That may require an amendment to the constitution (which would be fine of course!) to make it legal. Otherwise just trying to enact a federal law may be overstepping the bounds between fed and state. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, yada, yada... :) But yeah, we don't want them setting precedence for them to change other stuff improperly just because we like this change.
They should also be required to state reason for any detainment at the time of the detainment. - - - End qualified immunity. Require public servants to maintain insurance or bond.
The states should be in charge of their own police force. If we get too many federal regulations on the police we get another federal agency, and trust me they will screw it up.
@@adamcasas6519 First Amendment. You're constitutionally allowed to talk shit as long as you don't make threats. Besides nearly every state has it written into their resistance laws that there needs to be a physical act for it to be considered resisting. Not only that but some officers would love to consider invoking your 5th Amendment rights to be "resisting" also.
@@Kmmlc First amendment yes but not the same on school grounds there is a code of conduct you agree too. Same as with a job. You agreed to certain rules. Read the fine print which everyone seems to ignore thinking the first trumps all. You mean the way she was resisting him while putting on the cuffs? Pulling, bending, twisting etc. Preventing it from happening is ALL resisting. Also this has nothing to do with the 5th. Stay on topic. Clearly you didnt watch the video or listen to it. Go back and do that and get back to me.
@@adamcasas6519 The video is about people being informed of the reason for a stop before any questions are asked. Agreeing to rules is a contract. The First Amendment says that with limited exceptions, the government retaliate against you for saying something they don't like. What it doesn't say is anything about social consequences. Since I was specifically referring to law enforcement based on your comment about not resisting verbally or physically, I was pointing out that if lets say I tell an officer who I think is breaking the law that they're "the reason cops get shot at" they might not like it, but it's not a threat. There is nothing illegal about it. I can comply physically and be running my mouth the whole time. It's not smart but legally I have that right to use offensive language or make statements like that critical of the officer and they're via SCOTUS expected to have thicker skin.
With so many self-trained people out there who think they know all the laws, when in fact they don't know what the law actually says, this law will do nothing to help establish the "lawfulness" of the stop. "I don't have to get out of my car", I don't have to roll my window down", I don't have to have a driver's license to drive my golf cart on the street" . . . .
@@troyporter6323doesn't matter if a locale is "progressive" or "conservative", all jurisdictions use local and state police as their personal tax collection army.
IIRC, there was an officer who works for a city in VA. He would pull people over and cite them because they did not stop long enough at a stop sign - yes not long enough. The judge called the first case, and it was this scenario. The judge then asked the courtroom who was there for this issue. 90% of the room raised their hands. The judge then said "all cases are dismissed - give your name and present the summons/ticket to the clerk for dismissal." The judge then laid into the (AH) cop.
My relative told me she was pulled over for that reason, and the officer told her she should stop, then count to ten before proceeding! She didn't get a ticket, so she didn't complain about it.
I was taught to wait a few seconds at stop signs, but that may have been because our driver's ed teacher loved to give us tips on how to cover our butts from legal trouble 😂
Sounds like what happened to my wife- Red Jetta, got pulled over for “pulling out too sharply” - no ticket though. She was pretty sure it was because the car was Red & a VW.
@@THEDubbleHelixx He or she were on track, here’s the trick that almost always works, I know first hand since I taught my wife to practice counting 1 1thousand to 5 1 thousand and she has beaten 4 out 4 cases. Mind u my wife has an impeccable driving record.
The traffic stop, technical is used to gauge, assess a driver's mood, behavior, impairment. 🚓 this law is +. New Mexico, state by traffic law restricted-ended allowing cars, unmarked units from doing traffic stops on motor vehicles. Cops would need the direct permission of a supervisor, Lt or Sheriff.
@@DavidLLambertmobilehalf of that post doesn't make sense can you clarify please? What are you trying to say? A traffic stop is used to gauge the driver and their mood? That doesn't make any sense a traffic stop is a stop for the infringement of a statute or crime based on probable cause if you don't have probable cause the traffic stop is by definition illegal.
Exactly. Police in the USA act as gang members terrorizing the public and are accountable to nobody. They rarely pay for bad actions and often get promoted for doing horrible things.
