It Might Be A Conspiracy Theory But We're Still Up 270 to Nil

You know, there are things that are going on around the world that I just don't care about.

Vladimir Putin? Some guy in Russia doing things.

Flooding in North Carolina?  Just a bunch of water with nowhere to go.

Deforestation in the Amazon rain forest? It's a "rain" forest.  Plant more trees.

Smog in India and China?  Send in the AQMD.

Gain of Function research relating to the coronavirus?  Turns out, I'm starting to care about this one if, for no other reason, I really think those stupid white masks didn't do squat except to make my face all hot and sweaty.

In case you were wondering, Gain-of-function (or "GoF") research refers to scientific studies in which an organism—often a virus, bacterium, or other pathogen—is deliberately modified to enhance certain biological properties. 

The “function” in question could be anything from infectivity, transmissibility, virulence (ability to cause disease), or resistance to treatments. Essentially, the research is aimed at giving the organism a new or stronger capability than it naturally possesses.

So, why is this so important?

Well, Gain-of-function research has become important—and controversial—because it sits at the intersection of science, public health, and global safety. Its significance comes from both its potential benefits and risks. 

I know I'm starting to sound like a 3-year old here but so what and why is that important?

Well, GoF allows scientists to see how viruses or bacteria could naturally evolve. This is important because it helps in risk assessment, vaccine design, and pandemic preparedness. 

OK, alright - but helping to prepare for a pandemic is a good thing, right? 

Well, it would have been a good thing except for the fact that in the case of the Covid virus, it was the GoF that actually caused the whole pandemic.  In fact, a recent report found that a lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely the origin of COVID-19. 

Wait, what?! 

So, here's how things happened in real time: 

• In 2002–2003, there was a SARS outbreak in China (SARS-CoV-1) with about 8,000 infected and about 800 deaths. 

• Then, in 2012, there was a MERS outbreak in Saudi Arabia (MERS-CoV) with about 2,500 infected and about 860 deaths. 

• Finally, in 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan, China, causing COVID-19 pandemic. 

After SARS, researchers wanted to understand how corona viruses could mutate to infect humans. GoF experiments were initiated and involved modifying animal coronaviruses to see if they could infect human cells or transmit between animals. 

And if you think Covid was transmitted by a bat, then you'd be right.  However, the prevailing conspiracy theory as it relates to the COVID-19 virus was that it was intentionally released into the general population claims that the virus was either created or weaponized, often suggesting involvement by government or military actors—most notably, the Chinese government or military.  

This theory alleges that release was deliberate, with motives ranging from population control, global disruption, to biological warfare. 

You know, the thing with conspiracy theories is that when they are presented, there is no hard evidence to support them.  Well, no evidence except that most all conspiracy theories in the last few years have been proved true like:

1. Mass Surveillance (NSA & Tech Companies)

   • Claim: Governments were secretly collecting vast amounts of private data from ordinary citizens.

   • Confirmed: Edward Snowden’s 2013–2014 revelations showed this was real, and reporting into the 2010s–2020s (e.g., PRISM, Section 702 of FISA) confirmed ongoing surveillance practices. Courts and Congress debated reforms through the 2010s and 2020s.

2. Big Tech Content Manipulation & Censorship

   • Claim: Social media companies were coordinating with governments to suppress or flag certain content.

   • Confirmed: The “Twitter Files” (2022–2023) and related disclosures showed platforms coordinated with U.S. government agencies to influence moderation policies, particularly on COVID-19 and election-related content.

3. Epstein & Elite Networks

   • Claim: Jeffrey Epstein was connected to powerful political, business, and academic figures and was involved in sex trafficking.

   • Confirmed: Epstein’s 2019 arrest and subsequent reporting showed years of abuse and connections to influential people. His death in custody fueled further speculation, but the trafficking ring itself was proven.

4. Wuhan Lab Leak Theory (COVID-19 Origin)

   • Claim: COVID-19 may have originated from a laboratory accident in Wuhan, not solely from a wet market.

   • Initially dismissed: Branded as a conspiracy in 2020.

