2023.07.21 U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Written Decision: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/08/14/21-56237.pdf Father vs. the Fuzz: 2A Fight Heads to Federal Court! 💪🔥 th-cam.com/video/zHTWonkRzuE/w-d-xo.html Dad Defeats DA!💥 No Immunity for Lying Prosecutors in Civil Rights Suit! th-cam.com/video/hDoYNtKlF58/w-d-xo.html Lose 2A Rights for Mean Emails!😳 Susan Bassi’s Emails That Disturb the Peace Are Domestic Violence! th-cam.com/video/PKO6qQg-c2o/w-d-xo.html Father Gets $$$ From Corrupt El Dorado County, CA: th-cam.com/users/shortsi21jCcpJF7w?si=YiLrHHqIxxJcXp2j False Arrest Body-Cam One! 😳 El Dorado County, CA Obtains Warrant by Fraud & NV AG Participates!:th-cam.com/video/oJOtgCwh6OU/w-d-xo.html Kidnapper Judge Cindy Hendrickson Revokes Illegal Order 😳 (2023)! Admits Denying Me Due Process! th-cam.com/video/hRaX0g7rgS8/w-d-xo.html Ring Camera! Kidnapping Coppers Exposed! 😳 Admit I Reported Corruption But Refuse to Investigate! th-cam.com/video/ONUR0GL9Voc/w-d-xo.html Father Exposes Santa Clara Superior Court Complaint Shredding Operation: th-cam.com/video/u4JCc4qO30o/w-d-xo.html Another Interesting Case (lots more on my channel): Lawyer Cites Fake Cases! 😳 Parent's Civil Rights Appeal Thrown Out Due to Professional Misconduct! th-cam.com/video/1nmqZpPgfjE/w-d-xo.html UNLIMITED IMMUNITY! 🙄 State Judges Are Supreme Beings! But You Can Win Declaratory Relief! 42USC1983 th-cam.com/video/RFZCAdZeIso/w-d-xo.html Gangsta CPS Loses Immunity! 😳 Demands the Right to Lie to Violate Citizens & Kidnap Kids! th-cam.com/video/llXqlKB_AME/w-d-xo.htmlsi=q974eNTgxew4MKqE ----- I'm just trying to be a dad after my kids were abducted. Why I am the Father in Exile: How to Fight Corrupt Family Court (Expose it!) th-cam.com/video/pVgudZtNYiQ/w-d-xo.html Voter Fraud and Abduction Admission Caught on Court TV in NV th-cam.com/video/J9FeWPKEFo8/w-d-xo.html Judicial Misconduct & Rights Violations Caught on Court TV - Santa Clara, CA Judge Roberta Hayashi th-cam.com/video/Zgog-NLFyC8/w-d-xo.html Secret Judge Club Exposed 😳 at Corrupt California State Bar Meeting! (2023) th-cam.com/video/LHRTQh0WTYk/w-d-xo.html Santa Clara County California Superior Court Judges Who Deny Due Process and Participate in Misconduct and Felonies: Roberta Hayashi, Cindy Seeley Hendrickson, Brooke Blecher, Thomas Kuhnle. Transcripts and Filings Will be Released Publicly on this Channel.
The court should be worried about the OFFICER not restricting the citizens in future. The court is probably thinking about this because of unions protecting utter scummy officers "jobs", they have to do it even if the officer has done obviously illegal stuff, as they need to be concerned about any future cases that other officers may be involved with. Its very annoying to see lawyers argue obviously ridiculous points in such a confident way, as if they're totally correct and actually we are the silly ones for questioning it. Yet I'm sure when these lawyers go home, in private, they talk about how stupid it is and that theyre arguing ridiculous points. But it pays the bills right? At the expense of innocent citizens
When you don't know the law, you go to jail When a cop doesn't know the law, you go to jail They don't have to protect you, serve you or even investigate a crime for you. I'm not sure why we have them anymore
Forget qualified immunity. Go after the unions they're the problem. They're the ones that file lawsuits and produce lawyers for the cops. They are the ones that don't allow city managers to fire cops. It goes on and on
Eliminating QI does nothing but lower settlements for victims. And it will lead to some pretty serious anti slapp type legislation that makes it incredibly dangerous to sue anyone for anything. Which means, even if you have a good case, if you lose, you get punished harshly. Which is beneficial if you have the entire government on your side and someone is suing you. When you win because you had an unlimited budget, you don't even have to file against your accuser, the court does it for you.
the problem is a reasonable officer will sh**t an unarmed suspect handcuffed in his car bcoz an acorn fell near him. a reasonable officer is someone who is afraid of his own shadow and the invisible officer safety.
The irony is no one else would have been able to use such a claim. Cops are allowed to use irrational fear as a justification. You, me and anyone else did this under the exact same circumstance, and the officer that did that would be happy to arrest us.
@@fatherinexile That's one of the biggest reasons why these cops, and DAs and judges too, need federal civil rights prosecution. The local cops, prosecutors, judges, etc, are all on the same side. The federal prosecutors don't care if local cops, prosecutors, judges etc, don't like them.
Qualified immunity is a license to abuse a citizens constitutional rights. The question is: Why does one section of society have special laws to protect their actions, over the rest of society? The tax payer does not pay for "officer safety" they pay police for public safety.
Did the police ever think that the car manufacturer maybe made more than one car that looked like the stolen car? According to the police, they have the right to do a felony stop on all cars that look like the car that was stolen.
That is not PARTICULARIZED (to the individual) suspicion, it is a generalized suspicion. They need more particulars than ‘red Honda accord’ to pull it over.
maybe we should make them swap jobs.. let the barbers pull everyone over and give them a hair cut, and the cops can circle jerk and sweep the floor all day at the barber shop ?
Qualified immunity should go away. That being said, the phrase "clearly established" has been used to such a specificity there is always going to be a way out for the cop. For example, it wasn't 4:30 a.m. and the suspect wasn't wearing white, so the previous crime isn't clearly established. Makes no common sense.
And it wasnt after labor day! And he didn't have his top button of his shirt unbuttoned! Yea it's ad absurdum to the point where common sense is thrown out the window by the court. As if every one of the millions of possible scenarios where rights can be violated must be reproduced first before you can abolish qualified immunity.
Tinted windows should never be a reason to remove free Americans from a car and handcuff them and search cars and make suspects lie on the street handcuffed. They waste our taxes and they sold never have qualified immunity for any reason. They should be strongly held accountable for every choice they make
I woukdnt say always, but I do get the risk tinted windows pose. And pretending they dont is just dishonest. On the other hand Americans should be free to tint their car windows and have privacy. Pulling a car over with tinted windows and asking the occupants to exit seems reasonable. Its what happens after that, that seems to cross the line.
Disagree. When I was a 3L(3rd year student) in law school, we had the opportunity to argue a case in front of a panel of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Circuit Court judges are almost always contradictory in their question of both parties in every case. Their job is to try and poke as many holes in arguments to get as full of an argument as possible. You can usually tell how judges are leaning not by the questions they ask, but how specific their questions are. The more detailed and nuanced their questions are towards a party, the more likely they are leaning towards siding with that party.
@@MDbandit10 The tint has nothing to do with the stop. The tint was the excuse for pulling out their guns, because they couldn't see inside the car. The reason for the stop was they thought it was a stolen car.