Imagine a law whare a cop who dos'nt know the law , breaks the law , kidnaps someone , locks them up in a cage , illegaly & is imune from prosecution , that could never happen (COULD IT ) ? 🤔🥴
I have long said that some officers will not tolerate any challenge to their authority even if that challenge is something as minor as wanting to know why you've been stopped. I have also long felt that some of these encounters that go bad start at the point that the officer refuses to answer this most basic of questions. It makes complete sense to me that an officer should be required to tell you why they stopped you or why you're being arrested.
And they should be required to provide their probable cause before you give them anything no name no ID no compliance nothing until I have the probable cause for the stop and they should never ever be allowed to alter that probable cause afterwards whatever reason they give you they're stuck with no adjusting the narrative after the fact.
" I have long said,..." Who are you;...do we know you?! Unbelievable!! " I have also long felt, "...." ( " I,"..." I," ..." I, "....unreal,....but,....but not to worry in that there is a cure for narcissism. )
The officers that don’t want to tell you why they stopped you are the ones that pulled you over for some bs and are on a fishing expedition. And many people are aware that police need to have a lawful reason why they pulled you over before they can demand ID. This law needs to be made across the US.
As a retired police officer from California, who worked traffic enforcement for many years, the fist thing I told the driver, officer safety notwithstanding, was why I pulled them over. I never understood why this was an issue.
I personally feel that not telling the motorist why, is an attempt to shift the balance of power in their favor. It would allow them to ask directed questions and push a narrative in their favor. It seems to me that police have been searching for any little or not so little thing to give them the upper hand. It makes sense from a "fighting crime" perspective, but the reality is that there MUST be balance of power between people and their government. If the scales tip too far to the government's favor, then you end up with direct or indirect authoritarian rule. Food for thought - the US has both the highest percentage incarcerated people of most of the rest of the civilized world (incl Russia and China) AND the highest rate of recidivism.. Yet our various crime stats are not among the highest in the world. The math doesn't add up. Steve's remark about not telling folks why they were pulled over, creating a hostile environment and then escalating the stop to an arrest is very true. I'm curious to hear your thoughts as an ex leo - would you be willing to share them?
I live in a teeny town in the TX hill country - there's one four way stop off the main road to get into the hilltop neighborhood, and the city cops sit there all day and pull people over for not fully stopping at the stop sign. This is an over-40/retirement 'hood for the most part, and my retired nurse neighbor told me they pulled her over right in front of her house and wouldn't tell her why she was pulled over, asked her a bunch of questions etc., she wouldn't answer his questions and kept asking why she got pulled over (he told her eventually and gave her a ticket). Well, her two neighbors saw and heard the cop being a little pushy with her, and she got a few phone calls from them after the cop left - a county politician and retired county judge. Needless to say that cop's superior got an earful the next day, and she fought the ticket and won...
When I'm asked if I know why I was pulled over, I always say "Dang, has that tail light burned out again?" Its not admitting to anything other than the fact that you've had issues with a light that could warrant a stop. If one is out, then it seems like an issue you are addressing and they may give you a pass or at worst give you a ticket you were already getting. If there was another reason (like speeding) then I didn't admit I was or guess something else they didn't see and admit to some violation.
This law needs to be nationalized. This has been the teaching given during training “do you know the reason for the stop”. It’s done to cause the person to admit to guilt and also to fluster you. It’s a dominant and intimidating tactic. The more they confuse you the more they can prolong the stop to try provoke the situation, along with try building a case against you. They are never satisfied with just charging you with what the original infraction is if any. I was pulled over by a cop in my city, he simply walked up and said “sir, you didn’t stop on the right turn at the red light back there” .. yes I was 100% guilty. I then handed him the required paperwork and license and said I made a mistake for that officer. He wrote me a warning and ended the encounter. If they have the evidence, they don’t need you to tell them what the stop you for. It’s all a cat and mouse game they play.
This makes plain sense. If a friend starts asking you random questions, it makes you feel uneasy. When a stranger with weapons surrounding his body does it, it makes you feel threatened.
It's the first step in de-escalation, is knowing why you are being stopped. The second is to tell you why you are being arrested. Anytime there is an unknown, there is tension. Knowledge is King, this gives you a way to not panic. Ture, should be nation wide for both the stop and arrest. Lying to anyone, should be also prohibited. Not knowing is the root of all problems.
It should be left to each state to decide. The federal government has too much power as it is. That being said, I hope each state follows California's lead on this issue.
When you get pulled over, the cop should say his name, badge # and what police or sheriff's office they from. Then they should state what you did wrong.
