Wait...what? I thought they were allowed to lie during an interrogation in the hopes of getting a confession, not lie as part of their day to day duties.
@@brimoton True! And, cops really need to understand that the constant, unnecessary lying just makes them, their department and their city look bad. I know I don't want to live in a city that employs crooked, lying cops.
@@GrantGill-n8pthere are a number of Supreme Court cases on this. Terry v Ohio, Brown v Texas. Cops cannot just stop you and ask for ID unless you are suspected of a crime or traffic infraction while driving. They have to meet a legal threshold before demanding identification because the 4th amendment protects our right to be secure in our persons, papers, and effects from unwarranted searches or seizures.
@@GrahamPeel-m8jyes they are moron and they and they also ruled being a cop isn't a profession and that they have no legal obligation to serve and protect anyone because their job is only to enforce the law
Imagine sharing BBQ, or having a beer with one of them, listening to them repeatedly brag about how they screwed over another person/family for something arbitrary.
@@ICU-Witnesswhen I was in welding school we had a retired Baltimore cop in our class. In the first week he told us a story where he beat up a guy he would later let go. While he told he was laughing in a way that made me think he was used to telling it to people who found it funny. When he noticed no one else thought it was funny he sort of just cut it short and walked off
Easy. There's two sides to every coin. In actuality, a personality can be multifaceted. Some LE are great at concealing aspects of their personality from people in their personal lives. Some LE don't have to be concerned about hiding traits because they are the same person with everyone.
We were stopped on our way home from a day at the amusement park with a van full of kids. They did much more than allowed. All they were allowed was to question the driver. They circled the van, looking in all the windows, and barked orders at one of the kids, who had dropped his arm. He was ordered to "show his hands". I was sitting beside that teenager and turned to stare at the cop. He startled me. He had no right to search the passengers or search the van. The driver had certainly displayed no suspicious behavior.
Supreme Court has ruled that they can do these stops but they have to follow certain conditions 1) their must be allowed to have the choice not to enter the stop area by using a sign warning of it and a legal way to turn off or around 2) they can ask for driving licences but the driver has the right NOT to comply 3) the driver cannot be detained unnecessary ie, only for as long as it takes for the driver to comply or deny the request. But of course the police fail to understand these conditions
Once he said its not a supreme court case it was over. The supreme court cant randomly hold a session, with no case and make new law, that's stupid. Thats what congress does.
Lookup “USSC sua sponte” (Latin for “of their own accord”) and you’ll find decisions from the court without there being a case brought forth. It’s rare, but it does happen.
@@thedukeofdukers No think this refers to when a judge in a case makes a legal decision not brought up by any party in the case. There has to be a case.
@@sandrajones2262 They fear cameras for the same reason crooks fear cameras; they fear being caught breaking the law and being sent to prison. This cop was caught making up things. He has no idea how the Supreme Court makes decisions. He must have flunked 8th grade Social Studies.
Incorrect, they DO know the Law, they simply prefer to bastardize it to suit their needs against those that are ignorant of the constitution. They DO know and they are hoping you dont, at least enough to make you doubt your source of knowledge.
and there have been three US v Martinez - Fuerte (1976), Mich. State Police v Stitz (1990) and Illinois vs Lidster (2004 ) the court has ruled if the roadblocks are temporary and are checking for DUI, immigration or gather evidence for an ongoing investigation they are legit.
You are right but, despite the court saying it's illegal and is unconstitutional they also said, they are going to allow it anyway. That's why bad states allow it, Texas doesn't allow it, Texas understands the Constitution. Unless there's a newer ruling I am unaware of.
If a police officer tells a lie then he should be dismissed from the force. How could anyone citizen or any court ever trust the cops honestly in Any forth coming case
He is correct the Supreme Court has not ruled on that and they are able to lie to you if they want to and not get in trouble. The Supreme Court has ruled that but there is nothing they can do if he doesn't want to show his ID. Thank you sir for standing on our rights I think everybody should do that. Because these cops need to learn the law
The supreme court has ruled that pigs are liars. They have ruled that what the cop is doing is lawful but we don’t have to answer the pig or present ID! The SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one, and made it convoluted and contrary.
