Creators: If Things Are Too Perfect, Then Something Must Be Wrong

Matthew T. Mangino
Creators Syndicate
August 27, 2024

In Waterbury, Connecticut, a police officer detained the driver of a vehicle who had safely pulled to the side of the road to reset his iPhone GPS.

The driver had done everything by the book. Instead of resetting his destination while driving down the road — you know, distracted driving — he pulled to the side of the road. While plugging data into his iPhone, a police officer walked up to his window.

The officer requested his license and registration. The driver turned over the cards, informed the officer that he had a concealed carry permit, showed it to the officer and told him where to find the firearm.

Instead of reviewing the information and saying, "Thanks, have a nice day," the officer ordered the driver out of the vehicle. He was handcuffed and thrown face down in the back seat of the cruiser while his vehicle was searched.

After finding nothing, the officer asked his supervisor, "What should I write him up for?" The trumped-up charges were dismissed and the officer got sued. During the suit, the officer claimed he was protected by qualified immunity, which allows state and local officials to avoid personal consequences related to their professional interactions unless they violate "clearly established law."

The officer claimed he had the legal right to detain the driver and search the vehicle. According to Tim Cushing, writing for Techdirt, the officer actually testified "that someone respecting every single law applicable to them at the point of this unwelcome interaction was at least reasonable suspicion for a search, if not actual probable cause."

The prosecutor, through the officer's testimony, argued that if things are too perfect, then something must be wrong.

Fortunately, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit didn't buy it — but this case could end up before the United States Supreme Court. Eleven years ago, with fewer conservative justices, the high court made the remarkable finding that a suspect cannot invoke the right to remain silent by, well ... remaining silent.

The case, Salinas v. Texas, arose from the murder of two men in Houston. The police found shotgun shells discarded at the crime scene.

The police questioned Genovevo Salinas, who was said to have attended a party at the victims' apartment. When Salinas met with police, he was not under arrest. He voluntarily submitted to questioning and was free to leave the police station at any time.

He answered questions for almost an hour, but when asked by police if the shotgun shells found at the murder scene would match a shotgun found in Salinas' home, he stopped talking.

The police made a record of Salinas' conduct once he stopped talking. According to the Supreme Court opinion authored by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Salinas "[l]ooked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, cl[e]nched his hands in his lap, [and] began to tighten up."

That conduct was used at his trial as evidence that he was hiding his guilt. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that silence is not enough to invoke the right to remain silent.

When the Salinas case was argued, his attorney suggested that it would be unfair to require a suspect untrained in the law to do anything more than remain silent in order to invoke his "right to remain silent."

The Supreme Court has made the right to remain silent more complicated, and it will require those accused of a crime to be more informed about their rights and, more importantly, the decision will require an accused, under enormous pressure, to articulate the desire to invoke those rights.

The Connecticut case presents the same dilemma for someone falsely accused of wrongdoing. Would a person need to know if and when his statement or conduct is too perfect? Should a suspect be worried that his cooperation may lead to an officer's "reasonable suspicion"?

A suspect who encounters the police and worries his explanation is too good may become nervous, fail to maintain eye contact, or awkwardly shift in his seat. Maybe a bead of sweat forms on his upper lip — accepted indicia of lying.

Are we evolving into a country where a suspect who has done nothing, and admitted nothing, can be convicted of a crime?

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book "The Executioner's Toll, 2010" was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino)

To visit Creators CLICK HERE