Here's a perfect model tag line: "Good Evening, I'm Officer Doe from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the reason why I'm stopping you today is Speeding" then "how are you doing" if you are being nice but if not just jump straight to "can you please provide your License, Registration, and Proof of Insurance"
I also think they shouldn’t be able to ask unrelated questions to fish for a supposed crime. If they say you’re speeding, they should be required to just write the speeding ticket and move on.
@@Maki-00 Nah, this should be allowed. I think they also shouldn't have to tell you the true suspicion... just at least one reason for the stop. They can't just say "I'm pulling you over because you're speeding and I also suspect drug activity" like... No.
Dependent on the state, that could be an eavesdropping charge. Some states prohibit recording the public, others ban recording sound, but video is allowed.
If you do that it threatens their power and control, and they call out more for backup. Then you get the SHIT BEATEN OUT OF YOU. It’s getting to the point where people are paranoid when they pass by a police car. If eye contact is made the police want to know why the eye contact was made and will escalate to the point the driver is shot and killed.
@@ravenbarsrepairs5594 If you're in your own car or in public its completely legal. Eavesdropping charges don't apply in your own vehicle or public. ALWAYS record the police.
That’s great news. The next law that needs to be passed is that hospitals should be required to inform patients about the cost of treatments and procedures prior to them receiving it. Its disgusting and predatory to go to the ER, receive treatment without any kind of billing consultation, then have a medical bill mailed to you for thousands of dollars. Shit is ridiculous.
I like that law. I hate the question from them saying "do you know why I pulled you over?" That's just them giving you a chance to incriminate yourself.
To me that’s fair, and only a fool would answer that question. The two that are just stupid are “where are you going” and “where are you coming from”, as if we’re obligated to justify our presence on earth.
I heard a comic say cop stopped him while he was doing a delivery. Cop - Do you know why I stopped you? Comic - I guess you saw the Krispy Kreme sign on the truck. Cop - Step out of the vehicle. Comic - Officer there are no donuts in the vehicle. Just delivered them to your precinct. If you hurry you may be able to get one...
@@ninadaly7639 In USA traffic citations can be contested in court. Certain way to lose is when police officer testifies to judge that driver admitted guilt.
@@brianshaw373 Oh come on. They don’t need statements from you for a traffic violation. All they have to say is they pulled behind and tracked you going over the speed limit or that they witnessed you fail to stop at the stop sign.
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
I once went to a friend's house to help me replace the radio which had been stolen from my car. On my way home I was pulled over. My tail and break lights had gone out due to a blown fuse caused by the new radio. I had with me a box of fuses that I had when we replaced the radio. The cop used his flashlight and helped me replace it. He never asked for ID and was very courteous and helpful. After seeing that the lights were functioning properly, he sent me on my way. This was about 30 years ago and I still appreciate his professionalism. Now I've had bad experiences with cops too who behaved like a tyrannical jerk. Cops need to understand that their interactions with the public will shape a persons perspective for years and decades. Be good to the public you serve.
Did you know if you have a light out and get a ticket, you have 24 hours to get it repaired? Just bring the car and ticket to any police officer and they will inspect the car and fill out a perfect of repair form to send in with the ticket . Only cops doing that has no other calls to go to.
You met an officer who became an officer to help people as a public servant. I applaud that officer and say,,, stay safe. Unfortunately that quality officer is becoming fewer in number especially in and near big cities. Too many officers in big cities speak with citizens that they are sworn to serve in a highly aggressive and confrontational manner from the get go causing immediate immense stress. Probably to trigger an excuse to,, (investigate their behavior because they were acting suspiciously). All too often those who use the traffic stop to manufacture broken laws only joined the police because they are bullies and closet cowards or the want and get off on the power and ego trips, or god forbid that is what gives them wood!
@tax905972 This is not true or accurate in all jurisdictions within the United States. I have lived in jurisdictions where you may be written a warning. Then you will have a certain amount of time up to even 30 days to repair the defect and submit evidence to the court at which time all fines would be waived sometimes the majority of the fine will be waived with only a 10 or $20 Court processing fee. But other jurisdictions, even in most if they don't write you a warning and they write you an actual ticket for failure to comply with the law. That's it. You have a violation not only do you have to deal with it but you have to pay the fine. It all depends on the jurisdiction that you're in City county State they all vary widely across the USA so just because it's accurate where you may live doesn't make that accurate in all jurisdictions within the United States. Think twice before you go spouting off on the internet
I’m so glad that this happened and I also think they should have to inform people of why they’re being arrested. I live in CA and I’m in my 60s, but to this day I still remember being pulled over by the police at night (when I was in my early 20s) and being asked for my number. I had been scared and unsure of what was going on when I was pulled over, but this person wanted my phone number. Having seen movies like “Cotton comes to Harlem,” I realize how much worse that encounter could have been.
