I do not consent
- "I do not consent to questioning."
The wording is very, very specific. It is also very, very important to use that specific phrase.
All questioning of private Citizens in America by law enforcement depends upon case law that has established what has generally come to be termed "The Doctrine of Implied Consent".
Basically, court cases have established that it is legal for law enforcement to question you only as long as they have either a) your express consent to being questioned or b) your implied consent to being questioned.
The absurd part, of course, is that your consent becomes implied by the fact that you have responded to a question.
In essence, if you respond in any way to a cop's question, you have legally consented to being questioned. If you remain silent, that is considered a response. Cops know this because this is how cops are trained to question people.
So, if you say nothing, or if you say anything at all, like "I'm not going to answer that", or "I want my attorney", or "I have rights (blah, blah, blah), all of these responses give the cops the legal right to keep on questioning you.
There is only one phrase that immediately revokes your implied consent. That phrase is, "I do not consent".
One must expressly revoke one's consent for it to have any meaning legally.Then the Doctrine of Implied Consent goes out the window. Cops fear this. Cops hate this. They will still try to screw with you, but they cannot legally continue to question you if you use this
Supreme Court was scheduled to consider if silence can be evidence of guilt 11 Jan 2013 The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether a suspect's refusal to answer police questions prior to being arrested and read his rights can be introduced as evidence of guilt at his subsequent murder trial. Without comment, the court agreed to hear the appeal of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the December 1992 deaths of two brothers in Houston... Salinas's lawyer argued that his client deserved a Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, even though he had not been under arrest or read his rights under the landmark 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona. The decision is Salinas v. Texas, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-246.
Not sure what the outcome is at this point.