RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Kerr writes: "In a new case, Alexander v. City of Round Rock, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit considers the following question: If the police pull over a driver and the driver indicates he will refuse to answer any police questions, does it violate the Constitution for the police to retaliate against the driver to punish him for refusing to answer their questions?"

Police officer. (photo: iStock)
Police officer. (photo: iStock)

Can the Police Retaliate Against a Citizen for Refusing to Answer Police Questions?

By Orin Kerr, The Washington Post

20 April 17


n a new case, Alexander v. City of Round Rock, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit considers the following question: If the police pull over a driver and the driver indicates he will refuse to answer any police questions, does it violate the Constitution for the police to retaliate against the driver to punish him for refusing to answer their questions?

As I read the 5th Circuit’s decision, the court rules that (a) retaliation against the driver for refusing to answer police questions may involve acts that violate the Fourth Amendment, (b) retaliation for refusal to answer police questions doesn’t clearly violate the First Amendment, and (c) such retaliation doesn’t violate the Fifth Amendment.

The court’s Fifth Amendment ruling strikes me as missing some complications, and I thought I would blog about why I think it’s a tricky issue.

I. The facts and ruling

In the case, the plaintiff, Lionel Alexander, was pulled over and declined to answer police questions. According to his complaint, which at this stage of the case the court assumes is accurate (but may not be — that’s a factual question to be developed later), the police conduct was seriously out of control. Specifically, Alexander claims that the police retaliated against Alexander’s refusal to answer their questions by ordering him out of his car and then “pinn[ing] him face down onto the ground.” Several officers joined in, with “one officer press[ing] a boot or knee on the back of Alexander’s neck as his face was mashed into the concrete.” The police then handcuffed him, and an officer asked, “Are you ready to talk to me now?” Alexander responded with an expletive, which led the police to shackle his legs. Amazingly, at that point the officers arrested Alexander. The precise basis for the arrest is a little bit murky. But at least as it was written up in the police report, Alexander was arrested for obstructing a police officer.

Alexander filed a civil suit against the officers and the municipality (collectively, “the officers”). The district court rejected the civil suit, and the 5th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part, in an opinion by Judge Edith Brown Clement joined by Judge Jerry Smith and Judge Leslie Southwick.

The 5th Circuit’s new decision makes several rulings against the officers in the case. It rules that Alexander has stated a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful detention and arrest; that qualified immunity should not apply to those claims; and that Alexander has stated a claim for excessive force.

That all seems correct to me. But I was more interested in the court’s rulings in the officers’ favor, specifically on Alexander’s retaliation claim. Alexander claimed that the officers retaliated against him for refusing to speak to them. According to Alexander, the officers’ retaliation violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his First Amendment rights. The 5th Circuit ruled that any retaliation could not violate Alexander’s Fifth Amendment right and that any First Amendment claim was barred by qualified immunity.

II. The retaliation claims

Let’s look more specifically at the courts’ reasoning on the retaliation claims. Here’s the court rejecting the Fifth Amendment claim:

Alexander’s argument that Garza and the officers retaliated against him for exercising his Fifth Amendment right not to answer Officer Garza’s questions is easily disposed of. As this court has noted on multiple occasions, “[a]n individual’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is implicated only during a custodial interrogation.” Murray v. Earle, 405 F.3d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Wright, 777 F.3d 769, 777 (5th Cir. 2015) (same). Indeed, “[t]he Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental trial right which can be violated only at trial.” Murray, 405 F.3d at 285; see also Winn v. New Orleans City, 919 F. Supp. 2d 743, 752 (E.D. La. 2013) (same). In other words, the Fifth Amendment protects a defendant from being coerced into making an incriminating statement, and then having that statement used against him at trial. But Alexander was never tried. His Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not violated.

And here’s the discussion of the First Amendment claim, with most citations omitted:

We hold that Alexander’s claim on this point cannot overcome the officers’ qualified immunity, because “it was not clearly established that an individual has a First Amendment right to refuse to answer an officer’s questions during a Terry stop.” Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1244 (10th Cir. 2011). Surprisingly few courts have ruled on this precise issue; the parties point to no cases from this circuit directly on point. The sparse case law that does exist, however, indicates no consensus that a defendant has a First Amendment right not to answer an officer’s questions during a stop like the one at issue here.