Maybe this will help. According to the Supreme Court case "Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada," police can require individuals to disclose their names during a valid "Terry stop" which means they can ask for identification if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, but they cannot demand identification without a valid reason to stop someone; essentially, the court has ruled that officers can ask for ID checks under certain circumstances, but not without reasonable suspicion.
It's called a "Safety checkpoint" license, registration, and proof of insurance. This officer doesn't know how it works. Has to be announced first. Approved by the state with certain guidelines followed.
No. The Supreme Court has ruled the checkpoints are legal. That does not mean any questioning is legal. Just like the border checkpoints within the United States.
SCOTUS does have rulings (which future cases must match the particulars of the case) however they are not laws, not codified and not regulations. If SCOTUS ruled against the constitution, the constitution supersedes the ruling.
i'd bet he's referring to Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) which ruled DUI checkpoints are OK in and of themselves, but still doesn't strip a person's 4th Amendment right to hold onto their papers unless they are specifically suspected of a crime.
@GrantGill-n8p, In the US, stopping travelers to see who they are is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Even DUI checkpoints are deemed unconstitutional in most states. Being secure in your person means police don’t get to stop you and see who you are (ie, check your ID) or intrude into your business just because they feel like it. Even at DUI checkpoints where you may be required to show ID unconstitutionally, you are not required to answer questions or roll the window down any farther than needed to hear.
Sitz (1990), the Supreme Court determined that DUI checkpoints are legal. They do not violate the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution because they are brief enough to not be overly intrusive. All same as with immigration enforcement checkpoints near the border. Police TRY to get away with D/L checkpoints but they are unconstitutional and not covered by any ruling by the Supreme Court.
He's half right because he's referring to that you have a driver's license once if you're driving. If you're under PC it doesn't happen. They're using us code 18242, 18 - 241.
Contempt of court,
the Supreme court DO NOT make "ruling's"
WITHOUT any "CASE"
Exactly what are you trying to say ????
They are not only allowed to lie, they are trained and encouraged to do so.
They seem to do it automatically, even when the truth would do just fine.
This is something people REALLY NEED to understand.
Wait...what? I thought they were allowed to lie during an interrogation in the hopes of getting a confession, not lie as part of their day to day duties.
@ They are allowed to lie while investigating crime. Their loophole is claiming that everything is an investigation.
@@brimoton True!
And, cops really need to understand that the constant, unnecessary lying just makes them, their department and their city look bad.
I know I don't want to live in a city that employs crooked, lying cops.
I love how stupid these cops always look when they can't violate someones rights
ITS A LEGAL THANG .
This is where so much of honest and hardworking people's tax $$ end up getting wasted on.
Cop's a LIAR
in the US, cops are entirely permitted to lie. messed up as that is, they can and so they will.
The problem is that cops are LEGALLY allowed to LIE to you. FTP!!
Did they just like call the Supreme Court on the phone and ask if it was ok? Good grief
@@dedman1107 not if they threatened with arrest
@@David-ol6zj No, they just keep lying regardless!
Stopping drivers to see who they are is unconstitutional.
Why ?, by law you have to prove you can legally drive a vehicle.
@@GrantGill-n8pbut they can't just stop you and ask you
@@GrantGill-n8ponly after a traffic violation.
@@GrantGill-n8pthere are a number of Supreme Court cases on this. Terry v Ohio, Brown v Texas. Cops cannot just stop you and ask for ID unless you are suspected of a crime or traffic infraction while driving. They have to meet a legal threshold before demanding identification because the 4th amendment protects our right to be secure in our persons, papers, and effects from unwarranted searches or seizures.
Nazi Germany tactics.
Remember cops are allowed to lie to you!!!
