durbnpoisn: Oznog: Wade_Wilson: Meh. Funny visual, but no way it could have worked. They would have ran the license plates even before he pulled over, and gotten his name and address. Even if he had successfully driven off, they'd just show up at his house the next day to ask what the hell.

True, but the legal system prefers to catch a person red-handed.

IF the officers come by and ask "what the hell", IF he is smart enough to fully assert his Right To Remain Silent from the first moment, the evidence is generally insufficient to prosecute.  Who was driving?  Is the court simply going to take the officer at his word that this was the vehicle, and not mistaken when reading the plate, or lying for whatever reason?  Even high-resolution dashcams don't show plate numbers unless fairly close, and don't prove the driver.

Keep in mind that asserting Right To Remain Silent CANNOT be used as admission of guilt.  If he doesn't lie and say "no I lent it to this guy, uh, Rusty Schackleford, no, I don't know where he lives, he's about yay tall..." they'll punch holes in that and the discredited lie IS proof it was you.  But simply declining to respond is not evidence, and without that, there's insufficient evidence to prove guilt, with a GOOD lawyer this could plausibly go away.


Uh...  No.  First of all, you only have the right to remain silent once you're arrested.  That right doesn't come up while you are being questioned in an investigation.  If you refuse to answer or lie, you are actually widtholding evidence and hindering the investigation.  Then you'd be in real trouble.