Is that a serious question? Unfortunately, the law cannot contemplate every situation. Nor can police officer training. So there are always grey areas. We ask police officers and other civil officials to operate in these grey areas. They must be protected from in some way from being sued from simply doing their job. For example, every person who gets handcuffed has the right to sue for excessive force. No matter how tight the cuffs are, they can be sued. Somehow, the officer should be protected. If not qualified immunity, (which I agree can be abused) , please suggest an alternative.
@@bigbubba4314 The problem seems to stem from the impossible hurdle that SCOTUS attached to the creation of QI(Contrary to legislative law I might add). Some incredibly egregious acts have been committed by law enforcement. And they have been granted QI because no existing case was there to tell them they couldn't. If there are zero cases that exist then there is no case could ever exist. To me anyway, what this says is that cops can't do their jobs unless they are allowed to break the law.
@ as mentioned, I’m not a fan of qualified immunity. But I recognize the grey area that many civil servants must operate in. Where things aren’t “grey area” QI should not exist. Figuring out the edges of the grey area is also a challenge.
@@bigbubba4314 Unfortunately we've come to see that when given an inch cops or government in general will steal a mile. Leading to another cliche, "It only takes a few to ruin it for everyone." Haven't we seen QI abused to the point that society is sick of the flagrant violations of our rights?
@@bigbubba4314In California it takes 2 years of training to become a hairdresser, but only 6 months for an officer. I mean, I understand that you shouldn’t run with scissors, but guns and high speed vehicle chases and qualified immunity are a lot more dangerous. By a landslide. So we don’t need QI for undertrained agents of the state. We need fair and efficient academy time combined with officers who aren’t willing to act as a cowboy would rather then an experienced and knowledgeable person would.
That's one of the biggest reasons why these cops, and DAs and judges too, need federal civil rights prosecution. The local cops, prosecutors, judges, etc, are all on the same side. The federal prosecutors don't care if local cops, prosecutors, judges etc, don't like them.
If no Report of a stolen car is made then the cops have no right to assume a car is stolen and they can just arrest or detain forcibly anyone. Period!!!!!
Then by your logic, as soon as a car thief slaps a fake license plate or a stolen license plate on a stolen car, the cops would not be allowed to detain the car thief while they investigate the license plate mismatch issue. Am I understanding your point correctly? Edit: And just to be clear, i agree with the initial lawyer. In this case, the cops went too far and they should have their qualified immunity revoked. Im just disagreeing with your statement.
The fact that cops are allowed to make this level of a mistake and just walk away is beyond me. The fact is these people were innocent, innocent people are free.
I think decreased public respect for police may be shaping law. It might be in the best interests of police, prosecutors, and judges to enforce tighter standards among their colleagues. However, I don't think the police and prosecutors are capable of improving their standards. The Judicial Branch may be able to reform, but this seems to be due to ability to appeal precedent setting cases into Federal venue. Having thousands of little po-dunk police departments, with little or no understanding of laws, seems ridiculous to me.
The mental gymnastics required to take these cases seriously are mind numbing. The courts would laugh any of these arguments right out of court, if this wasn't a qa case. These arguments are just junk.
Sounds like there was probable cause anyway for the stop, based on the DMV error, so a guns drawn felony stop was not unconstitutional. If it was only reasonable suspicion then it would be.
This was fascinating, thanks for posting. I was so impressed by the specific questions asked by the judges which compared and contrasted the situation to the case law being referenced by the attorneys. Nice to see the system working as designed!
Very similar circumstances happened to my daughter when she wrecked her car in a violent snow storm. She slid into a truck as well as the road guards on the side of the freeway. It was after midnight and she had just gotten off shift and was going home. The cops got there, pulled their guns on her and demanded she lay on the road in the slush and snow. She was handcuffed and allowed to then sit in the snow. The cops held her at gun point the whole time. The man and woman in the truck were absolutely shocked at their treatment. They said they were investigating a stolen car that LOOKED NOTHING LIKE MY DAUGHTER'S CAR. At this point she was hysterical. They didn't call an ambulance to help her. They just kept her there in the super cold and wet, cuffed, guns pointing at her. The KNEW what they were doing violated her 4th Amendment rights and a lot of other things as well. The people in the truck were super angry at the cops. Cops threw every possible ticked they could at her. When it went to court, the prosecutor was very, VERY HUMBLE. He apologized and dropped all but driving too fast for circumstances. Basically he was begging her to disregard their blatant abuse of her rights. She had quite a few witnesses that would testify against them as well. Case dismissed.
These cases are difficult to view the videos and more so when reading the decisions that give more details as to the event when a minor child is involved. It is so traumatizing for innocent people. End qualified immunity.
Imagine an army where the soldiers fire anytime they hear a sound or feel scared. This is supposedly why you are trained as an officer---to mitigate your fear.
Directed at the defense, what ever happened to "possession is 9/10th of the law" Aiming guns at people without a direct threat is a threat to the directtees lives and only having a hunch the car was stolen, was the real car stolen in a ARMED CAR JACKING??? There are so many cars out there anything can go wrong with things, so you have to measure how the car was maybe stolen. Thats bs about to say they never encountered this before because I have seen with my own two eyes many times where cops have jacked up the car looking under neath and nobody was held at gun point in cuffs on there face held down..And all this was done without a warrant or probable cause.To make all suspected stolen car stops a felony stop is unreasonable just in the wording itself "SUSPECTED". Any one can suspect anything but does that give the right too surround people with guns aimed at them, It should NEVER be allowed in a FREE country. Its all lies on the cops, they new this was two woman and was an easy stop to make it a full fledged low risk TRAINING STOP to the cops lives at least.
That's how our legal system works. It's literally her job. She is expected to defend her client to the best of her ability; not simply agree with the prosecution.
Seriously now a judge actually believes factory installed tint is grounds for police to hold you at gunpoint. In my mind this is police having a bunch of hunches and not even reasonable suspicion!
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ARGUMENT: The higher courts have ruled that it is the responsibility of the citizen to know their rights and local codes… Merrick v. United States (1952) Because a LEO must be a citizen in order to gain employment as a LEO, as a citizen, they, too, are responsible for knowing their rights and the local codes. Because it is presumed that all citizen, including LEOs, know their rights and local codes, their can be no claim of ignorance of the law; therefore, a LEO cannot qualify for any amount of immunity, as ignorance is not a defense. "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (ignorance of the law excuses not)
Police POV: Our policy, written by our command staff, gives us carte blanche to do a felony stop even though we know nothing about the fine folks in the vehicle. We aren't concerned about their possible innocence, only with their probable guilt! Because we are trained that EVERYONE breaks the law and WE are the strong arm of enFORCEment. We are told that we are Superman once we put on this uniform. Our POLICy is the actual instrument that we swear the oath toward. Not some pesky restrictive fairly balanced instrument of justice called The Constitution. That was simply pomp and circumstance for public consumption in order to appear to have integrity. If we THINK you MAY have POSSIBLY stolen a vehicle, you are GOING TO eat cinders and taste a mouth full of road rash. And THAT is the totality of the circumstance. Policy dictates. Citizen lawyer POV: They cannot do that and here is strong, compelling, legal reasoning as to why, and for the past 3 decades or so they've known. The policy they follow only proves the point that it is a standard of practice to violate the rights of Innocents. Because 13 officers and a helicopter might not be able to catch a fleeing lady in the twilight. And oh yes, tint. The totally of tint. Eat sidewalk for 3 minutes, your LIMOUSINE windows are tinted.