   • Later: By 2021–2023, U.S. intelligence agencies and multiple governments acknowledged the lab-leak hypothesis as a plausible scenario.

5. Government Involvement in UFO/UAP Programs

   • Claim: The U.S. government was hiding evidence of unidentified aerial phenomena.

   • Confirmed: In 2020–2021, the Pentagon released declassified videos and established the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). Congressional hearings (2022–2023) further confirmed military encounters with unexplained craft.

6. Pharmaceutical Industry Influence

   • Claim: Big Pharma companies were influencing medical research and public messaging beyond normal lobbying.

   • Confirmed: Opioid litigation (e.g., Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson) revealed deliberate downplaying of addiction risks, with internal documents proving knowledge of harm while aggressively marketing opioids.

7. Cambridge Analytica & Facebook Data Harvesting (2016–2018)

   • Claim: A private firm was secretly harvesting data from millions of Facebook users to manipulate elections.

   • Confirmed: In 2018, whistleblowers and UK/US investigations revealed Cambridge Analytica harvested data from up to 87 million users without consent to build voter profiles. Facebook admitted failure to protect user data and paid billions in fines.

8. Boeing 737 MAX Cover-Up (2018–2020)

   • Claim: Boeing and regulators downplayed safety problems with the 737 MAX after two crashes.

   • Confirmed: Investigations showed Boeing concealed critical information about the MCAS flight control system, and the FAA provided lax oversight. Boeing later agreed to a $2.5 billion settlement with the DOJ in 2021.

9. Volkswagen Emissions Scandal (“Dieselgate”) (2015)

   • Claim: Automakers were cheating emissions tests to appear environmentally compliant.

   • Confirmed: The U.S. EPA revealed Volkswagen had installed “defeat devices” in millions of cars to trick emissions tests. Executives were charged, billions in fines were paid, and the company admitted to the scheme.

10. Hunter Biden Laptop Story Suppression (2020–2022)

• Claim: Media and social platforms deliberately suppressed reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop, labeling it as “Russian disinformation.”

• Confirmed: In 2022–2023, major outlets (e.g., NYT, WaPo, CBS) authenticated the laptop’s contents. The “Twitter Files” showed federal agencies flagged the story to social media platforms in 2020.

So, while it's a theory now, stick around and who knows what will come up in the next few years.

Anyway, here's where things get fun. 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has faced extensive scrutiny regarding his role in the COVID-19 pandemic, especially the origins of the virus and allegations of criminal negligence. 

In June 2024, Fauci testified before Congress and presented emails he sent early in the pandemic urging the reporting and investigation of valid concerns regarding a possible lab leak. He denied that these messages were an attempted cover-up, calling such allegations “preposterous.”

During his congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci made several statements about coronavirus research funding that have later been challenged and characterized by some as misleading or untruthful.  

Fauci repeatedly stated that the NIH and NIAID did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. For example, in a 2021 Senate hearing, he said, “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” 

However, documents later revealed by FOIA requests and confirmed by government officials contradicted this, showing that gain-of-function research was indeed funded at the Wuhan lab through grants approved by NIH/NIAID.

Fauci also testified that staff members working with him did not have conflicts of interest regarding the oversight of coronavirus research grants. 

Later, he acknowledged that at least one senior advisor, Dr. David Morens, had a conflict of interest and was implicated in obstructing congressional investigations into NIH grants related to Wuhan research.

During hearings, Fauci admitted that some COVID-19 mitigation policies, like the “six feet apart” social distancing rule, were not strictly based on science but rather were arbitrary decisions that “just appeared.” This admission raised questions about the scientific rigor behind some public health guidance he promoted.

In short, Fauci’s key false or misleading claims during congressional testimony centered on denying NIH/NIAID funding of gain-of-function research at Wuhan, denying conflicts of interest among his staff, and downplaying the lab leak theory’s credibility despite evidence to the contrary. 

OK, so what?  Unless someone is in an orange jumpsuit, why does this even matter?

