities against state-sanctioned violence and oppression. This may involve creating networks of mutual aid and self-defense, and supporting organizations that work to hold the state accountable and promote justice.

It is good to remember that over 90% of all arrests are made out of self-incrimination, in other words not talking reduces your chances of getting arrested (kidnapped) by 90%, so it’s paramount not to give officials any information beyond reasonable compliance, when left alone to do their jobs without your help, they really suck at sticking charges on you, this is a fact!

If this information is too much for you to remember during these types of encounters, Below is a simple printable rights card that we suggest you use when you need to assert your rights. 

In the end, the fight for freedom and autonomy is ongoing and requires constant vigilance and action. We must continue to educate ourselves and others on our rights, and work together to build a world where the state is no longer able to trample on the liberties of its citizens. By standing up for our rights and resisting the unjust actions of those in power, we can create a more just and equitable experience when dealing with law enforcement and public officials.