When do the police not follow this process for a stolen vehicle? The answer is never, they always escalate it to the fullest extent in every stolen vehicle stop. So if they do it on every single stop which fairy tale world do they live in where they follow the law and not escalate the situation.
😂 … good point. But i need to go back and see what she contributed to the written decision. Often the judges as silly questions to prove a point. And they do it with a straight face amazingly
It's _possible_ that there could be a hostage inside that purportedly stolen vehicle. So our department policy is to act first and question later. Think of the potential lives we might save, not the one we're taking.
I guarantee if this had been the judges or there loved ones in the car there opinions would agree with the plaintiff, for the cops it was a dog and pony show, really they weren't 100% sure the car was stolen, what is the problem of making sure, too lazy to really check or just training on innocent people that we know they do.
It always amazes me how far judges will go to make a cops action reasonable, when the cops should have a better understanding of laws than the average citizen. Ignorance of the law isn’t a defense for all of us, but it the shield that enables cops to openly violate our rights.
The officers are not properly 'trained' and 'experience' shows the opposite of argument whereby cultural norms by police state are a menace to community. It's past time judges stop the bias support for the badge and recognize they are ordinary men in uniform. In fact, the 'Council on Criminal Justice Task Force on Policing' called for "complete overhaul of U.S. police training and national standards". The task force found "most police training in the United States is misfocused, too short, uses ineffective teaching methods, and is out of alignment with both community safety priorities and research about what works to minimize bias and use of force." The task force concluded. “Police departments need policies and standards that hold officers accountable - and leaders committed to changing the internal culture of their departments.” Further fueling the systemic dysfunction are bad prosecutors who become biased judges. So many in fact, the vast majority of judges have prosecutorial backgrounds who duplicitously pursued malicious prosecutions. The idea that judges, like all humans, can show biases because of prior life experiences is now well-established in research (Harris & Sen, 2019; Wistrich & Rachlinski, 2017).The vast majority of judges come from prosecutorial backgrounds where "commonly exhibited biases that stem from and are shaped by one's background, experiences, and attitudes (Dror, 2018, 2020; Dror et al., 2021). "Drawing from prior models on sources of biases in legal decision-making and existing literature on judges, [research] presents a theoretical model of psychological and social sources of pro-prosecution bias in judges with prosecutorial backgrounds." For judges who have previous prosecutorial backgrounds, literature suggests that particular aspects of prosecutorial attitudes and training might lead to a prosecutorial mindset that can later lead to biases that influence their approaches as judges on the bench. Psychological literature has considered more general attitudes about norm violations as key to understanding a “prosecutorial model” of thinking about detecting and punishing offending behaviour (Goldberg et al., 1999).
All this is a waste of time they'll never held accountable the city taxpayers pay for the stupid decisions that officers make nothing comes out of their pockets or their pensions
The information the jury received made it sound like the policy was the law. If, one government agency (DMV here) can create a false record and that relieves a police officer from being held accountable, we have no rights.
That judge asking all those questions that weren’t about what the case was about wasted all the time of the lawyer. He was trying to make a point and she was hung up on something else. The point he was making was how they treated the women, innocent until proven guilty should be the standard
No officer is reasonable as that is not the nature of the job. It is absurd to even argue that as every response they would have naturally is unreasonable to anyone OTHER than an officer.
The bottom line here is that officers these days act more like they're controlling enemy combatants in a hostile war zone. This is precisely why innocent people are dying every day in our beautiful free country. Poor and inappropriate training for law enforcement in general.
jury instructions should be about laws ! jury instructions on policy's that may or maynot in themselves be in contravention of constitutional rights are dubious to say the least ! How many times have we heard cops say " its our policy to ID everyone we talk to" despite the fact this is not actually a legal demand for ID ?
If she was a pygmy, she would be based and she would be letting this appellate lawyer do his thing instead of interfering with these stupid questions that really anybody in the comment section could refute
[ wish just one lawyer would ask a judge to point out the "officer safety" exception to the constitution. i don't recall ever seeing anything in the constitution that say these right are absolute unless a government agent fears for their safety, then all your right go away.
When I was around 9 years old my mom and I stopped at gun point by unmarked car and in plain clothes. I was made to lay on the hot asphalt while they ruffed my mom up and searched the car. Then they made my mom and me follow them to the police station where they fingerprinted my mom then let us go. They said someone with the same name as my mom was writing bad checks that was their excuse. My mom should of sue them. I think she was just happy we were alive
Imagine of someone pulls into your driveway with tinted window. Do you pull your gun? If left up to the officers, they will always pull a gun and cuff people. And some of these interactions result in them shooting some innocent person - or some person who had a bad / day / week / mental illness. So we go from getting pulled over for being black to getting pulled over for driving a black suburban.
Once the police can clearly see that there is no one else in the vehicle then there is no reason to prolong the detention methods against the passengers or driver. A general “officer safety” reason for continuing the extreme restraint measures, absent any reasonable and articulated suspicion that there (a) has been a violation of any actual law, and (b) these people are the ones who have violated that law, is not allowed under Terry and any restrictive measures used are a violation of the 4A rights of the individual(s).
They need to train officers that, statistically their job is less dangerous than ; Auto mechanics, Construction workers, Assembly line workers, Fisherman, Electricians Athletes, Presidents, Roofers, Maintenance, Road construction, Oil rig workers Linemen, Ranching, Farmers, and the list goes on. I'm not even going to mention acorns. Teach them to be brave, not paranoid pssys.
Uhhh... what? What was the DMV mistake, exactly? Did the cops report the wrong plate? That was certainly their responsibility. Or if they relied on one of those auto-reader things, that's a preventable error too.
26:47 they have to know ? THEY KNEW ONCE THEY TOOK THE JOB THIS WORK IS DANGEROUS ! DO THEY HAVE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE FOR THEM TO DO THEIR JOBS ? THEY ARE BEGGING FOR AI TO TAKE OVER THEIR JOBS %100. IF YOU’RE GONNA PISS AND MOAN ABOUT OFFICER SAFETY AT EVERY TURN WE’RE THROUGH WITH YOUR STUPID FEELING ! SEND IN A ROBOT WHICH ARE A STEP UP AS FAR AS PERSONALITY COMPARED TO ANY PIGS.