It all matters because even if no one individual is criminally liable for the pandemic, understanding the circumstances and ethics surrounding gain-of-function research is crucial to mitigating risks to global health, improving scientific practices, ensuring accountability, and protecting society from potentially catastrophic lab accidents (like what happened with the Coronavirus).

Essentially, if we are unable to "trust the science" or the people behind the science, then when the next pandemic happens, is anyone going to listen?

Word of the Month for January 2026: Holographic Case Law

Given the speed that tech goes these days, this might seem a little behind the times but it's something that needs to be brought up again and again.  

See, back in 2024 (yeah, a lifetime ago), I started using Chatgpt.  

Then around early 2025, as I started cranking out a whole lot of legal research and blog content, I became acquainted with holographic cases which quickly became synonymous with how Chatgpt and other LLMs (i.e. Large Language Model) treated attorneys and case law.

Before we get into the meat of this blog, let's define what I mean by Holographic case law and why it happens.  

HOLOGRAPHIC CASE LAW is/are fictitious legal cases generated by a large language model (LLM) that appear to be real, complete with

• Case name

• Citation / authority

• Page numbers

• Court jurisdiction

…but do not actually exist in any legal reporter or database.

So, picture it - you're researching a legal topic and you hop over to Chatgpt or Grok or Gemini or Claude or DeepSeek or Perplexity or any of the other few dozen LLMs in Internet-land, and you run a search on that legal topic.  In the course of your searching you see references to several legal-esque cases.  

Problem is that when you try to find those cases via the Internet or try to cite check the cases (like what any 1st year law student should have learned to do), you can't find those cases.

The reason you can't find the cases is because they don't exist.

Wait, doesn't exist?!  

How or why is that even possible?!?  Why might an LLM crank out a case that doesn't exist?

Funny thing, but I had that exact same question and I posed it to Chatgpt which responded with:

That’s a great question — and it’s one of the most important issues when using AI for legal research.

ChatGPT (and other LLMs) sometimes return cases that don’t exist because of the way large language models work:

• Pattern Matching, Not Databases:
  I don’t have a built-in legal case database. Instead, I was trained on lots of legal writing and I generate responses by predicting what looks like a plausible answer. If you ask for a case citation, I try to produce one that fits the pattern of a real case — correct reporter, volume, page — even if it’s made up.

• Pressure to Be Helpful:
  If you ask for “a case where X happened,” I try to fulfill that request. If I don’t have a known case in memory, I may invent one that sounds right rather than say “I don’t know,” especially if your prompt suggests that such a case must exist.

• Legal Citations Are Predictable:
  Because case citations follow a rigid format (e.g., Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2020)), I can generate something that looks very convincing — even to experienced lawyers. But if you check the reporter, the case might not exist.

• Contextual Merging (Hallucination):
  Sometimes I blend real cases. For example, I might take facts from Case A and a holding from Case B and give it a citation that matches neither. This is not intentional — it’s a statistical artifact.

This problem is exactly what led to the high-profile Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023) case — where lawyers used ChatGPT to write a brief, it cited six fake cases, and the court sanctioned them.

✅ Best Practice When Using AI for Legal Research:

• Treat all AI-supplied case names and citations as leads, not authorities.

• Verify every case in a trusted source (Westlaw, Lexis, Fastcase, Casetext, etc.) before using it.

• If you can’t find it in an official reporter or database, assume it doesn’t exist.

While it's nice that Chatgpt admits that it screwed up, what's problematic is that it does so so nonchalantly - as if it's just another day in the rain and it's not problem and that so what, I screwed up - what you gonna do about it?!?

 

And that's the rub, isn't it?  It's not that you can sue an LLM for returning holographic case law - or can you?  I mean, here you are against a deadline and you run a search in an LLM for a "Motion for Summary Judgement with 4 cases on point" and you submit the results to the court only to discover at your hearing for sanctions that the 4 cases on point don't exist (because they're holographic).  

 

Yeah, you could have cite checked the cases before you submitted your motion but you were against a deadline and what self-respecting attorney actually cite checks their work, right?!?