@@jackosborne9872 no they are not
@@GrahamPeel-m8jyes they can, they just cant lie in court
@@GrahamPeel-m8jabsolutely can lie. he is lying in this video
@@GrahamPeel-m8jyes they are moron and they and they also ruled being a cop isn't a profession and that they have no legal obligation to serve and protect anyone because their job is only to enforce the law
@joshmccormack9375 yes they can!
The court made it legal for a cop to lie any time they want.
Frazer vs. Cupp
How can anyone be friends or in a relationship with someone who gets paid to lie everyday ? Smh
Imagine sharing BBQ, or having a beer with one of them, listening to them repeatedly brag about how they screwed over another person/family for something arbitrary.
@@ICU-Witnesswhen I was in welding school we had a retired Baltimore cop in our class. In the first week he told us a story where he beat up a guy he would later let go. While he told he was laughing in a way that made me think he was used to telling it to people who found it funny. When he noticed no one else thought it was funny he sort of just cut it short and walked off
Easy. There's two sides to every coin. In actuality, a personality can be multifaceted. Some LE are great at concealing aspects of their personality from people in their personal lives.
Some LE don't have to be concerned about hiding traits because they are the same person with everyone.
They can stop and ask..you don’t have to comply
THESE COPS ARE SUCH TRAINED LIARS! THEY REALLY JUST CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES.
Supreme Court did not rule that ID random checks are legal. They ruled DUI check points are legal but does not include ask for ID.
We were stopped on our way home from a day at the amusement park with a van full of kids. They did much more than allowed. All they were allowed was to question the driver.
They circled the van, looking in all the windows, and barked orders at one of the kids, who had dropped his arm. He was ordered to "show his hands". I was sitting beside that teenager and turned to stare at the cop. He startled me. He had no right to search the passengers or search the van. The driver had certainly displayed no suspicious behavior.
They also ruled that law enforcement must notify the public when and where those check points are going to be.
I don't believe the ruling states we as drivers have to comply with any requests under these circumstances.
How can you believe a word out of their mouths, when they're legally allowed to lie to us?
Supreme Court has ruled that they can do these stops but they have to follow certain conditions 1) their must be allowed to have the choice not to enter the stop area by using a sign warning of it and a legal way to turn off or around 2) they can ask for driving licences but the driver has the right NOT to comply 3) the driver cannot be detained unnecessary ie, only for as long as it takes for the driver to comply or deny the request.
But of course the police fail to understand these conditions
@@232nightowlIs that the same rule for The Border Patrol?
Once he said its not a supreme court case it was over. The supreme court cant randomly hold a session, with no case and make new law, that's stupid. Thats what congress does.
If they continued to push this and forced him to give his license, he could sue and get some $$ for his rights being violated.
EXACTLY! The Supreme Court doesn't make law, they enforce it!
Lookup “USSC sua sponte” (Latin for “of their own accord”) and you’ll find decisions from the court without there being a case brought forth. It’s rare, but it does happen.
@@thedukeofdukers No think this refers to when a judge in a case makes a legal decision not brought up by any party in the case. There has to be a case.
@ please read my comment again as I have specifically addressed the doctrine that allows the USSC to do so.
Dang this "bozo-the-cop/clown" actually thought that this citizen ddnt know better..😂😂
Germany 1939
No, East Germany, after the war
Delaware V Prouse SAYS just can't stop you and check you because they want to
Thanks, that's useful information 👍
Bwahaha, cop named his cat ‘the supreme court’…
Lol. "It is a legal thiang" This cop is sooooo convincing though.
Yep" it's a legal thang"
This is the reason they fear cameras.
One of the reasons?
@@sandrajones2262 They fear cameras for the same reason crooks fear cameras; they fear being caught breaking the law and being sent to prison. This cop was caught making up things. He has no idea how the Supreme Court makes decisions. He must have flunked 8th grade Social Studies.
How can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional ruling?
What an idiot.
the supreme court doesnt trump the consitution. sorry for your loss oinker.
Actually, the rule of law is the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.