Their job is only remotely dangerous, and that because of the car wreaks, that they cause, and stick the other driver with all responsibility on fixing their vehicle
So what her argument boils down to any person can held at gun point and handcuffed an put to the floor because that officer has had experience of a violent person from a similar crime. What an idiot
This lady was " NOT DRIVING " !!!!!!!!!! This is the FAILURE of this case form the outset !!!!!!!!!! NO EVIDENCE OF A CONTRACT WAS PUT FORWARD TO PROVE SHE WAS " TRANSPORTING FOR COMPENSATION " THIS CASE NEEDS TO BE RESUBMITTED FOR CHALLENGING JURISDICTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!! The definition of " DRIVING " is set forth in the following codes and statutes. F E D E R A L 18 U.S. Code Part 1, Ch. 2, § 31 - Definitions (6) Motor vehicle. The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for “commercial purposes” on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. (10) Used for commercial purposes.- The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. 49 U.S. Code § 13102 - Definitions (14)MOTOR CARRIER.- The term “motor carrier” means a person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. California Legislative Information CODE TEXT VEHICLE CODE - VEH DIVISION 1. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED [100 - 681] ( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
260. (a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. (b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3. (c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle. VEHICLE CODE - VEH DIVISION 6. DRIVERS' LICENSES [12500 - 15326] ( Heading of Division 6 amended by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1615. )
CHAPTER 1. Issuance of Licenses, Expiration, and Renewal [12500 - 13020] ( Chapter 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
ARTICLE 1. Persons Required to Be Licensed, Exemptions, and Age Limits [12500 - 12527] ( Article 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
12515. (a) No person under the age of 18 years shall be employed for compensation by another for the purpose of driving a motor vehicle on the highways. (b) No person under the age of 21 years shall be employed for compensation by another to drive, and no person under the age of 21 years may drive a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 34500 or subdivision (b) of Section 15210, that is engaged in interstate commerce, or any motor vehicle that is engaged in the interstate or intrastate transportation of hazardous material, as defined in Section 353. (Amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1509, Sec. 5.) Search Phrase: CODE TEXT PENAL CODE - PEN PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680.4] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 16. GENERAL PROVISIONS [654 - 678] ( Title 16 enacted 1872. )
654.2. The provisions of Section 654.1 of the Penal Code shall not apply to the selling, furnishing, or providing of transportation of any person or persons in any of the following circumstances: (a) When no compensation is paid or to be paid, either directly or indirectly, for the transportation. (b) For the furnishing or providing of transportation to or from work of employees engaged in farmwork on any farm of the State of California. (c) For the furnishing or providing of transportation to and from work of employees of any nonprofit cooperative association, organized pursuant to any law of the State of California. (d) For the transportation of persons wholly or substantially within the limits of a single municipality or of contiguous municipalities. (e) For transportation of persons over a route wholly or partly within a national park or state park where the transportation is sold in conjunction with, or as part of, a rail trip or trip over a regularly operated motorbus transportation system or line. (f) For the transportation of persons between home and work locations or of persons having a common work-related trip purpose in a vehicle having a seating capacity of 15 passengers or less, including the driver, which is used for the purpose of ridesharing, as defined in Section 522 of the Vehicle Code, when the ridesharing is incidental to another purpose of the driver. This exemption does not apply if the primary purpose for the transportation of those persons is to make a profit. “Profit,” as used in this subdivision, does not include the recovery of the actual costs incurred in owning and operating a vanpool vehicle, as defined in Section 668 of the Vehicle Code. (Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 185, Sec. 2.)
so.. the car can be a weapon so all traffic stops now can be charged as possessing weapon.. Almost identical... define almost.. well it had 4 wheels .. She is arguing that ALL stops are extraordinary and that anything less than active or forced strip in public is all ok due to "officer safety"
officer safety trumps everything else, and that should not be so. using the TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES the officers should have run the plates and vehicle description more than once to ensure the vehicle was truly stolen instead of going to felony stop? "almost identical looking car???" 19 minute mark indicates they didn't pursue their due diligence before the felony stop. if the person fled... didn't they have an air unit on scene? at 28 min, are you saying the cops assume and do not have factual information?
From the written decision filed August 14, 2024: "... the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims. As for plaintiffs' state law claims, the evidence at aummary judgement permitted a finding that the officers acted with the requisite reckless disregard for plaintiffs' rights. Therefore, we remand for a new trial on all of plaintiffs' claims against the individual officers."
The problem is that whether one believes it or not Juries are made up of ignorant people. I do not mean that they are ignorant of everything they do, but that they are ignorant of the laws. They are told "This is the law" and they are going on emotions, not law. They want to trust cops so if something sounds good, they will go with it regardless of whether it is correct. I hate to say it but lawyers in a way are grifters. Most of the time juries are made up of half the people not having an excuse to get off the jury so they are angry and want to get it over with quickly.
Bumbling, stuttering attorney who can't effectively articulate a thought or reach a conclusion without 27 prepositional phrases to reach that conclusion? Did he practice his arguments? We need better than this guy if we are going to get egotistical, thug cops from violating our rights every time they are scared.
Typical detention and search subsequent to arrest. Pointing the guns is excessive force. Pretty simnplke. Why does it take so many words to get to the point?
2023.07.21
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Written Decision: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/08/14/21-56237.pdf
Father vs. the Fuzz: 2A Fight Heads to Federal Court! 💪🔥 th-cam.com/video/zHTWonkRzuE/w-d-xo.html
Dad Defeats DA!💥 No Immunity for Lying Prosecutors in Civil Rights Suit! th-cam.com/video/hDoYNtKlF58/w-d-xo.html
Lose 2A Rights for Mean Emails!😳 Susan Bassi’s Emails That Disturb the Peace Are Domestic Violence! th-cam.com/video/PKO6qQg-c2o/w-d-xo.html
Father Gets $$$ From Corrupt El Dorado County, CA: th-cam.com/users/shortsi21jCcpJF7w?si=YiLrHHqIxxJcXp2j
False Arrest Body-Cam One! 😳 El Dorado County, CA Obtains Warrant by Fraud & NV AG Participates!:th-cam.com/video/oJOtgCwh6OU/w-d-xo.html
Kidnapper Judge Cindy Hendrickson Revokes Illegal Order 😳 (2023)! Admits Denying Me Due Process! th-cam.com/video/hRaX0g7rgS8/w-d-xo.html
Ring Camera! Kidnapping Coppers Exposed! 😳 Admit I Reported Corruption But Refuse to Investigate! th-cam.com/video/ONUR0GL9Voc/w-d-xo.html
Father Exposes Santa Clara Superior Court Complaint Shredding Operation: th-cam.com/video/u4JCc4qO30o/w-d-xo.html
Another Interesting Case (lots more on my channel):
Lawyer Cites Fake Cases! 😳 Parent's Civil Rights Appeal Thrown Out Due to Professional Misconduct! th-cam.com/video/1nmqZpPgfjE/w-d-xo.html
UNLIMITED IMMUNITY! 🙄 State Judges Are Supreme Beings! But You Can Win Declaratory Relief! 42USC1983 th-cam.com/video/RFZCAdZeIso/w-d-xo.html
Gangsta CPS Loses Immunity! 😳 Demands the Right to Lie to Violate Citizens & Kidnap Kids! th-cam.com/video/llXqlKB_AME/w-d-xo.htmlsi=q974eNTgxew4MKqE
-----
I'm just trying to be a dad after my kids were abducted.
Why I am the Father in Exile:
How to Fight Corrupt Family Court (Expose it!)
th-cam.com/video/pVgudZtNYiQ/w-d-xo.html
Voter Fraud and Abduction Admission Caught on Court TV in NV
th-cam.com/video/J9FeWPKEFo8/w-d-xo.html
Judicial Misconduct & Rights Violations Caught on Court TV - Santa Clara, CA Judge Roberta Hayashi
th-cam.com/video/Zgog-NLFyC8/w-d-xo.html
Secret Judge Club Exposed 😳 at Corrupt California State Bar Meeting! (2023) th-cam.com/video/LHRTQh0WTYk/w-d-xo.html
Santa Clara County California Superior Court Judges Who Deny Due Process and Participate in Misconduct and Felonies: Roberta Hayashi, Cindy Seeley Hendrickson, Brooke Blecher, Thomas Kuhnle. Transcripts and Filings Will be Released Publicly on this Channel.