 

As it turns out, existing lawsuits against AI companies focus primarily on copyright infringement, where authors, artists, and news organizations allege their protected works were used without a license to train the LLMs. These cases are distinct from those arising from "hallucinated" case law in legal filings. 

 

Ultimately, the consensus in the legal community is that the onus remains entirely on the human attorney to verify AI-generated work before it is submitted to a court.

 

I mean, it's a novel idea (to sue an LLM instead of cite checking your work before filing with the court) given these days that no one wants to take responsibility to screwing up because it's always someone elses fault, right?

 

You know, as this is a new year and a time for new resolutions, maybe this might be one of your resolutions - to stop blaming Chatgpt for everything wrong with the world.

 

Yes?....No?....can I at least get an Amen?

 

Sounds More Like an Interrogation

Have you ever had to go through the pain of a job interview?   Me?  I've done lots of them.

Among other things, what I got out of the interviewing experience was a long list of illegal questions potential employers ought not ask in an interview.

 Why?

Most illegal questions focus around one thing - they don't relate to how a job is to be performed.

Samples of illegal questions include:

• How old are you?  Why illegal: Age discrimination is prohibited under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) if the applicant is 40 or older. Age should not factor into hiring decisions.
• Are you married?  Why illegal: Marital status is not relevant to job performance and may lead to discrimination based on marital or family status.
• Is English your first language?  Why illegal: Related to national origin discrimination.
• Do you have any disabilities? Why illegal: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits asking about disabilities before a job offer is made.
• Have you ever filed a Workers' Compensation claim?  Why illegal: This could lead to discrimination against individuals who have been injured and violates ADA protections.
• Have you ever been arrested?  Why illegal: While convictions may be relevant, arrests without convictions should not be used in hiring decisions, as it can lead to racial discrimination claims.
• Who do you live with?  Why illegal: Could reveal marital status, family structure, or sexual orientation, which may lead to discrimination.
• Do you drink or use drugs?  Why illegal: Employers cannot ask about past substance abuse; they may only ask if you can perform job duties safely.

Recently, I had an interview for the position of library director of a public library.  Yeah, I know - not legal.  But over time, you realize that all library's have the same issues.  

One question they asked (and it was couched in a way so try to make it less obtrusive saying "We ask everyone this question - like that makes it all better): 

If we were to look at your social media content, would we find anything objectionable?

First, what does "objectionable" mean?  What might be objectionable to one person might not be to another.  

To the point of whether it is a legal question, or not, the question itself is not explicitly illegal under federal law.  However, it is risky and can lead to illegal discrimination if used improperly.

So, how might this question about social media be be problematic?

While reviewing publicly available information is legal, asking about it during an interview could:

• Pressure candidates to disclose personal information (which it did and, by their reactions, is what they were hoping for),
• Create a chilling effect on lawful off-duty conduct (some states, like California and New York, protect lawful off-duty activities).

In addition, questions about social media usage could suggest implied off-duty conduct discrimination. In many states, it is illegal to discriminate against lawful off-duty conduct, such as political activity, social associations, or lifestyle choices that are not job-related.

Another reason questions about social media usage are problematic is because this type of question leads to potential for discrimination based on protected categories such as:

• Age (ADEA) 
• National origin (Title VII)
• Race or ethnicity (Title VII)
• Religion (Title VII)
• Sexual orientation or gender identity (Title VII, EEOC interpretations)
• Disability (ADA) 
• Pregnancy (Pregnancy Discrimination Act)

Finally, if an employer later rejects the candidate, the candidate could argue the rejection was based on information discovered through social media about protected characteristics.

A better question they could have asked me might have been: 

This role requires maintaining a professional image consistent with our code of conduct, including public-facing behavior and communication. Can you comply with this expectation?”

OR

We expect employees to adhere to our social media policy regarding confidentiality and professionalism. Are you comfortable with this policy?

