The right to remain silent
Sep 18th 2010, 14:59 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, DC
The Economist
BLOGGER Paul Karl Lukacs has created quite a stir. In April, he wrote a post about what happened to him after he exercised his right to remain silent in response to questions from US Customs and Border Protection agents. Last week, BoingBoing linked to the post, and traffic flooded in. Since then, Mr Lukacs' original post and the blogs that linked to it have received more than 700 comments. What's all the hubbub about? Mostly, it's because people think Mr Lukacs was being a bit of a prat by exercising his rights. I don't think that's the most relevant issue. But let's let Mr Lukacs explain what went down:
Why were you in China?” asked the passport control officer, a woman with the appearance and disposition of a prison matron.
“None of your business,” I said.
Her eyes widened in disbelief.
“Excuse me?” she asked.
“I’m not going to be interrogated as a pre-condition of re-entering my own country,” I said.
This did not go over well. She asked a series of questions, such as how long I had been in China, whether I was there on personal business or commercial business, etc. I stood silently. She said that her questions were mandated by Congress and that I should complain to Congress instead of refusing to cooperate with her.
She asked me to take one of my small bags off her counter. I complied.
She picked up the phone and told someone I “was refusing to cooperate at all.” This was incorrect. I had presented her with proof of citizenship (a U.S. passport) and had moved the bag when she asked. What I was refusing to do was answer her questions.
A male Customs and Border Protection officer appeared to escort me to “Secondary.” He tried the good cop routine, cajoling me to just answer a few questions so that I could be on my way. I repeated that I refused to be interrogated as a pre-condition of re-entering my own country.
“Am I free to go?” I asked.
“No,” he said.
It goes on from there. According to Mr Lukacs, the customs and border officials ended up detaining him for about an hour and a half before giving up, searching his bags, and letting him re-enter the country. I guess I admire Mr Lukacs' devotion to principle—he is certainly correct that he has an absolute right to re-enter his own country and a Constitutional right to remain silent. But most people—even ardent civil libertarians—don't have time for these sorts of confrontations with authority figures. All of us could assert our rights more often. But that would slow us down—and most people are comfortable sacrificing some level of freedom for convenience's sake.
To me, this seems somewhat analogous to showing your receipt to the receipt-checker at Wal-Mart. No, you're not under any legal obligation to prove you bought those tube socks. But it might save you some time. (Of course, lying to a receipt checker isn't a federal crime. Making false statements to customs officials is. Plan accordingly.) Yes, I realise that most customs officers are probably just trying to do their jobs. But the Paul Karl Lukacs of the world are still allowed to stick it to the bureaucracy if they so choose—and they have the time and the patience. Anyway, I'd love to hear what you folks think. Let us know in the comments. (Mr Lukacs has responses to some of the most common responses here; check that out, too.)
