What kind of information is a police officer in Germany allowed to ask, in random situations on the street, e.g., during a traffic check? For reference: There is the well-known argument, especially in the U.S., that you should not talk to the police, like here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE in one of the extremest forms. There are lots of videos online of people being stopped in their cars and then going on for 30 minutes to &quot;plead the fifth&quot; while the cop asks the same question over and over again. For example, in the U.S., the key words seem to be &quot;am I detained, am I free to go&quot;; and by the way they are always used exactly like this, I assume they are not just randomly used, but with some kind of precedent. Question: What kind of information is a police officer in Germany allowed to ask, in random situations on the street, e.g., during a traffic check? Presumably name and address, and whatever is on the Personalausweis? Is there a particular (verbatim) sentence that can be used in German if you do not wish to answer a question, without making yourself suspicious? As a very concrete example: I was stopped in a generic traffic check once, late at night, in a very peaceful area where nothing ever happens, and was asked where I just came from. I truthfully answered &quot;from the gym&quot; or something like that and that was it. At the time, it seemed simply like small talk; they were friendly, I was friendly, they had a look at my documents, and we were done with it. But it certainly was the kind of situation those U.S. videos seem to be about; i.e. I could pretty easily have been forced into a situation where I had to lie or implicate myself, without even knowing. I know that there are political groups with very strong opinions in Germany who will tell us to not utter a single word to an officer, but would prefer to know what the judicative has to say on this. Are there well-known precedent cases? Are there official formulations which are recognizable to an officer to mean &quot;I am aware of my rights, and would prefer not to make an issue of this, but don't want to keel over right away&quot;? Or is this more of a cat-and-mouse game, usually? Is there a (publicised) policy about this in the police community?
The German Bar Association published an article about your rights in traffic controls (Polizei­kon­trolle: Das sind Ihre Rechte, July 2018) and an article about your rights in identity checks (Was darf die Polizei bei einer Perso­nen­kon­trolle?, June 2018). Traffic check You do have to answer questions for determining your identity (see section about identity check). show the car registration document. show your driving licence. leave the vehicle (if asked to). show the legally required equipment (medical kit etc.). You don’t have to answer questions like "Why do you think you were stopped?" or "Where are you coming from?". admit a crime/offense. agree to a test (breathalyser, urine, blood, pupil reaction etc.). let them enter or search through your vehicle (unless in the case of Gefahr im Verzug, i.e., something like exigent circumstances). If you don’t want to answer a question, they recommend to say that you don’t want to answer. If you don’t agree to a test, the police may bring you to a police station where they may e.g. take a blood sample. Identity check You do have to answer questions for determining your identity, i.e.: name birthday birthplace home address nationality show your identity document (if carrying it with you). You don’t have to answer any other questions (e.g., where you are coming from or going to). If you don’t answer the questions for determining your identity, the police may bring you to a police station, and/or frisk you (only allowed in certain circumstances).
To what cases is the judge referring to here? None: neither the quoted article (2023-06-02 05:57: Prozess gegen Lina E.: Stadt Leipzig verbietet Solidaritäts-Demonstration) given in the english version of Wikipedia nor the german Wikipedia version (Dresdner Linksextremismusprozess – Wikipedia uses the quote given in the english version. In the article itself, the name 'Hans Schlueter-Staats' is used only once: The arrest warrant against them will be suspended against conditions, said Hans Schlueter-Staats, presiding judge of the State Protection Chamber at the Dresden Higher Regional Court, on Wednesday evening at the end of the verdict. She only has to serve the remainder of the sentence if the verdict becomes final. Assume that, for whatever reason, someone added a fabricated quote, in the Wikipedia page, that is not contained in the given source hoping that nobody would notice (either because the reader can't read German or simply wouldn't look). It would be very strange for a judge whos primary duty, in a civil law system, is to read the law as written, to give a personal opinion about previous rulings (which was the reason I looked: to read the exact German text). Whoever fabricated that quote was obviously unaware of this or didn't care hoping that others would simply assume it to be correct due the given source of a newspaper that has a reputation as being a reliable source.
In general, police have no special protection from being recorded; if it is legal to video or audio record a person in that jurisdiction then it is legal to record a police officer in that jurisdiction. Anything that it is legal to do with the recording of a person is legal even if that person is a police officer. As to if it is legal to record a person see: Is it legal to post a photograph that I captured of a stranger in the street? Model release for image without faces How do laws affect photography of non-humans in public when people may be in the frame? What are the legal repercussions of taking a stranger&#39;s picture in public? What is considered &quot;public&quot; in the context of taking videos or audio recordings?