Father in exile? ❤😢
I love how the court always has to worry about not restricting the officers job in future cases but doesn’t keep in mind the American Citizens rights
And officers should be restricted from doing their “jobs” cause usually that entails making situations 100x worse.
That's right. No duty to protect, only subjugate.
Same people cant understand, "shall not". Very ambiguous.
The court should be worried about the OFFICER not restricting the citizens in future. The court is probably thinking about this because of unions protecting utter scummy officers "jobs", they have to do it even if the officer has done obviously illegal stuff, as they need to be concerned about any future cases that other officers may be involved with.
Its very annoying to see lawyers argue obviously ridiculous points in such a confident way, as if they're totally correct and actually we are the silly ones for questioning it. Yet I'm sure when these lawyers go home, in private, they talk about how stupid it is and that theyre arguing ridiculous points. But it pays the bills right?
At the expense of innocent citizens
When you don't know the law, you go to jail
When a cop doesn't know the law, you go to jail
They don't have to protect you, serve you or even investigate a crime for you.
I'm not sure why we have them anymore
Abolish Qualified Immunity and then we won’t need frivolous litigation at the behest of corrupt police!
That won't fix anything. NM ended qualified immunity in 2021. Each city indemnifies the police and NM passed a law to cap all claims at $2 million.
Forget qualified immunity. Go after the unions they're the problem. They're the ones that file lawsuits and produce lawyers for the cops. They are the ones that don't allow city managers to fire cops. It goes on and on
Abolishing qualified immunity is a bill in congress atm. It just needs to be passed
Eliminating QI does nothing but lower settlements for victims. And it will lead to some pretty serious anti slapp type legislation that makes it incredibly dangerous to sue anyone for anything. Which means, even if you have a good case, if you lose, you get punished harshly. Which is beneficial if you have the entire government on your side and someone is suing you. When you win because you had an unlimited budget, you don't even have to file against your accuser, the court does it for you.
the problem is a reasonable officer will sh**t an unarmed suspect handcuffed in his car bcoz an acorn fell near him. a reasonable officer is someone who is afraid of his own shadow and the invisible officer safety.
The irony is no one else would have been able to use such a claim. Cops are allowed to use irrational fear as a justification. You, me and anyone else did this under the exact same circumstance, and the officer that did that would be happy to arrest us.
@@ygrittesnow1701 yeah, your self defense claim would be thrown out immediately if you tried this
@@ygrittesnow1701 And the DA is happy to prosecute us!
@@fatherinexile That's one of the biggest reasons why these cops, and DAs and judges too, need federal civil rights prosecution. The local cops, prosecutors, judges, etc, are all on the same side. The federal prosecutors don't care if local cops, prosecutors, judges etc, don't like them.
No, a reasonable officer will not, You are mistaking a reasonable and an unreasonable officer.
Qualified immunity is a license to abuse a citizens constitutional rights. The question is: Why does one section of society have special laws to protect their actions, over the rest of society? The tax payer does not pay for "officer safety" they pay police for public safety.
Their investigation is to pull weapons and wait for the target to make a false move.
😂 so sad and infuriating but your comment is so true it made me LOL!
100% lol smh
If we the people do not have qualified immunity neither should any government employee or official
"all men are created equal" qualified immunity is unconstitutional on its face
🎯
Did the police ever think that the car manufacturer maybe made more than one car that looked like the stolen car? According to the police, they have the right to do a felony stop on all cars that look like the car that was stolen.
That is not PARTICULARIZED (to the individual) suspicion, it is a generalized suspicion. They need more particulars than ‘red Honda accord’ to pull it over.
A “reasonable officer” is a myth. Like unicorns and fairies.
🎯
"No true Scot".
Qualified immunity most needs to be taken from CONGRESS
Guilty until proven innocent
ALWAYS!!! Unless you're a cop. Then, you are innocent and they find you innocent even though you broke the law.
People need to have the tools to protect themselves from death threats from police. , don't the people have rights .
End qualified immunity and hold these tyrants personally accountable! Your Gest@po Gang Member in blue are out of control!
Cops training 😂
Takes more brains and schooling to be a hairdresser or barber and we don't hand them guns and badges!
maybe we should make them swap jobs.. let the barbers pull everyone over and give them a hair cut, and the cops can circle jerk and sweep the floor all day at the barber shop ?
Or excessive protections for errors.
Policy is NOT the same as law! Quite often policy is contrary to law.
Policies are not law. They don’t have the force of law and if you don’t follow their policy, you’re still not breaking the law.
Qualified immunity should go away. That being said, the phrase "clearly established" has been used to such a specificity there is always going to be a way out for the cop. For example, it wasn't 4:30 a.m. and the suspect wasn't wearing white, so the previous crime isn't clearly established. Makes no common sense.
And it wasnt after labor day! And he didn't have his top button of his shirt unbuttoned! Yea it's ad absurdum to the point where common sense is thrown out the window by the court. As if every one of the millions of possible scenarios where rights can be violated must be reproduced first before you can abolish qualified immunity.
@@Krakaet RIGHT!!!!
FYI , cops and common sense should never be in the same sentence, your welcome 😁
Tinted windows should never be a reason to remove free Americans from a car and handcuff them and search cars and make suspects lie on the street handcuffed. They waste our taxes and they sold never have qualified immunity for any reason. They should be strongly held accountable for every choice they make
I woukdnt say always, but I do get the risk tinted windows pose. And pretending they dont is just dishonest. On the other hand Americans should be free to tint their car windows and have privacy.
Pulling a car over with tinted windows and asking the occupants to exit seems reasonable. Its what happens after that, that seems to cross the line.
I love how a person has their life ruined by bad cops and the lawyers get a small amount of time to argue. 20 minutes to safe a life
Looking like 3 actors for the state protecting the other state actors,to me !
Disagree.
When I was a 3L(3rd year student) in law school, we had the opportunity to argue a case in front of a panel of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Circuit Court judges are almost always contradictory in their question of both parties in every case. Their job is to try and poke as many holes in arguments to get as full of an argument as possible.
You can usually tell how judges are leaning not by the questions they ask, but how specific their questions are. The more detailed and nuanced their questions are towards a party, the more likely they are leaning towards siding with that party.
Qualified Immunity should be abolished and officers should be held accountable and not just the tax payer!
More like qualified impunity
Did the prosecutor say the tint was illegal with no proof 😂
Apparently!
@@MDbandit10 The tint has nothing to do with the stop. The tint was the excuse for pulling out their guns, because they couldn't see inside the car. The reason for the stop was they thought it was a stolen car.
Citizens don't have Qualified Immunity. Why do police? We all follow the same laws don't we?
Is that a serious question? Unfortunately, the law cannot contemplate every situation. Nor can police officer training. So there are always grey areas. We ask police officers and other civil officials to operate in these grey areas. They must be protected from in some way from being sued from simply doing their job. For example, every person who gets handcuffed has the right to sue for excessive force. No matter how tight the cuffs are, they can be sued. Somehow, the officer should be protected. If not qualified immunity, (which I agree can be abused) , please suggest an alternative.
