The change could lead to fewer stops, purportedly for minor traffic violations, with the actual intent of searching the driver’s car for contraband such as drugs or guns.
“No,” depending on why the officer stopped you, could be an admission of negligence (edit: or evidence of your level of intoxication,“He was so intoxicated he didn’t know why I’d pulled him over after he’d smashed into a guardrail”), if you “should have known.”
Exercising your rights is not “hostile and confrontational.”
The article I linked brings up the Salinas v. Texas case. My “For some reason” was more of a sarcastic nod to me thinking that ruling is wrong, that most rights don’t need to be invoked, the main reason counsel needs to be invoked is because you usually need someone else to do something (e.g. give you a phone to call your lawyer), but that doesn’t apply to being silent.
Or you could choose to not immediately have a hostile and confrontational attitude.
“No” is also a valid answer to “do you know why I stopped you?”
“No,” depending on why the officer stopped you, could be an admission of negligence (edit: or evidence of your level of intoxication,“He was so intoxicated he didn’t know why I’d pulled him over after he’d smashed into a guardrail”), if you “should have known.”
Exercising your rights is not “hostile and confrontational.”
Exercising your rights is perhaps not hostile and confrontational.
Stating “I’m exercising my rights” is.
For some reason, your right to silence doesn’t count unless you say you’re invoking your right to silence.
This is why.
The article I linked brings up the Salinas v. Texas case. My “For some reason” was more of a sarcastic nod to me thinking that ruling is wrong, that most rights don’t need to be invoked, the main reason counsel needs to be invoked is because you usually need someone else to do something (e.g. give you a phone to call your lawyer), but that doesn’t apply to being silent.
One, it’s not. Two, where did anyone say to state that?