Join me @ IBOtoolbox for free.
Sovazky Lee
Member Since: 10/30/2013
performance / stats
Country: United States
Likes Received: 129
Featured Member: 0 times
Associates: 680
Wall Posts: 115
Comments Made: 34
Press Releases: 102
Videos: 1
Phone: 4104974832
profile visitor stats
TOTAL: 26492
are we ibo associates?
recent videos
active associates
victor chukwuemeka    
Last logged on: 6/20/2019

Martin Streather     
Last logged on: 6/20/2019

Dee Tee    
Last logged on: 6/20/2019

Crypto Vend    
Last logged on: 6/20/2019

Csaba Juhasz    
Last logged on: 6/20/2019

George Galvin     
Last logged on: 6/20/2019

Eugenijus Sakalauskas    
Last logged on: 6/20/2019

Lawrence Bergfeld    
Last logged on: 6/20/2019

Wyndham Rees    
Last logged on: 6/20/2019

Pauline Burke    
Last logged on: 6/20/2019

Chris Shouse    
Last logged on: 6/20/2019

Bill Bateman     
Last logged on: 6/19/2019

Curtiss Martin    
Last logged on: 6/19/2019

jl Thompson    
Last logged on: 6/19/2019

Alfred Thom Little    
Last logged on: 6/19/2019

other ibo platforms

Sovazky Lee   My Press Releases

Would You Let the Police Search Your Phone?

Published on 5/5/2019
For additional information  Click Here

Law enforcement officers on the doorstep threatening to “come back with a warrant” is a cliché of police procedural dramas. Things are much less dramatic in real life: The officers ask if they can take a look around, and the civilians say yes without putting up a fight.

A key question in so-called “consent -search” cases is why people so readily agree to allow intrusions into their privacy.

In The Yale Law Journal, is that psychologically, it’s much harder to refuse consent than it seems. The degree of pressure needed to get people to comply is shockingly minimal — and our ability to recognize this fact is limited.

The legal standard for whether a consent search is voluntary — and thus whether any contraband police discover is admissible in court — is whether a reasonable person would have felt free to refuse the officers’ request. Courts tend to judge the voluntariness of consent by looking for clear markers of coercion. Did the officer phrase the request as a demand, instead of a question? Were weapons drawn? If not, the search is likely to be deemed voluntary.

But this approach misunderstands the psychology of compliance. It takes much less pressure than it seems to secure people’s acquiescence. Police don’t need to use weapons to get people to accede to their requests; they just need to ask.

Research shows that a simple, polite face-to-face request is harder to refuse than we think.

To be sure, saying no to a police officer is different from a saying no to an experimenter in a laboratory study. also tested whether people underestimate the pressure to comply with the police as well.

A separate group of survey respondents could predict how often drivers grant consent when stopped by the police. According to traffic data, upward of 90 percent of drivers say yes when the police ask to search their car. But the survey respondents’ average guess was far lower: They thought that only about 65 percent of drivers say yes. Again, people vastly understated compliance.

This tendency to underappreciate the power of social influence is one of the most enduring and important findings in all of social psychology. In Stanley Milgram’s famous studies on obedience, for instance, research participants were willing to heed an experimenter’s instructions to administer dangerous electric shocks to an innocent, protesting victim.

Mr. Milgram showed that normal people would commit violent acts — not because they were sadists, but because they were loath to disobey an authority figure’s directives. This was a result that no one, including expert psychologists, expected.

Critics of consent searches have also been approaching the issue in the wrong way. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have focused on advocating that the police be required to notify citizens of their right to refuse consent, much as the police are required to read custodial suspects their Miranda rights. But this is unlikely to address the psychological factors at play.

It was tested what happens when  tell people they “have the right to refuse”the request to search their phone. It found that this notification altered people’s beliefs about the consequences of refusal, but it did not change how free they felt to refuse. Nor did it reduce the rates at which they handed over their phone to us — a result consistent with previous studies that have found negligible effects of Miranda warnings on the rates at which suspects confess to crimes.

The failure of “know your rights” interventions makes sense if you think about the psychology behind police-citizen interactions. Telling people about their rights addresses information deficits, but the real reason people comply is social, not informational. The social imperatives to comply with a police officer’s request persist even when people are properly informed of their rights or given a consent form to sign — or just asked politely.

Member Note: To comment on this PR, simply click reply on the owners main post below.
-  Copyright 2016 IBOsocial  -            Part of the IBOtoolbox family of sites.