Guess where that ruling came from…
@@youtubeaccount5153 "Guess where that ruling came from…" - LOL!
Amazing how those that try to enforce laws, do not even understand the Judicial system
Incorrect, they DO know the Law, they simply prefer to bastardize it to suit their needs against those that are ignorant of the constitution. They DO know and they are hoping you dont, at least enough to make you doubt your source of knowledge.
In order for you to be able to understand the judiciary system you need to have brains that works.
When he say when was that ruling of the supreme court and that cop said what you knew he was lying! 😮🙆🤦
No crime, no ID, no exceptions.
It's amazing how well they lie!!
It HAS to be a Supreme Court CASE before the Supreme Court can make a ruling!!!!
and there have been three US v Martinez - Fuerte (1976), Mich. State Police v Stitz (1990) and Illinois vs Lidster (2004 ) the court has ruled if the roadblocks are temporary and are checking for DUI, immigration or gather evidence for an ongoing investigation they are legit.
@@doncoon3146that's for DUI checkpoints or immigration not simple license/ID check
@@animefan8591 Most of those are DUI checkpoints or investigative checkpoints I have never seen a just checking license checkpoint.
Been stopped at least 4 times here in NC and SC.
The ignorance is astounding
Supreme Court did not rule what they do is legal. The supreme courts said it’s illegal and is unconstitutional
You are right but, despite the court saying it's illegal and is unconstitutional they also said, they are going to allow it anyway. That's why bad states allow it, Texas doesn't allow it, Texas understands the Constitution.
Unless there's a newer ruling I am unaware of.
DUMB LYING COPS BEING DUMB LYING COPS … SO WHAT’S NEW ?
This isn’t 1930’s or 40’s Germany!
CLOWNERNA BETER SIG SOM TYSKARNA GJORDE.
Yes it is...
Sure it is, get used to it
And they give these fools guns😩god help us!!!
Domestic Enemy proving he's an armed criminal.
"doodus-the-🤡" got called out on his bs quickly..he thought he had him because he was listening 😅😅
little oaf's always become BIG OAF-icers
If a police officer tells a lie then he should be dismissed from the force. How could anyone citizen or any court ever trust the cops honestly in Any forth coming case
😂😂😂
Too light a sentence...just sayin
Liars liar!
Cops think SCOTUS rules things without a case? Hah.
Cop doesn't even understand how the judicial branch works.
it is a legal "THING" WTF is a "THING"
Land of the free….😂😂😂
Right on and I love the hat (25th Infantry)
Good for you
LIARS !!! They never said that!!! You how to tell if a pig is lying ???! He’s talking !!!
Their stupidity was inherited.
You can confuse an idiot merely by exuding confidence & asking questions 😂
He is correct the Supreme Court has not ruled on that and they are able to lie to you if they want to and not get in trouble. The Supreme Court has ruled that but there is nothing they can do if he doesn't want to show his ID. Thank you sir for standing on our rights I think everybody should do that. Because these cops need to learn the law
“It’s not a Supreme Court case. It’s a ruling”
These are our “heroes”, folks.
It’s so frustrating to them when they can’t violate you’re right
Make it illegal to lie to us!!! We can't lie to them can we? ... and our country is fair and just...yep just just 😮
Cops lips moving, LIEING
Astounding how many "Law Enforcement" Officers are either ignorant of or willing to - BLATANTLY violate the law.
Imagine criminally lying multiple times and still keeping your job. Criminally charge the sovereign blue line.
“It is not a Supreme Court case” “would you like for it to be?”
The Supreme court ruled that they can ask. They also ruled that no one can be compelled to comply unless there is a criminal aspect as discussed here.
The supreme court has ruled that pigs are liars. They have ruled that what the cop is doing is lawful but we don’t have to answer the pig or present ID!
The SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one, and made it convoluted and contrary.
Wow...that's crazy.
Supreme Court doesn't make rulings without a specific case involved.
Hey, Electric Strawberry, in MONTANA you have to identify yourself if you're driving, hunting, fishing or in a bar...
