All

Never, no matter what Justin Peters thinks. Justin Peters in Slate, January 3, 2013:

And, from the emails I’ve received, a lot of people have no interest in talking to the law in these situations. Which, to be sure, is their right. You’re under no obligation to talk with a police officer in non-investigatory situations [NOTE: TRUE BUT MISLEADING BY IMPLICATION], and you shouldn’t be intimidated into feeling otherwise. (And to be clear, I’m not talking about those times when a cop stops you for speeding, or jaywalking, or stealing an old woman’s purse. In scenarios like these, when there’s reasonable suspicion that you’ve done something wrong, you’re obliged to cooperate [FALSE], and refusal to comply may lead to your arrest [AS MAY COOPERATION].)

Wrong.

Wrong.

Embarrassingly, dangerously wrong.

In Maryland, you do in many circumstances have a duty to refrain from telling certain types of lies to some police officers. There are federal laws which criminalize lying to a federal officer. You have – let’s get this straight, children – a right under the 5th Amendment not to incriminate yourself; similar statutes, ordinances and state/local constitutional provisions protect the same right. There is no U.S. crime called “willful failure to chat with police officer.” If you think that that crime exists in America, prove me wrong; show me the cite to the statute.  Can you find one, Mr. Peters?  The Bill of Rights (for visitors outside the U.S., the first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution enacted and often considered as a set) is many things, but the first thing that it is, is law.

By policy, this blog usually doesn’t call for the firing of anyone but Justin Peters – a non-attorney whose qualifications appear to be minimal – is a close case, particularly if he refuses to correct or retract his misrepresentation of black-letter U.S. constitutional law. To use the words of attorney Scott Greenfield, Esquire, (to whom a hat tip for the catch and for picking up on Peters earlier), he is making people stupider.

Update: Popehat.

I was amused to see that someone decided to run a search with these search terms. What surprised me is that the search appears to have come from an Easton ISP on the Shore, rather than from my 10-year old son, whose birthday is today. It’s the sort of thing he might say or type.

My condolences to the friends and family of Rosemary Allulis, Esquire; may they be comforted.

I worked at the same medium-sized firm in Pikesville with Rosemary for a number of years and concur entirely with the sentiments expressed by her employer to the Baltimore Sun.  She was brilliant, legendary for her amazing writing abilities and speed and exhibited even temper, modesty in demeanor and strict integrity.  She never had a bad word for anyone in my presence.  She and I were not close friends but she was a true professional who actually justified “living legend” as a title.  Rosemary passed away this week after a very long battle with liver cancer and related illnesses.

Decatur (TN) Daily, Jan 9, 2013:

Officers arrested NFL player Rolando McClain on a charge of giving a false name to law enforcement Tuesday after he signed a citation for overly dark window tint as “(Expletive) y’all,” Decatur police said.

When a patrol supervisor asked McClain to put his real name on the ticket, McClain told the sergeant, “That is my name,” said police spokesman Lt. John Crouch.

Under Maryland law and, one suspects, under Tennessee law, the signature on a ticket is an acknowledgement of receipt of the ticket, not an agreement with the charge or the validity of the process underlying its issuance.  “[Expletive] y’all” is not a valid entry in Maryland or, apparently, in Tennessee.

The only possible defense that comes to my mind – please note, I am not a Tennessee lawyer and this is not legal advice or a formal opinion, just a few thoughts – turns on intent. The alleged expletive was arguably not used with the intent to deceive. Indeed, the report (if true) suggests not a desire to conceal an identity but to revel arrogantly in the supposedly universal recognition of the motorist as a public figure. Whether giving a false name has a requirement of deceptive intent is a matter of Tennessee law, on which a Maryland attorney should not professionally opine, but this motorist was (if reports are accurate) foolishly trying to increase his profile to the government, it seems, not to conceal his identity or otherwise to deceive an officer.

In Maryland, knowingly giving false information to an executive branch officer is sometimes no crime, sometimes it’s a crime regardless of specific intent and sometimes it’s a crime only depending on the specifics of the information and the deceptive intent.  It depends on the specific statute and the facts.  For example, lying about your weight by 5 pounds out of vanity on a driver’s license application is probably less culpable than lying by 40 pounds with intent to deceive law enforcement or the MVA, to remain in the USA illegally, etc. This is not to endorse any false statement to any government official, but to note the different applications of “false statement/false identification” laws.

I will give this advice, however: unless the law mandates that you use an obscene word, such as when giving testimony under oath or filling out an incident report about a conversation or the contents of a message, etc., avoid using obscenities in dealings with government personnel. It almost never helps, especially with law enforcement officers in uniform and especially in writing on government forms. Definitely avoid doing so in Maryland.