Other questions which are not in-and-of-themselves illegal but suggest an illegal motive thereby making them illegal questions include:

• Can you work nights or weekends?  Not illegal in itself if the job requires it.  Becomes illegal if used to screen out candidates based on religious practices or caregiving responsibilities (religion, gender, family status).  Example: Denying a candidate who observes a religious Sabbath without exploring whether accommodation violates Title VII.
• Do you have reliable  transportation? Not illegal in itself.  Becomes illegal if used to screen out individuals based on disability (can’t drive due to medical reasons) or economic status. 
• What club or organizations to you belong to?  Not illegal in itself.  Becomes illegal if it seeks to uncover religious, political, or protected affiliations or if the information is used for discrimination. 
• Can you lift 50 pounds?  Not illegal if it is a bona fide job requirement.  Becomes illegal if asked without stating it is a job requirement and is used to screen out individuals with disabilities, violating the ADA. 
• What year did you graduate?  Not illegal in itself.  Becomes illegal if it is used to determine age, violating ADEA protections. 
• Have you ever been arrested?  Not illegal to discuss convictions related to job duties.  Becomes illegal because arrest records alone should not be used in employment decisions, leading to disparate impact on certain racial groups. 
• Are you planning on starting a family soon?  Not illegal to ask about availability.  Becomes illegal because it suggests gender/pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. 

So, why are these questions illegal?  Essentially, the motive behind the question and how the information is used determines legality.  Questions that can elicit information about protected categories (age, disability, gender, religion, national origin, etc.) and influence hiring decisions violate:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (race, color, religion, sex, national origin)
• ADA (disability)
• ADEA (age 40+)
• Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Immigration Reform and Control Act (work authorization vs. citizenship)

Bottom line, if you aren't sure whether you should ask a question and are concerned that it might expose you to liability, your best bet would be to either run it past legal first or just not ask that question.

I'm just sayin. 

On the Down-Low

A few months back, I did a blog on insider trading at the Congressional level and I uncovered something suspicious.

The whole idea behind stopping Congressional "leaders" from conducting stock trades while in office is because they have access to non-public information on which they make their trades/money.  

Case in point would be how Pelosi made her millions.  With an annual salary of $174,000, Pelosi was still able to score a 54% increase in net worth in 2024 out performing the S&P 500's 25% gain during the same period!

I think, though, that Rep. Ilhan Oman might have Pelosi beat.  In 2019, Ms. Oman's net worth was a NEGATIVE $45,000. 

In a recent financial disclosure report for Rep. Ilhan Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, it was shown that their joint net worth was valued between approximately $6 million and $30 million. This represents a significant increase, with some estimates citing a 3,500% surge from the previous year's filing for the relevant assets.

So, yeah, politicians are filthy liars if they say they are not engaging in insider trading or are otherwise dealing in some under the table shenanigans.

But this is not the point of this blog.

In 2012, Congress passed the Stock Act (i.e. the "Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012"). The Stock Act was passed to prevent insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees.

It required:

• Lawmakers and many high-level executive officials to publicly post their financial disclosure reports online (in a searchable, downloadable database).

• Post regular updates about stock trades and financial transactions.

• Deliver greater transparency to help the public monitor potential conflicts of interest.

This would have been great but for the fact that in 2013 (little over a year after the Stock Act was signed into law), Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced Senate Bill ("SB") 716 during the 113th Congress (2013–2014).  What SB 716 did was:

1. Eliminated the requirement that the financial disclosure forms of about 28,000 senior federal officials be posted online in a publicly searchable database.

2. Delayed, then repealed, the implementation of that online disclosure requirement.

3. Limited online disclosure to only the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and candidates — not to staff or most executive branch employees.

Text summary from Congress.gov:

“S.716 modifies the STOCK Act by eliminating the requirement for the online posting of financial disclosure forms for executive branch employees and judicial officers, and for making those forms available to the public through an online searchable database.”

I mean, they say all this with such finesse like it's no big deal.  Well, it's no big deal if you're a politician looking at having to be transparent with the people who elected you.  For we the people who go to jail if we so much as not declare 50 cents to the IRS, it's a HUGE deal!

Essentially, SB 716 de-fanged the Stock Act's key provisions.