Legend has it these cops still can't shit right after what this guy did to them.
No officer, minus violation or criminal activity, a checkpoint of any kind does not nullify the constitution.
For those interested......State Police v Sitz 1990 is the Supreme Court case that makes these checkpoints legal
Common sense often syncs with juris prudence. Demanding ID with no reasonable articulable suspicion is still unconstitutional.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was America.
Legal thang. Outright lying. Super.
Know Your Rights people!! Don't comply and always Film The Police! This is illegal to do this!!
Earning the hate.
Maybe this will help. According to the Supreme Court case "Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada," police can require individuals to disclose their names during a valid "Terry stop" which means they can ask for identification if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, but they cannot demand identification without a valid reason to stop someone; essentially, the court has ruled that officers can ask for ID checks under certain circumstances, but not without reasonable suspicion.
It's called a "Safety checkpoint" license, registration, and proof of insurance.
This officer doesn't know how it works.
Has to be announced first. Approved by the state with certain guidelines followed.
Court ruled Sobriety checks were valid not license checks !
'The Supreme Court said it.' "It's a legal thing." "It's not a Supreme Court Case."
Why do so many Americans bow to this?
What a lying cop. Pitiful ,cant do the job without lying.
When COPS stop you, it is because they want to show HEADQUARTERS they are working ...It's like a report card: "Look Sarg, I'm stopping someone"
That cop just lied thru his teeth about the law without even understanding th basics of how the law or the supreme court works.
I'm sorry.Do they actually think we're as dumb as they are
They don’t care about our rights
if there is a ruling..........there will be a CASE NUMBER for that
No. The Supreme Court has ruled the checkpoints are legal. That does not mean any questioning is legal. Just like the border checkpoints within the United States.
The Supreme Court did not make that ruling.
Just give him your license and quit being obstinate. Anything for some views.
In retrospect the Supreme Court has ruled that cops are allowed to lie to you.
They get upset when they get caught lying?😊
C’mon coppers a 10 year old can tell that you are liar.
Cops will say ANYTHING
It is legal to set up these stops, however in most states drivers do not legally have to provide ID. What is also legal, cops are allowed to lie.
A lousy liar at that
Dui/license checkpoints are legit in the state of Georgia. The checkpoints need to be court-appointed for that place, date, and time.
Listen to another cops lie.
You can ask, that's legal. But we also have the right to say no if we have done nothing wrong.
Arrest the fraud ..
He's lying and he knows it!
SCOTUS does have rulings (which future cases must match the particulars of the case) however they are not laws, not codified and not regulations. If SCOTUS ruled against the constitution, the constitution supersedes the ruling.
that must be the first thing these cops are taught in the academy is too lie every day
Supreme Court interprets the rules, they don't make the rules. And they only interpret the rules on specific cases, not in generalities.
They're even incompetent layers.
Supreme Court just ruled....
i'd bet he's referring to Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) which ruled DUI checkpoints are OK in and of themselves, but still doesn't strip a person's 4th Amendment right to hold onto their papers unless they are specifically suspected of a crime.
@GrantGill-n8p, In the US, stopping travelers to see who they are is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Even DUI checkpoints are deemed unconstitutional in most states. Being secure in your person means police don’t get to stop you and see who you are (ie, check your ID) or intrude into your business just because they feel like it. Even at DUI checkpoints where you may be required to show ID unconstitutionally, you are not required to answer questions or roll the window down any farther than needed to hear.
Sitz (1990), the Supreme Court determined that DUI checkpoints are legal. They do not violate the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution because they are brief enough to not be overly intrusive. All same as with immigration enforcement checkpoints near the border. Police TRY to get away with D/L checkpoints but they are unconstitutional and not covered by any ruling by the Supreme Court.
Cops can ask but we don't have to do it
He's half right because he's referring to that you have a driver's license once if you're driving. If you're under PC it doesn't happen. They're using us code 18242, 18 - 241.
Why do they persist with telling lies it gets them nowhere