@@bigbubba4314 The problem seems to stem from the impossible hurdle that SCOTUS attached to the creation of QI(Contrary to legislative law I might add). Some incredibly egregious acts have been committed by law enforcement. And they have been granted QI because no existing case was there to tell them they couldn't. If there are zero cases that exist then there is no case could ever exist. To me anyway, what this says is that cops can't do their jobs unless they are allowed to break the law.
@ as mentioned, I’m not a fan of qualified immunity. But I recognize the grey area that many civil servants must operate in. Where things aren’t “grey area” QI should not exist. Figuring out the edges of the grey area is also a challenge.
@@bigbubba4314 Unfortunately we've come to see that when given an inch cops or government in general will steal a mile. Leading to another cliche, "It only takes a few to ruin it for everyone." Haven't we seen QI abused to the point that society is sick of the flagrant violations of our rights?
@@bigbubba4314In California it takes 2 years of training to become a hairdresser, but only 6 months for an officer. I mean, I understand that you shouldn’t run with scissors, but guns and high speed vehicle chases and qualified immunity are a lot more dangerous. By a landslide. So we don’t need QI for undertrained agents of the state. We need fair and efficient academy time combined with officers who aren’t willing to act as a cowboy would rather then an experienced and knowledgeable person would.
That's one of the biggest reasons why these cops, and DAs and judges too, need federal civil rights prosecution. The local cops, prosecutors, judges, etc, are all on the same side. The federal prosecutors don't care if local cops, prosecutors, judges etc, don't like them.
they make up charges because they hate to be wrong
If no Report of a stolen car is made then the cops have no right to assume a car is stolen and they can just arrest or detain forcibly anyone. Period!!!!!
Sounds like you have had a little too much to think, Citizen!
😂
Then by your logic, as soon as a car thief slaps a fake license plate or a stolen license plate on a stolen car, the cops would not be allowed to detain the car thief while they investigate the license plate mismatch issue. Am I understanding your point correctly? Edit: And just to be clear, i agree with the initial lawyer. In this case, the cops went too far and they should have their qualified immunity revoked. Im just disagreeing with your statement.
Cowardice and unreasonable emotional fear is not a reason to violate citizen rights.
The fact that cops are allowed to make this level of a mistake and just walk away is beyond me. The fact is these people were innocent, innocent people are free.
I guess she has to make these stupid arguments as a vigorous defense… it’s just so stupid and indefensible that any argument would sound this dumb.
I never knew qualified immunity protected officers fishing for a crime
Watch crazy that the lawyer is saying that if officers are scared they're able to use excessive force
As if cops shouldn’t have to ever be in dangerous situations…thank god firefighters aren’t such scared pvssys
I think decreased public respect for police may be shaping law. It might be in the best interests of police, prosecutors, and judges to enforce tighter standards among their colleagues. However, I don't think the police and prosecutors are capable of improving their standards. The Judicial Branch may be able to reform, but this seems to be due to ability to appeal precedent setting cases into Federal venue. Having thousands of little po-dunk police departments, with little or no understanding of laws, seems ridiculous to me.
No... Society is responding to legislation from the bench. And no... State appeals do not turn into federal venues.
The possibility of fear. Lady judge nailed it.
The mental gymnastics required to take these cases seriously are mind numbing. The courts would laugh any of these arguments right out of court, if this wasn't a qa case. These arguments are just junk.
Sounds like there was probable cause anyway for the stop, based on the DMV error, so a guns drawn felony stop was not unconstitutional. If it was only reasonable suspicion then it would be.
The case he spoke about had COMMON sense behind it.
The Citizens should not be treated as a POW.
TRUST
🎯
"All Animals are equal. Some more than others."
- that Attitude (backed by your present Laws) will be the downfall of the Fourth Reich.
The suspicion that the police had was not reasonable for that stop.
stop was tinted windows, that's enough for a stop
This was fascinating, thanks for posting. I was so impressed by the specific questions asked by the judges which compared and contrasted the situation to the case law being referenced by the attorneys. Nice to see the system working as designed!
I’m happy you enjoyed it. Your welcome! I have lots of these on this channel. I posted them so everyone can learn.
It really takes a special kind of worm to represent criminals with badges.
What about a Van with no windows? This judge’s logic is way flawed! Looking for a way to take our money!
Very similar circumstances happened to my daughter when she wrecked her car in a violent snow storm. She slid into a truck as well as the road guards on the side of the freeway. It was after midnight and she had just gotten off shift and was going home. The cops got there, pulled their guns on her and demanded she lay on the road in the slush and snow. She was handcuffed and allowed to then sit in the snow. The cops held her at gun point the whole time. The man and woman in the truck were absolutely shocked at their treatment. They said they were investigating a stolen car that LOOKED NOTHING LIKE MY DAUGHTER'S CAR. At this point she was hysterical. They didn't call an ambulance to help her. They just kept her there in the super cold and wet, cuffed, guns pointing at her. The KNEW what they were doing violated her 4th Amendment rights and a lot of other things as well. The people in the truck were super angry at the cops. Cops threw every possible ticked they could at her. When it went to court, the prosecutor was very, VERY HUMBLE. He apologized and dropped all but driving too fast for circumstances. Basically he was begging her to disregard their blatant abuse of her rights. She had quite a few witnesses that would testify against them as well. Case dismissed.
These cases are difficult to view the videos and more so when reading the decisions that give more details as to the event when a minor child is involved. It is so traumatizing for innocent people. End qualified immunity.
Imagine an army where the soldiers fire anytime they hear a sound or feel scared. This is supposedly why you are trained as an officer---to mitigate your fear.
Directed at the defense, what ever happened to "possession is 9/10th of the law" Aiming guns at people without a direct threat is a threat to the directtees lives and only having a hunch the car was stolen, was the real car stolen in a ARMED CAR JACKING??? There are so many cars out there anything can go wrong with things, so you have to measure how the car was maybe stolen. Thats bs about to say they never encountered this before because I have seen with my own two eyes many times where cops have jacked up the car looking under neath and nobody was held at gun point in cuffs on there face held down..And all this was done without a warrant or probable cause.To make all suspected stolen car stops a felony stop is unreasonable just in the wording itself "SUSPECTED". Any one can suspect anything but does that give the right too surround people with guns aimed at them, It should NEVER be allowed in a FREE country. Its all lies on the cops, they new this was two woman and was an easy stop to make it a full fledged low risk TRAINING STOP to the cops lives at least.
These lawyers are getting proven to be absolutely dishonourable, scummy pos. Would she fight this same argument for her son ? Or kin ?
That's how our legal system works. It's literally her job. She is expected to defend her client to the best of her ability; not simply agree with the prosecution.
Stolen vs. carjacking is two different crimes.
Seriously now a judge actually believes factory installed tint is grounds for police to hold you at gunpoint. In my mind this is police having a bunch of hunches and not even reasonable suspicion!
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ARGUMENT:
The higher courts have ruled that it is the responsibility of the citizen to know their rights and local codes…
Merrick v. United States (1952)
Because a LEO must be a citizen in order to gain employment as a LEO, as a citizen, they, too, are responsible for knowing their rights and the local codes.
Because it is presumed that all citizen, including LEOs, know their rights and local codes, their can be no claim of ignorance of the law; therefore, a LEO cannot qualify for any amount of immunity, as ignorance is not a defense.
"Ignorantia juris non excusat" (ignorance of the law excuses not)
'DMV error' is not a valid excuse and should not be considered a valid excuse. The police should have the burden of being competent.
