How to show an officer your insurance card? When a police officer pulls you over, they always ask for the standard trifecta of documents; license registration, and proof of insurance. In ye olden days of yore, insurance companies used to mail you insurance cards you’d keep in your glove box, but they don’t do that anymore. Nowadays, everything is in an app on your phone. My personal policy for any interaction with a police officer (even ones I initiate) is to keep my phone passcode locked (not merely fingerprint/face locked) at all times when an officer is present. However, my insurance app requires me to unlock my phone to show my “virtual” insurance card to the officer, which is not a thing that’s going to happen. I have not been pulled over in many years, but if I ever am, how can I show this information without compromising my own device security?
If they can compel you to show your insurance paper and you don’t want to unlock your phone to do that, then you need to bring it in paper form or suffer whatever consequences there are for not showing them. “Unlocking your phone” doesn’t mean you have to hand it over. Practice how to lock your phone quickly (iPhone: Press a specific button for four second), or just one press if you set up the phone for that. Unlock the phone away from the officer, locate the insurance paper, show it without leaving the phone out of your hand.
Law enforcement activities are out of scope of the GDPR, though there is a similar right to access in section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Access to police bodycam footage can be denied or restricted on various grounds, including to protect the rights and freedoms of others. A separate right to access information held by public authorities is part of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but it exempts the applicant's own personal data and refers to the DPA 2018 for further restrictions of this right – FOIA is just a fallback in case access is not regulated otherwise. If necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of party A, the footage released to B could be redacted in order to protect A. However, since A and B were both present the footage would not disclose information that B didn't already have. Therefore, redaction might not be appropriate. Given that there is no clear legal guidance and that all of this is context-dependent, I'd expect this to come down to the internal policies of the police department handling the access request. I see no grounds that would require A to be alerted when footage is released to B. A could also make a request to access their data, and should receive information about “the recipients or categories of recipients to whom the personal data has been disclosed”, but this might be limited to protect B.
You have an agreement with the store that allows you to use scan and go technology. Part of that agreement a bit that says we may ask you to help us confirm that the service is working effectively by allowing us to check your goods against the scanner or to re-scan your shopping They also say that they are entitled to withdraw your right to use the Scan and Go service at any time if you do not comply with these Terms and Conditions. If we do that, the legal agreement created between ASDA and you under these Terms and Conditions will come to an end immediately, although any relevant statutory rights that you may have will not be affected. More generally, ASDA reserves the right to withdraw the Scan and Go Service at any time, at its sole discretion You have implicitly consented to a brief stop for a rescan. I don't see any implication that they assert a right to search your person. You can refuse a re-scan and they can process you like an ordinary customer. As for shoplifting, as this article summarizes, security can make a citizen's arrest if they suspect that you have committed a crime (theft). They have to have reasonable grounds for thinking that an arrest is necessary to prevent the loss. Hence they can detain you until the constable arrives.
Reporting that an SS card is lost or stolen could be useful for two reasons: obtaining a replacement, and finding and prosecuting the perpetrator. You can obtain a replacement card from SSA at any time, and they do not require a justification for a card (they do not investigate thefts). The local police can investigate, but will only investigate a theft (not a simple loss). Their interest would be in prosecuting the perpetrator (and possibly retrieving the stolen property). In the course of investigating, the police will ask (in some form) if you have a clue where it is, and if you do not admit that you know where it is, they can prosecute you, because that would violate your state's version of the false statement law (Washington example here). The physical card is not so important: loan applications etc. don't require producing a physical SS card: what they need is the number on the card.