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.
I have not read the news report so cannot comment on the alleged offences and police conduct, but what I can say is that the information to given on arrest may be found at section 28 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE): (1) Subject to subsection (5) below, where a person is arrested, otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest, the arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest as soon as is practicable after his arrest. (2) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (1) above applies regardless of whether the fact of the arrest is obvious. (3) Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest. (4) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (3) above applies regardless of whether the ground for the arrest is obvious. (5) Nothing in this section is to be taken to require a person to be informed— (a) that he is under arrest; or (b) of the ground for the arrest,if it was not reasonably practicable for him to be so informed by reason of his having escaped from arrest before the information could be given. Note the provisions at subsection (3) do not require anyone else to be told the grounds (reasons) at the time of arrest - including members of the public, protesters, bloggers or the press. Kerb-side debates can seriously or significantly distract the officer from ensuring e.g. public safety or preventing e.g. an escape from custody. Also, depending on what else is going on e.g. say in a dynamic and volatile crowd control or public order situation, the person under arrest does not need to told immediately if it would be impractical to do so. The operative phrase being as soon as is practicable, which is not defined by statute as each case needs to be considered individually according to its own set of circumstances. The relevant case law is DPP v Hawkins [1988] 1 WLR 1166, but the only detailed commentary I can find online is behind the PNLD paywall1. Succinctly, the magistrates initially dismissed the case against Hawkins for assaulting four police officers who kept him under arrest without giving the grounds as required by s.28(3) PACE. The DPP appealed, and the Court of Appeal sent the case back to the magistrates saying, inter alia, although there is an obligation under s.28(3) to tell a prisoner of the reason for his arrest as soon as possible (sic) after his arrest, a constable was also under an obligation to maintain that arrest until it was practicable to do so. 1Or free to law enforcement officers
As far as I know, every jurisdiction in America limits perjury to cases of lying under oath. Because it seems unlikely that the driver would be under oath at this point, you would probably lack probable cause to make an arrest. At the same time, many states have separate laws addressing the making of false reports, lying to an officer, etc. I'd imagine most jurisdictions would have a law supporting an arrest for lying at the scene, even if not for perjury.
There are various ways in which a minor cannot assist a police investigation, and it might be useful to say in what ways any civilian could do so (TV shows notwithstanding). A civilian cannot conduct a custodial interrogation, nor can most of them gather physical evidence (so that a proper evidence log is maintained including relevant information on method of collection, the evidence isn't contaminated etc. – stuff that requires a modicum of training). They cannot execute a search warrant. On the other hand, anyone can provide information that is useful to the police, and it can be done without giving your name or indicating that you are a minor. A minor can serve as a witness at a trial, and it can be helpful to police to know that they have a witness to a crime. A minor can also be used the same way an adult is used, as a confidential informant. There is not a lot of data on that practice given the confidentiality of juvenile records, but there is an article to read (&quot;Juvenile Police Informants: Friendship, Persuasion, and Pretense&quot;. The article does suggest that parental consent may be necessary in some cases (such as wearing a wire to a drug transaction). There is a law in Washington requiring every county's prosecutor to have a local protocol for using informants, and there should be guidelines developed by a work group, however the results (if any) of that group's meetings are not available on the internet. It is possible that there are specific restrictions on the use of minors as informants in some jurisdiction. The article explores the subtle distinction between &quot;informant&quot; and &quot;friend&quot;, applied to minors. California has a law that limits the use of minors – none under 15, those above with approval of a judicial officer and parent, though those 13 and older can be used as bait in a cigarette or alcohol sales case. New York does not have a blanket prohibition against using a minor as an informant, but there may be relevant guidelines for a particular department.
A police officer can lie, and lying does not render a statement inadmissible. But there is a separate area of law regarding self-incrimination and the right to a lawyer. The basic principle is that a person can always assert their 5th Amendment rights, whether or not they are under arrest. When a person is under arrest and has asserted their right to an attorney, questioning must stop and anything that results from further questions is inadmissible. There is no single factor that distinguishes ordering asking questions from custodial interrogation. For example if you have been dragged by officers to the police station and held in a locked room for hours in the middle of night, one would reasonably believe that you were taken into custody, and interrogation must stop once you request a lawyer. In Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, police contacted the defendant whom they suspected was involved in a burglary and they invite him to chat at the station. They lie and say they found his fingerprints at the scene (they did not). He then confesses, they read him his rights, and he confesses again. The confession is admissible, because this was not a custodial interrogation. The relevant question is whether "a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave".