Transcription
You're driving home from dinner. You're only going 40 in a 35, but suddenly you see the red and blue lights behind you and you've got to pull over. The officer walks up to you and before he even asks for your license, he asks you a question that sounds so routine, you almost answer it by reflex. Do you know why I pulled you over?
Now, what you say in the next 3 seconds will determine whether or not you get to drive away with just a warning or whether the cop starts interrogating you and turning this into a full-blown criminal investigation. And here's what most people say. Oh, I'm sorry, officer. Was I driving a little fast back there or did I roll through that stop sign? Or I don't know, officer, did I forget to turn on my blinker? They think they're being honest. They think it shows cooperation and they think the officer will give them extra credit for it and let them go.
Now, I've defended thousands of cases over the last 22 years of being a criminal defense attorney and I've seen more traffic stop cases turn into criminal investigations from the answer to this question more than any other. So, in this video, I'm going to give you number one, the exact words to say, word for word, when an officer asks you, do you know why I pulled you over? Number two, I'm going to show you the four tricks cops use hiding inside this question. And finally, I'm going to give you the exact case law for why this script I'm going to give you will shut the cops down.
So, let's start with what most people don't think about. When an officer asks, do you know why I pulled you over? It's not because he doesn't know, it's because it's a trick to get you to tell him why he should have pulled you over. He watched you change lanes, he clocked you on radar, he already knows about your expired registration sticker. He doesn't need you to tell him what you did. So, why is he asking? Because the question is actually not a question. It's merely the first move in a technique officers are trained on at the academy and it's known as admission elicitation. This question is specifically designed to get you to admit to doing something out loud and on body camera before you've even been accused of anything. And the genius of it is that it never feels like a confession, it just feels like casual conversation. That's what makes it one of the most dangerous questions that cops can use during a traffic stop.
Let me show you how it works because here's the first trick hiding within that question. The officer asks, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" And you say, "Ah, well, maybe maybe officer I was going a little fast." Congratulations, you've confessed to speeding on camera before the officer ever needed to write a report. And here's what most people don't realize. The officer pulled you over for going supposedly 40 in a 35. But that's nothing more than a minor traffic ticket. But the moment you open your mouth and saying, "Yeah, officer, maybe I was going a little fast." You've now removed the argument for your defense attorney to say that the radar he was using wasn't properly calibrated and the officer had no real probable cause. Because here's the key, without your saying anything and your admission, the officer could have used the improper calibration of the radar or maybe the visual estimate that the officer really couldn't have made or maybe that the actual traffic sign that tells you what the speed limit was was actually covered up by maybe tree coverage or something like that. And now all of a sudden what could have been used as a great defense to get your ticket dismissed, now you have a confession on record from this cop where he interpreted it however he wanted to. Which is precisely why he asked you this question. The officer no longer needs the radar. He doesn't need the calibration records. He doesn't need anything. He has your words all on camera. Case closed. Your honest conversation with the officer saying, "Maybe I was driving a little fast." now turns into the police report saying, "Driver admitted to exceeding the posted speed limit." You say, "Well, Jeff, that's not fair cuz that's not what I meant." Well, it doesn't matter because now you said it, he has it recorded, and now it's your word versus his because you chose to open your mouth.
But that's not the only trick hiding in this question because the next part of this trick actually turns a basic traffic ticket into a full-blown criminal case. Let's say the cop pulls you over for a broken tail light. That's it. That's all he has. But instead of walking up saying, "Hey man, pulled you over for a broken tail light tail light, what's going on here?" He looks at you and says, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" And you being nervous, trying to think of something to say here, do you say, "I I don't know, officer. Was I speeding? Did I not use my turn signal back there?" And here's the key, because now you just confessed to two things the officer didn't even pull you over for. Now, this trick is key, because it's a specific technique that cops are trained to use through this question at the academy, and it's known as scope expansion through open-ended prompting. What does that mean? Well, it basically means by asking you what you think you might have done wrong, the cop can now turn that into what did do wrong based on your own words. Think of it as a cop giving you a blank page, and anything you write down on that page, he might choose to interpret as a crime he can then claim you admitted to. And here's the part that really bothers me here, because let's say you ask legitimate questions. Well, I don't know, officer. Was I speeding? Did Did I run a light? Was there something wrong with my registration? Your guessing is now written up as something entirely different in the police report. I've seen cops do this. It now becomes driver appeared uncertain and anxious, unable to provide a consistent explanation for the stop, consistent with indicators of impairment. You're not impaired, you were just nervous. But in the eyes of a cop looking for what he's looking for, he can easily mistake nervousness for impairment.
But if that's not enough, the next trick hidden inside this question is very subtle. It can easily turn a $200 ticket into a $2,000 fine. Let's say you were driving 50 in a 35. Officer clocks you. He has the radar, but then he pulls you over and says, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" And your response was, "I get it, officer. I was driving way too fast." Now, you don't know this, but you just gave the cop an opportunity to upgrade your charge. Because you see, there's a big difference between just speeding and driving recklessly, which means you had a conscious disregard for the safety of others, and you just now admitted to I was driving way too fast. And the consequences to that, depending on what state you live in, like for example, Texas, you can now take what would normally be a basic traffic ticket, and this is an arrestable offense, where you've got to go into county court, pay huge fines, or hire an attorney to fight this to stay out of jail. But, by choosing your words carefully, now the officer only has a radar reading, and your attorney is able to argue you didn't see the stop sign or wasn't adequately posted, or maybe the calibration the cop claims he has dialed in on was actually not done properly at all.