What is missing from this scenario is that Congress did all this backdoor legislation using a sneaky procedural rule called UNANIMOUS CONSENT ("UC").  

UC refers to a procedural agreement that allows the House of Representatives or the Senate to expedite action by bypassing formal rules—as long as no member objects.

 

So, why might Congress use UC for seemingly insignificant measures.  There are a few political and structural reasons:

• Avoiding accountability:
  UC avoids roll call votes. No one has to go on record, which shields members from criticism later.

• Preserving Senate “efficiency”:
  Leadership prefers UC to avoid days of floor debate — especially when the bill appears harmless.

• Optics management:
  Some controversial bills are rushed through UC when leadership wants to minimize media coverage or public awareness (as with S. 716).

• Collegial courtesy:
  Senators often grant UC as a favor to colleagues, even when the underlying issue might deserve deeper scrutiny.

So, on April 11, 2013, BOTH the House and Senate agreed to push this amendment to the Stock Act and get signed by POTUS Obama on the same day.  

Do you realize how impossible it is to get a bill passed by both houses AND be signed by the POTUS on the SAME DAY?!?!?

I queried Chatgpt on the topic and it said:

I could not find a reliable source that gives a complete count of how many times in the last 50 years a bill was introduced, passed by both houses, and signed into law (by the POTUS (who, at the time, was obama) on the very same day. Such cases are very rare, and I found at least one example (S. 716 in 2013) but no comprehensive record. 

I mean, Congress really, REALLY wanted this bill to pass without a hitch in the worst way - and I really wonder why?

While any Congressperson will tell you that SB 716 was a small and insignificant amendment, it had HUGE implications all because they were able to ram it through using the unanimous consent procedure.

The problem with the usage of UC is that it presents a number of problems.  If nothing else, what’s “small” to Congress may be huge to citizens.  Other issues to note when Congress employs UC include:

• Your right to see what your representatives are doing (transparency laws),

• How your taxes are spent (appropriations and relief bills),

• Your rights and privacy (surveillance, judicial, or defense acts),

• Or how government power is distributed (administrative and procedural changes).

After going through this, I got to wondering if there were other small/insignificant bills that were ramrodded through Congress like SB 716.

Turns out, there are/were, like:

So, why does any of this matter?  

Well, by allowing technical details to pass by unopposed, democratic accountability is weakened when decisions are made without public record or discussion.  

When UC is employed, public trust erodes when Congress passes self-serving or complex measures quietly.

Finally, transparency advocates (like OpenSecrets, Sunlight Foundation, and CRS analysts) have warned for years that UC is both a procedural convenience and a cloak of invisibility.

Of course, when looking at transparency and Congresses lack of any transparency, I hear the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi when describing the boondoggle of what was to become the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare):  

"We have to pass the bill," she said, "so that you can find out  what is in it."

If that isn't the gist of all things NON-transparent, nothing is.

Bottom line: as long as Congress is able (and willing) to ramrod any legislation with procedures like Unanimous Consent, there is no way we the people can trust that what they are doing is in anyone's best interest - except their own.

How Not to Give the Police a Reason to Arrest You While You're Out Driving Your Car

It's the holiday season, again, and you know what that means?  That's right - another round of police trying to search your car whilst driving to grandma's house.

Seems every time I hop on the the Internet there's a slew more articles/videos of police doing everything they can to get in someone's car.

I gotta wonder why police do everything they can to get people to consent to a search and why people think consenting to a search at a traffic stop is a good thing?

So, picture it - you're driving along (to grandmothers house) and you get pulled over by highway patrol.  Police approach and right off they ask if they can search your car.  Without giving any legal advice here, what might you do to avoid giving consent to a search?

1. Clearly and Politely Say No to a Search

According to Egzon Hasi of White Law PLLC, many people believe police can search cars during traffic stops, but that’s only semi-true. Cops can only search vehicles during traffic stops when they establish probable cause.

However, if you don't want police to search your car, you must actually say you do not consent — silence can sometimes be taken as consent.

Example phrases you can calmly use:

• “I do not consent to any searches.”

• “No, officer, I do not agree to a search.”