According to the Crown Prosecution Service's legal guidance Disclosure – Guidelines on Communications Evidence (26 January 2018), the law is that: Investigating officers are required to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether to exonerate or implicate suspects … This will often include the obtaining and analysis of communication evidence whether it originates from devices or social media accounts belonging to the complainant or the suspect or, in some cases, to third parties. See also Disclosure – A guide to &quot;reasonable lines of enquiry&quot; and communications evidence (24 July 2018): The examination of mobile devices belonging to the complainant is not a requirement as a matter of course in every case. There will be cases where there is no requirement for the police to take the media devices of a complainant or others at all … Examples of this would include sexual offences committed opportunistically against strangers, or historic allegations where there is considered to be no prospect that the complainant’s phone will retain any material relevant to the period in which the conduct is said to have occurred and/or the complainant through age or other circumstances did not have access to a phone at that time. There is an extensive discussion of the &quot;issues of principle … that frequently arise in present-day police investigations … linked to the privacy concerns of complainants and other witnesses who are asked by the police to share the contents of their mobile telephones&quot; in Bater-James v The Queen [2020] EWCA Crim 790 (23 June 2020), from paragraph 65 onwards. The end-to-end rape review report on findings and actions (June 2021), at paragraphs 93 – 101, cites this decision and commits the Government to ensuring that: No victim is left without a phone for more than 24 hours … and victims are not asked for information unless it is necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a reasonable line of inquiry. The most recent Rape Review progress update (June 2022), at pages 11 – 12, summarises recent reform in this area, including changes to police practice and passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Chapter 3 of Part 2 of that Act introduces new powers to extract information from electronic devices with the user's informed consent. However, as noted at paragraph 22 of the new Code of practice: Extraction of information from electronic devices (17 October 2022), these powers are distinct from existing &quot;coercive or compulsory powers, such as a search warrant, production order or statutory notice.&quot;
The basic reason to avoid speaking to police is the concern that something that you say will provide the police with a basis for arresting you or someone you care about, or charging you or someone you care about with a crime. Often, the reason that the police are talking with someone is specifically for the purpose of developing probable cause or a case to convict someone of a crime, when without your information they wouldn't have that information. Statements far short of a confession to committing a crime can be critical lynch pins in establishing a case against you. For example, a statement that confirms that you were in a particular place at a particular time could link you to a crime that happened at or near that location at that time, when otherwise the police might have no idea where you were at that time and might never link you to the crime. Also, it isn't uncommon for a request for police assistance to end badly, with the police assistance being deployed against you, or the means used by the police to resolve a situation having a deadly or undesired outcome. On the other hand, often you will need to communicate with police. You may need to report a crime for insurance purposes. You may need help when you or someone around you is currently being victimized by someone committing a crime. Cooperating with police to provide information may help to remove someone who is a potential threat to you or someone you care about from the streets. A better rule than "never talk to the police" is really more along the lines of "think twice before talking to the police". You should thoughtfully evaluate if what you hope to gain from doing so is greater than the risk that a case against you as a suspect could be established and is also greater than the risk that if the police do respond when you communicate with them that the situation could end badly. As you do this, try to see yourself from a police officer's perspective. How will you look? Also, are you capable of saying what needs to be said and then stopping, rather than blabbering on out of nervousness. A related notion is that you should be much more wary about talking to the police when the police initiate the conversation than you are when you are the one initiating the conversation. This is because ulterior motives on the part of police that could harm you or people you care about are much more likely when the police initiate the conversation than when you do. Yet another consideration is how much you understand about the situation you are in, how sophisticated you are in dealing with the police, and how glib you are compared to the average person. For example, there are people who a guilty of a crime and are in a situation that they understand well where they are at high risk of being implicated in a crime, where smooth talking can deflect police attention away from you and onto another person or a non-existent suspect. But, not many people are smooth enough and understand their circumstances well enough to pull that off. In general, the more that you fit "the profile" of someone the police are likely to suspect of a crime (e.g. if you are a young adult African American man in a "high crime neighborhood"), the more you should assume that responding to a police inquiry directed to you is a bad idea.
A law enforcement officer not telling you they are a law enforcement officer is not entrapment; it's just undercover police work. Entrapment involves the law enforcement officer inducing the perpetrator to commit a crime that they otherwise would not. Will you be able to avoid future charges initiated with this contact because they were not honest? Of course not, there is no obligation on a law enforcement officer to be honest if being dishonest is in accordance with their job requirements at the time. For example, it is perfectly legal for a male 45-year-old police officer to pretend to be a 14-year-old female on the web in an attempt to catch pedophiles. If the officer induced the perpetrator to request a meeting for the purposes of sex or to request child abuse material then that would be entrapment; if they simply play the role and respond without crossing that line that is OK.
In Connecticut, this is covered by the firefighter's rule. Police and fire personnel entering a property as part of their official duties are considered licensees, which limits the duties of the landowner. The rules are as follows: You can't intentionally hurt or lay a trap for the licensee. If you know or should know the licensee is there, you need to exercise due care with them. You don't have to worry about obvious hazards (but keep in mind that it's harder to see stuff at night). If you're doing something dangerous, you need to watch out for them. If you know about a hidden hazard, you must warn them. I'm not sure how in-depth you need to go with the warnings; various things I find suggest the duty to warn might only be there when you know or should know the licensee is present, but signs are a good idea regardless. On the other hand, if you do need to warn them, you might need to mention the specific locations of the pits you actually know about. However, there's no duty at all to proactively look for possible hazards. This rule originated as a rule for professional firefighters responding to a negligently-started fire: the idea is that professional firefighters sign up to do a dangerous job, and letting them sue for hazards inherent in their job (they aren't called without a fire) is a bad idea. Also, since they cannot be denied entry, go in places not open to the public, and can arrive at any hour, needing to keep the property safe for them is an unreasonable burden. Of course, there's an exception if a law is passed to protect their safety, because statutes override common law. The rule has since been extended in some states to police, and to situations besides the very problem they were called for. Other states have abolished it. In any event, this is for civil liability only: this is when cops can sue for injuries caused to them.