One court summarized the issue well: “Plaintiffs contend that they can state such a First Amendment retaliation claim because Defendants retaliated against them for exercising their right not to speak. However, this right not to speak has been limited to the context of government-compelled speech with respect to a particular political or ideological message. Plaintiffs cite no authority to support the application of the First Amendment protection against government-compelled ideological or political speech into the context of police interviews.”

It is instructive that Alexander points to no case supporting the contention that there is a clearly established First Amendment right not to answer an officer’s questions during a traffic stop. We therefore conclude that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Alexander’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

I’ll leave it to the First Amendment experts to weigh in on that claim (calling Eugene!). But I did want to focus on the Fifth Amendment claim, as I think it is more complicated than the court’s short analysis suggests.

III. The three versions of the Fifth Amendment

Here’s the problem. Much to the confusion of students of criminal procedure, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in three different ways to do three different things.

The first Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is what you might call the classic Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The law can’t force you to speak in a way that might subject you to criminal liability. When a person is being compelled to say something that might make them admit to committing a crime, they must “plead the Fifth” and a judge can then rule on whether the privilege applies. If the right is not asserted before the statement is made, the right normally is waived.

The second Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is a right to the suppression of coerced statements in a later criminal proceeding. If the government interrogates you and you confess, the confession can be thrown out if it was not voluntary. This is an old common-law voluntariness standard that was later construed as part of the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirement. See, e.g., Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 376 (1964) (“It is now axiomatic that a defendant in a criminal case is deprived of due process of law if his conviction is founded, in whole or in part, upon an involuntary confession[.]”). Although most of the cases construing this right view it as part of the due process clause, some case law also (confusingly) grounds this right in the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See, e.g., Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003); Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 433-34 (2000).

The third right is the Miranda v. Arizona right, which is a broader right in custodial interrogation to be given warnings and to be able to stop questioning if you ask for a lawyer or instruct that you wish to remain silent. The Supreme Court says that this is a “prophylactic” on the underlying Fifth Amendment right. There are dozens of Supreme Court cases on this right, and essentially they treat Miranda rights as a separate set of rights inspired by the traditional right against self-incrimination but also separate from it. See generally Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).

Importantly, these are three distinct rights that are all justified by the same constitutional text that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The first is a right a person can assert not to be compelled by threat of legal punishment to say something that would expose them to criminal liability. The second is a right not to have forced confessions admitted in a criminal proceeding. The third is a right to get warnings in custody and to be able to call off interrogations. They’re all in the same ballpark in a broad sense. They all deal with government questioning under pressure. But they’re three distinct rights with three distinct histories.

IV. The Fifth Amendment analysis in Alexander

Now back to the Alexander case. The court’s statement that the Fifth Amendment applies only in custodial interrogation is only about the third of these rights, the Miranda right. But this case doesn’t involve a Miranda claim, so I don’t think that can be a strong basis for the court’s ruling.

Admittedly, exactly how to classify Alexander’s Fifth Amendment claim isn’t at all clear. That’s why I think the case is tricky. Is it a classic Fifth Amendment claim, in which Alexander was refusing to comply with officers’ questions despite state law that (the officers seemed to think, at least) required him to cooperate? Or is it more of a claim about the second kind of Fifth Amendment right? It’s true that there was no trial against Alexander, and maybe that ends the matter under the second type of claim under Chavez. But at the very least, it seems important to realize that there is a lot more to the Fifth Amendment merits than just Miranda case law.

More broadly speaking, the facts of Alexander bring up some real tension in cases like Miranda, Salinas v. Texas, and United States v. Okatan about what the “right to remain silent” actually means. Miranda speaks broadly of the right, suggesting it is part of the Fifth Amendment and that you never have to answer police questions. Salinas says you have the right to remain silent but you have to invoke it first. Okatan says that if you did invoke it, the government can’t comment at trial on the fact that you refused to answer questions.

Alexander seems to have invoked his right properly, and at least according to the complaint he was punished for doing so. It may be that the Fifth Amendment has nothing to say with that: As long as Alexander wasn’t prosecuted, maybe the government can retaliate against him for not speaking so long as it does so within Fourth Amendment bounds in terms of detaining him and using force. Maybe the idea that you have a “right to remain silent” is itself inaccurate, as you have much more limited rights than such a broad phrase would suggest. But my sense is that there are difficult issues lurking in the court’s Fifth Amendment ruling that didn’t come out in the short passage in the opinion.