Police POV: Our policy, written by our command staff, gives us carte blanche to do a felony stop even though we know nothing about the fine folks in the vehicle. We aren't concerned about their possible innocence, only with their probable guilt! Because we are trained that EVERYONE breaks the law and WE are the strong arm of enFORCEment. We are told that we are Superman once we put on this uniform. Our POLICy is the actual instrument that we swear the oath toward. Not some pesky restrictive fairly balanced instrument of justice called The Constitution. That was simply pomp and circumstance for public consumption in order to appear to have integrity.
If we THINK you MAY have POSSIBLY stolen a vehicle, you are GOING TO eat cinders and taste a mouth full of road rash. And THAT is the totality of the circumstance. Policy dictates.
Citizen lawyer POV: They cannot do that and here is strong, compelling, legal reasoning as to why, and for the past 3 decades or so they've known. The policy they follow only proves the point that it is a standard of practice to violate the rights of Innocents. Because 13 officers and a helicopter might not be able to catch a fleeing lady in the twilight. And oh yes, tint. The totally of tint. Eat sidewalk for 3 minutes, your LIMOUSINE windows are tinted.
Great summary!
When do the police not follow this process for a stolen vehicle? The answer is never, they always escalate it to the fullest extent in every stolen vehicle stop. So if they do it on every single stop which fairy tale world do they live in where they follow the law and not escalate the situation.
Karma is gonna catch up to that Karen that immediately started looking for an out with "ordinary circumstances"
😂 … good point. But i need to go back and see what she contributed to the written decision. Often the judges as silly questions to prove a point. And they do it with a straight face amazingly
To the judges in this case. Healthcare CEO, wink wink. And did the judge on the right eat the rest of the judges
2 of those judges are just women so we can assume that they wont be able to fully understand the issue.
But one of the women is a Gungan king. So we might be ok. I’ve heard that she may also be trying out for the chargers offensive line, so there’s that.
Judge on the right is for the cops. They should have known for sure the car was stolen and that they had the right car before they ever did a stop!
It's _possible_ that there could be a hostage inside that purportedly stolen vehicle.
So our department policy is to act first and question later. Think of the potential lives we might save, not the one we're taking.
Jury nullification is the only thing a jury needs to know but they never do.
It would be less expensive to train police in the actual laws instead of paying for their lawsuits.
I guarantee if this had been the judges or there loved ones in the car there opinions would agree with the plaintiff, for the cops it was a dog and pony show, really they weren't 100% sure the car was stolen, what is the problem of making sure, too lazy to really check or just training on innocent people that we know they do.
Was that even a court procedure, looking like the state protecting the state! What a joke!
Thanks for sharing.
You’re welcome! Thanks for watching!
It always amazes me how far judges will go to make a cops action reasonable, when the cops should have a better understanding of laws than the average citizen. Ignorance of the law isn’t a defense for all of us, but it the shield that enables cops to openly violate our rights.
This is a case of police being taught that they are hammers and therefore EVERYTHING they see is a nail
The officers are not properly 'trained' and 'experience' shows the opposite of argument whereby cultural norms by police state are a menace to community. It's past time judges stop the bias support for the badge and recognize they are ordinary men in uniform. In fact, the 'Council on Criminal Justice Task Force on Policing' called for "complete overhaul of U.S. police training and national standards". The task force found "most police training in the United States is misfocused, too short, uses ineffective teaching methods, and is out of alignment with both community safety priorities and research about what works to minimize bias and use of force." The task force concluded. “Police departments need policies and standards that hold officers accountable - and leaders committed to changing the internal culture of their departments.”
Further fueling the systemic dysfunction are bad prosecutors who become biased judges. So many in fact, the vast majority of judges have prosecutorial backgrounds who duplicitously pursued malicious prosecutions. The idea that judges, like all humans, can show biases because of prior life experiences is now well-established in research (Harris & Sen, 2019; Wistrich & Rachlinski, 2017).The vast majority of judges come from prosecutorial backgrounds where "commonly exhibited biases that stem from and are shaped by one's background, experiences, and attitudes (Dror, 2018, 2020; Dror et al., 2021). "Drawing from prior models on sources of biases in legal decision-making and existing literature on judges, [research] presents a theoretical model of psychological and social sources of pro-prosecution bias in judges with prosecutorial backgrounds." For judges who have previous prosecutorial backgrounds, literature suggests that particular aspects of prosecutorial attitudes and training might lead to a prosecutorial mindset that can later lead to biases that influence their approaches as judges on the bench. Psychological literature has considered more general attitudes about norm violations as key to understanding a “prosecutorial model” of thinking about detecting and punishing offending behaviour (Goldberg et al., 1999).
These cops are evil. They’re ALL out of control.
Legal word salad. Officers act without integrity nor complex thinking ability. Over power and figure it out later.
All this is a waste of time they'll never held accountable the city taxpayers pay for the stupid decisions that officers make nothing comes out of their pockets or their pensions
The information the jury received made it sound like the policy was the law.
If, one government agency (DMV here) can create a false record and that relieves a police officer from being held accountable, we have no rights.
That judge asking all those questions that weren’t about what the case was about wasted all the time of the lawyer. He was trying to make a point and she was hung up on something else. The point he was making was how they treated the women, innocent until proven guilty should be the standard
No officer is reasonable as that is not the nature of the job. It is absurd to even argue that as every response they would have naturally is unreasonable to anyone OTHER than an officer.
Judges seem reluctant to reign in Police , poor Caliber
The bottom line here is that officers these days act more like they're controlling enemy combatants in a hostile war zone. This is precisely why innocent people are dying every day in our beautiful free country.
Poor and inappropriate training for law enforcement in general.
jury instructions should be about laws !
jury instructions on policy's that may or maynot in themselves be in contravention of constitutional rights are dubious to say the least !
How many times have we heard cops say " its our policy to ID everyone we talk to" despite the fact this is not actually a legal demand for ID ?
The ‘pick me’ judge on the right is definitely doesn’t give a damn about these ladies rights.
If she was a pygmy, she would be based and she would be letting this appellate lawyer do his thing instead of interfering with these stupid questions that really anybody in the comment section could refute
[ wish just one lawyer would ask a judge to point out the "officer safety" exception to the constitution. i don't recall ever seeing anything in the constitution that say these right are absolute unless a government agent fears for their safety, then all your right go away.
Why not just pull it over and ASK for the registration and NOT while at the barrel of the gun?
What area where they searching 5 states,, and I would bet the report of a stolen car wasn't recorded, and made after the arrest!
The comments are making a distiction between regular car theft and car jacking. The arguments mention the stolen car had a lo-jack system.
When I was around 9 years old my mom and I stopped at gun point by unmarked car and in plain clothes. I was made to lay on the hot asphalt while they ruffed my mom up and searched the car. Then they made my mom and me follow them to the police station where they fingerprinted my mom then let us go. They said someone with the same name as my mom was writing bad checks that was their excuse. My mom should of sue them. I think she was just happy we were alive
Oh man she makes such poor arguments. It's like she's never had to actually make an argument before. She essentially argued against her own position.
where's video of this stop?
California...thats all you need to know.
Imagine of someone pulls into your driveway with tinted window. Do you pull your gun?