But, if that's not enough, the final trick tucked inside that question is one that almost no one has really ever considered. You see, sometimes cops didn't pull you over for any actual traffic violation. They just pulled you over to see exactly what they might be able to find. For example, let's say there's a bolo, a be on the lookout, that matches a specific car similar to yours. The cop looks at your car and says, "Hmm, I wonder if it's the same." So, he pulls you over for really no good reason, but pulls you over and walks up fishing for an answer when he says, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" For example, I saw this case play out in a courtroom. Let's say there's a man who's making a wide right turn, and his tire just happens to cross over that white line as he's making the turn. But, the officer pulls him over and says, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" And the man driving says, "Oh, was it about that accident back there? I just drove by, but I didn't see anything." Well, the officer didn't even know about any accident, but now he does. So, what does the officer think? This guy's either a witness to that accident, or he may be a suspect as being the one who caused it. One answer turned a wide turn warning into a 3-hour investigation where the cops were still pointing fingers at him. Cops call this volunteered intelligence, and they figure that if you're dumb enough to answer their open-ended question, they'll allow you to fill all the silence you want.
But, wait, what does the law have to say about this? Well, to start with, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects you from being compelled to be a witness against yourself. And the Supreme Court confirmed in the case Berkemer versus McCarty that this right completely applies to traffic stops, which means you never have to help an officer build a case against you. The court went even further to say that your silence should never be used as evidence of guilt against you by the cops and should not be used as an excuse to extend the length of the traffic stop, but they did add a very important caveat. In fact, in the Supreme Court case of Salinas versus Texas, they said in order for your silence not to be used against you, you must invoke your right to remain silent, which means you've got to actually open your mouth and say it before you're protected.
So, what should you do here? First, always provide your driver's license, your proof of insurance, and your proof of registration. That's the complete list. That's the only thing you're legally required to do in your state during a traffic stop. And answering "Do you know why I pulled you over?" it's not on that list. But when the officer continues to lean back in and say, "Wait a minute. Do you know why I pulled you over?" here are the exact words that you use. Memorize them. "No, sir, I don't, but here's my license, registration, and insurance." That's it. The entire script, and here's why each word matters. By saying "No, sir, I don't." number one, you're saying "No, sir." which is being respectful. He can't claim you're being combative. Saying "I don't." puts the burden right back where it belongs. The officer's the only one who would have known specifically why he pulled you over, and you're not going to play games with him by guessing so that he can use it against you. And then when you follow it by "Here's my registration, my license, and my insurance." you're pivoting the conversation to compliance with the only thing that state law requires. And this is critical because now the cop's going to realize you're demonstrating cooperation by what the law requires, but you're not going to cooperate with something you have a constitutional right to avoid. You see, the beauty of this response is what it doesn't do. It doesn't guess. It doesn't admit. It doesn't expand the scope, and it doesn't volunteer intelligence. It gives the officer nothing other than the license, registration, and insurance, which is the only thing he's entitled to.
But what if the officer pushes back and tries to bait you into it and "Oh, come on, man. You didn't think I saw you back there? I mean, you were going pretty fast, don't you think?" Now, notice what the cop's doing here. He's using a trick against you. He's making an accusation against you and stating his supposed observation. But, the second part of what he said, "You had to have known that, right?" That is a trick. It's a technique that he learned and it's known as a willfulness prompt. This technique is designed to get you to admit that you were aware of what happened. You Maybe he says that and you go, "Oh, I mean, I don't know. Maybe I guess I was." By acting confused and saying anything other than no, now it's going to take something that he made an accusation and turn it into something you might have just confessed to. So, what's your response back here? "Officer, I was driving safely. I'm not exactly sure what you mean." You're not admitting to anything. You're not playing his games and you're certainly not taking the bait.
Finally, if the cop's really a problem and he wants you to comply and he's tired of you not playing his games, he might order you out of the vehicle under Pennsylvania versus Mims. And it's true, under the Supreme of Pennsylvania versus Mims, if the cop claims that he believes you are creating an officer safety issue for him, cops are usually able to justify in almost any situation getting you out of the car, so you got to comply. But, that doesn't mean you give up your rights. If he gets you out of the car, what's first thing you got to do? Lock your car door so he can't get in there and search your vehicle. Hold your keys in your pocket. Don't volunteer those keys at all to him. And essentially, what you do is you say, "Officer, I exercise my right to remain silent. I do not consent to any searches and will only answer any further questions if my attorney is present." That's it. You don't have to say anything else and he can't do anything else.
But, what if this angers the cop even more? And now he leans in and he goes, "I'll tell you what. I think I smell alcohol. Blow into this breathalyzer or go to jail." Check out this next video where I break down the exact words you can use to stop cops when they try to force you to blow into a breathalyzer so that you can protect your rights. See you over there.