I’m not sure any of my uncertainty changes the ultimate result in this case. No matter how Alexander’s Fifth Amendment claim is characterized, I gather that retaliation wouldn’t violate clearly established Fifth Amendment law under prevailing qualified-immunity standards. But it struck me as an important set of issues nonetheless. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+8 # dotlady 2017-04-20 23:14
So it's not clear to this non-lawyer reader that a person being stopped by police has a right to remain silent? Or whether one has better luck by citing the First or Fifth Amendment before stating one wishes to remain silent. By this exegesis I don't feel any closer to knowing which rights to call upon and I have a feeling it matters less than the hair-trigger level of the police making the stop.
+2 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2017-04-21 17:44
The 5th Circuit ruled in Alexander’s favor on 3 of his 4 allegations, “We (1) REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Alexander’s unlawful detention claim, (2) REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Alexander’s false arrest claim, (3) AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Alexander’s retaliation claims, and (4) REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Alexander’s excessive force claim. We REMAND for further proceedings as appropriate. We place no limitation on the matters the district court may address and decide on remand.”
+1 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2017-04-21 18:10
Kerr asks, “Can the Police Retaliate Against a Citizen for Refusing to Answer Police Questions?”, and then seems to answer in the affirmative. However, in the decision, the issue of using physical force (the retaliation) IS addressed, in the negative, in #4 above. What is not addressed is whether refusing to answer questions is a Constitutional right. The court pointed out that there is not much case law on this issue. However, I feel the 5th Circuit erred by relying on this fact to affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claim. From the opinion, “Alexander also argues that the officers retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to be silent and not answer their questions… Surprisingly few courts have ruled on this precise issue; the parties point to no cases from this circuit directly on point. The sparse case law that does exist, however, indicates no consensus that a defendant has a First Amendment right not to answer an officer’s questions during a stop like the one at issue here.”

I disagree. There is precedent and it favors the right to remain silent EXCEPT the stupid Salinas v. Texas ruling where the prosecution was allowed to infer, IN COURT, that a defendant was guilty for not answering questions in an interrogation. This decision was typical of Alito’s and Scalia’s attitude that poor and/or uneducated citizens DESERVE to be thrown under the bus.
-1 # John S. Browne 2017-04-22 13:58

What a monumentally stupid (typical MSM) question! The First Amendment, as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, allow us to remain silent even before we're arrested. Yes, as odd as it seems, freedom of speech also allows us to not exercise ANY speech as well, especially in situations with cops, as they always presume us guilty in violation of our rights, invade and violate our privacy, and are looking for anything to use against us. Thus, the smartest thing to do with these habitual-crimin al a-holes, is to not answer ANY of their questions, ever, at any time. Even when you're a witness to a crime committed by someone else, because it can come back to haunt you where the powers-that-be try to make you look involved and/or to be the perpetrator. So, don't cooperate with cops at all, period.

The police and the other "criminal '(in)justice'" authorities pride themselves on their criminality. They love violating our civil rights and railroading people as long as it makes them look good, and "tough on crime"; and, in cases where they're elected, gets them reelected by a mostly brainwashed and somnolent population of "Amerikans". These authorities also love playing all of us for "fools", and by and large succeeding with most people, and they laugh all the way to the bank playing all of us for "chumps". Do you really believe you should cooperate at all with career, extensive and habitual criminals like these scum, whether they make us somewhat "safer" or not?

-1 # John S. Browne 2017-04-23 10:37

Since practically anything could be twisted around and used to make it appear that we "incriminated ourselves", the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to not incriminate ourselves of course apply. People in general have a tendency, in the process of cooperating with cops, to admit things to them, which is a big mistake. DON'T EVER ADMIT ANYTHING TO ANY COPS, EVER. And the best way to make sure you don't slip into inadvertently admitting something to them, which is what they're trying to get you to do (or to be belligerent with them so they can escalate the situation, get violent with you and arrest you for resisting arrest, etc.), is to remain silent and/or tell them that you reserve your right(s) to not answer their questions. If you cooperate AT ALL, or answer even only one of their questions, you have allegedly waived your right(s) to remain silent. So, the most you should ever say, is just that, that if you cooperate you could be accused of waiving your right(s) to silence, and/or that you reserve all of, and do not waive, ANY of your rights; and repeat it if they keep grilling you.

As I made clear above, no police are to be trusted at all. They're always trying to entrap you. So, don't make their job(s) easier to do just that. Always remember that they presume you, all of us, "guilty", and that they're trying to get you to admit it. And, in the case of traffic stops, they see all of us as revenue-produci ng idiots, so don't help them do it.


THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.