• “I do not give you permission to search my car.”

Keep your tone calm, non-aggressive, and respectful.

2. Do Not Physically Interfere

If the cop does get you out of our car or just reaches in through the open window to open the door themselves, don't (as in never) touch the officer, block them, or resist physically — that can escalate to arrest.  Just state your refusal verbally and stay still with your hands visible.

3. Avoid Volunteering Information

According to Brendan Fernsten, managing partner at Barns & Fernsten, volunteering more information than what is legally required can inadvertently lead to self-incrimination. This could include providing information about your whereabouts, actions, or intentions–even if it seems innocuous, it can lead to further investigation and potential legal complications.

Example:  

Officer says, "do you know how fast you were going?"  

Officer says, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

Officer says, "Where are you coming from?" 

So,do not give extra details about where you’ve been or what’s in your car — keep answers short, provide only what is legally required: license, registration, proof of insurance, and know that small talk or nervous chatter can accidentally give officers a “reason” to escalate.

4. Clarify if You Are Free to Go

The Thiessen Law Firm notes that: once the purpose of the stop is complete — whether you’ve received a citation or just a warning — you are legally free to leave unless the officer has developed legitimate, reasonable suspicion of another crime.

You can politely ask: am I being detained, or am I free to go?”  If they say you’re free to go, calmly leave.  If they say you’re detained, you still have the right to refuse a search unless they have probable cause or a warrant.

5. Do Not Open the Door or Trunk Unless Required

Legal Zoom notes that the Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court has looked at several cases involving Fourth Amendment rights and warrantless searches. In most instances, the officer can conduct a search if they have probable cause to do so.

It is important to note that cars are generally excepted from the advance warrant requirement because of their mobile nature. This gives police license to conduct warrantless searches of cars - provided they can find probable cause (which is actually easy to do). 

In Chimel v. California, 295 U.S. 752 (1969) the court held that police might search the person and all areas under a person's control or reach.  This reasoning may be applied in the case of a trunk. It would be in control of the car's driver, and barring some unusual circumstance, within his or her reach. A trunk generally conceals its contents. So, an officer may look there if there is a belief that what he is searching for might be in the trunk.

Regrdless, while officers may casually say, “Pop the trunk” or “Open the glove box, ” if you do not want to consent:  Politely say, “I do not consent to searches.”  Only open compartments if required for documents (e.g., registration) — and do so slowly and carefully.

6. Remain Calm & Professional

• Keep hands on the wheel where they can see them.

• Avoid sudden movements.

• Do not argue or insult the officer — anger can escalate the situation.  This means don't start swearing at the police officer.  Even IF they don't have probably cause to search your vehicle, they'll figure something out or make up a crime just to delay you from getting to grandmas house.  I mean, have you never seen any YouTube videos where police make up stuff?  Happens a lot and because people do stupid things to piss off a cop.

• If pressured (“If you’ve got nothing to hide…”), just repeat:  “I understand, but I do not consent to searches.”

7. Record the Encounter (If Legal in Your State)

Many states allow you to film police during traffic stops as long as you don’t interfere.  In fact, the 10th circuit noted in Irizarry v. Yehia, No. 21-1247 (10th Cir. 2022) that “filming the police and other public officials as they perform their official duties acts as ‘a watchdog of government activity’” and is a constitutional right. So, go ahead and:

• Use your phone dash-mount or voice recorder.

• Calmly state: “For my safety and yours, I’m recording this interaction.”

8. Know Exceptions

Even if you refuse, police can sometimes still search if they have:

• Probable cause (e.g., they smell marijuana, see contraband in plain view).

• Exigent circumstances (they believe evidence will be destroyed or someone is in danger).

• An arrest (they can search the car for weapons or evidence).

Now, I'm not an (or your) attorney but after careful research and examination of the laws of the land, it would behoove you, if you're ever pulled over, to:

1. Be polite.  
2. Give short answers.  
3. Clearly state you do not consent to a search of your vehicle. 

and soon enough you'll be back on the road on your merry way to grandma's house (and not jail).