If left up to the officers, they will always pull a gun and cuff people. And some of these interactions result in them shooting some innocent person - or some person who had a bad / day / week / mental illness.
So we go from getting pulled over for being black to getting pulled over for driving a black suburban.
Once the police can clearly see that there is no one else in the vehicle then there is no reason to prolong the detention methods against the passengers or driver. A general “officer safety” reason for continuing the extreme restraint measures, absent any reasonable and articulated suspicion that there (a) has been a violation of any actual law, and (b) these people are the ones who have violated that law, is not allowed under Terry and any restrictive measures used are a violation of the 4A rights of the individual(s).
They need to train officers that, statistically their job is less dangerous than ;
Auto mechanics,
Construction workers,
Assembly line workers,
Fisherman,
Electricians
Athletes,
Presidents,
Roofers,
Maintenance,
Road construction,
Oil rig workers
Linemen,
Ranching,
Farmers,
and the list goes on.
I'm not even going to mention acorns.
Teach them to be brave, not paranoid pssys.
Uhhh... what? What was the DMV mistake, exactly? Did the cops report the wrong plate? That was certainly their responsibility. Or if they relied on one of those auto-reader things, that's a preventable error too.
26:47 they have to know ? THEY KNEW ONCE THEY TOOK THE JOB THIS WORK IS DANGEROUS ! DO THEY HAVE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE FOR THEM TO DO THEIR JOBS ? THEY ARE BEGGING FOR AI TO TAKE OVER THEIR JOBS %100. IF YOU’RE GONNA PISS AND MOAN ABOUT OFFICER SAFETY AT EVERY TURN WE’RE THROUGH WITH YOUR STUPID FEELING ! SEND IN A ROBOT WHICH ARE A STEP UP AS FAR AS PERSONALITY COMPARED TO ANY PIGS.
my ai police women gf is going to be awesome!
Their job is only remotely dangerous, and that because of the car wreaks, that they cause, and stick the other driver with all responsibility on fixing their vehicle
So what her argument boils down to any person can held at gun point and handcuffed an put to the floor because that officer has had experience of a violent person from a similar crime. What an idiot
This lady was " NOT DRIVING " !!!!!!!!!! This is the FAILURE of this case form the outset !!!!!!!!!! NO EVIDENCE OF A CONTRACT WAS PUT FORWARD TO PROVE SHE WAS " TRANSPORTING FOR COMPENSATION " THIS CASE NEEDS TO BE RESUBMITTED FOR CHALLENGING JURISDICTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!! The definition of " DRIVING " is set forth in the following codes and statutes.
F E D E R A L 18 U.S. Code Part 1, Ch. 2, § 31 - Definitions
(6) Motor vehicle.
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for “commercial purposes” on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(10) Used for commercial purposes.-
The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or
other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
49 U.S. Code § 13102 - Definitions
(14)MOTOR CARRIER.-
The term “motor carrier” means a person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation.
California Legislative Information
CODE TEXT
VEHICLE CODE - VEH
DIVISION 1. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED [100 - 681]
( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
260.
(a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.
(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.
(c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.
VEHICLE CODE - VEH
DIVISION 6. DRIVERS' LICENSES [12500 - 15326]
( Heading of Division 6 amended by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1615. )
CHAPTER 1. Issuance of Licenses, Expiration, and Renewal [12500 - 13020]
( Chapter 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
ARTICLE 1. Persons Required to Be Licensed, Exemptions, and Age Limits [12500 - 12527]
( Article 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
12515.
(a) No person under the age of 18 years shall be employed for compensation by another for the purpose of driving a motor vehicle on the highways.
(b) No person under the age of 21 years shall be employed for compensation by another to drive, and no person under the age of 21 years may drive a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 34500 or subdivision (b) of Section 15210, that is engaged in interstate commerce, or any motor vehicle that is engaged in the interstate or intrastate transportation of hazardous material, as defined in Section 353.
(Amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1509, Sec. 5.)
Search Phrase:
CODE TEXT
PENAL CODE - PEN
PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680.4]
( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 16. GENERAL PROVISIONS [654 - 678]
( Title 16 enacted 1872. )
654.2.
The provisions of Section 654.1 of the Penal Code shall not apply to the selling, furnishing, or providing of transportation of any person or persons in any of the following circumstances:
(a) When no compensation is paid or to be paid, either directly or indirectly, for the transportation.
(b) For the furnishing or providing of transportation to or from work of employees engaged in farmwork on any farm of the State of California.
(c) For the furnishing or providing of transportation to and from work of employees of any nonprofit cooperative association, organized pursuant to any law of the State of California.
(d) For the transportation of persons wholly or substantially within the limits of a single municipality or of contiguous municipalities.
(e) For transportation of persons over a route wholly or partly within a national park or state park where the transportation is sold in conjunction with, or as part of, a rail trip or trip over a regularly operated motorbus transportation system or line.
(f) For the transportation of persons between home and work locations or of persons having a common work-related trip purpose in a vehicle having a seating capacity of 15 passengers or less, including the driver, which is used for the purpose of ridesharing, as defined in Section 522 of the Vehicle Code, when the ridesharing is incidental to another purpose of the driver. This exemption does not apply if the primary purpose for the transportation of those persons is to make a profit. “Profit,” as used in this subdivision, does not include the recovery of the actual costs incurred in owning and operating a vanpool vehicle, as defined in Section 668 of the Vehicle Code.
(Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 185, Sec. 2.)
so.. the car can be a weapon so all traffic stops now can be charged as possessing weapon..
Almost identical... define almost.. well it had 4 wheels ..
She is arguing that ALL stops are extraordinary and that anything less than active or forced strip in public is all ok due to "officer safety"
Too many jurors are dumb. Quick to side with the cops. No 4th violation because its their policy? Policy is not law.
officer safety trumps everything else, and that should not be so.
using the TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES the officers should have run the plates and vehicle description more than once to ensure the vehicle was truly stolen instead of going to felony stop? "almost identical looking car???" 19 minute mark indicates they didn't pursue their due diligence before the felony stop.
if the person fled... didn't they have an air unit on scene?
at 28 min, are you saying the cops assume and do not have factual information?
From the written decision filed August 14, 2024:
"... the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims. As for plaintiffs' state law claims, the evidence at aummary judgement permitted a finding that the officers acted with the requisite reckless disregard for plaintiffs' rights. Therefore, we remand for a new trial on all of plaintiffs' claims against the individual officers."
And yet I’m getting comments from others about my title being clickbait because they kept immunity. Thank you for citing the decision.
The problem is that whether one believes it or not Juries are made up of ignorant people. I do not mean that they are ignorant of everything they do, but that they are ignorant of the laws. They are told "This is the law" and they are going on emotions, not law. They want to trust cops so if something sounds good, they will go with it regardless of whether it is correct. I hate to say it but lawyers in a way are grifters. Most of the time juries are made up of half the people not having an excuse to get off the jury so they are angry and want to get it over with quickly.
FTP!
Bumbling, stuttering attorney who can't effectively articulate a thought or reach a conclusion without 27 prepositional phrases to reach that conclusion? Did he practice his arguments? We need better than this guy if we are going to get egotistical, thug cops from violating our rights every time they are scared.
This woman is weak
❤❤
Typical detention and search subsequent to arrest. Pointing the guns is excessive force. Pretty simnplke. Why does it take so many words to get to the point?