A lesson I learned early in my Utah Highway Patrol career: always give name and reason for stop at initial contact. This reduced my court challenges to almost zero.
Does it? I always got the impression (I live in a small town so maybe it's different.) that cops pull you over and ask "do you know why I pulled you over?" so they can establish if you intentionally broke a law. Usually if you didn't they let you off with a warning.
@@chrisjackson1215yea, they ask that here. I usually spill my guts. Hardly ever get a warning. Meaning I get to send money in to prevent the ticket from going on my insurance. The address is usually to a sergeant at his house. He works on line and doesn’t have to go to the station. They’re pretty nice around here. Live in nice houses and drive fine personal cars. 👍
I make sure to ask the officer why have I been stopped officer? They have no authority to stop you unless you have violated a specific law. His answer tells me if the stop is a legal stop or an illegal stop. I ALWAYS have my dashcam on that records everything going on in and around my vehicle. If he/she said I stopped you for speeding and my dashcam can prove I WASN”T speeding I will tell him/her you detained me illegally and I can prove it with my dashcam. I’ll ask if he/she is sure they want to continue with this illegal stop? The stop will usually turn into a warning unless they think you’re lying. I offer to show them my recording if necessary. My dashcam is the type that immediately sends the recording to the cloud… just in case he/she tries to erase it.👍
This needs to be written into federal law. What the hell is the point in requiring an officer to have reasonable articulable suspicion when there's absolutely nothing that will force them to state what that suspicion was.
@@MonkeyJedi99 Except that is NOT the law. Which is the POINT. They have to, CONSTITUTIONALLY, have a LEGAL REASON right then and there AT THE STOP. PERIOD. Not days later when writing up the report. This will FORCE them to tell the reason, right then and there, and it WILL be on the bodycam. So if they lie, or the cam is tampered with, the victim is freed, and the cop is now facing Constitutional breaking lawsuits.
The law is they have to be able to articulate their reason. This is the first law requiring telling the suspect at the stop. I've always believed they should have to report their reason before making contact outside of emergency situations.
You know that police and their unions will piss and moan over this one. "But we rely on not telling suspects so they can self-incriminate, even though we swore an oath to defend the Constitution, which includes the right against self-incrimination in the 5th Amendment."
Yup. Once one cops finds a loop, they all tell each other the hack. For example, you want to beat up on someone you detained? Just yell "stop resisting!" People's instinct is to protect themselves by using their hands to cover themselves but they use any movement you make as resisting
@ninadaly7639 why dont tell the cops the same? You can tell your education didnt go past high school. Take a damn sociology class, a criminology class and you will learn that power can easily corrupt people. People who have power over you cant wait to use for any infraction you commit. I got pulled over once for going 70 on a 65. I smiled while cop was writing his ticket. I smile when i get nervous. Cop put a gun on my head asking me if i thought it was funny. Was smiling breaking the law?
@@tocadadj2951 they conducted a reasonable suspicion stop of a suspect wanted for a gun possession charge. It can’t get any worse than that . They made the stop and cleared the vehicle. When they realized they had the wrong vehicle I’m sure they holstered up and apologized for their actions. Now how did they mixed, that wasn’t mentioned up the identity of the vehicle and suspect . Something you people should know, when you call 911 and give them the description of the suspect in vehicle and direction of travel , all cops on patrol will be looking for that suspect. Once the officer gets to the victim or witness, they will verify that information and rebroadcast it. Anyone fitting that description will be detained. Probable cause is required for an arrest , a show up or filed line up will be conducted. Victims will be brought to wherever those suspects were stopped.
Got pulled over in TN a few years ago; the cop told me right away why he initiated the traffic stop. He said it was suspicious I came to a complete stop at a stop sign, no kidding. He reasoned that I must be up to no good because I was going out of my way to not get pulled over.
I agree 100%! Whether being stopped in a vehicle or being stopped on a sidewalk an officer should be required to identify themselves and state why they are stopping you. If arrested by an officer, the officer should be required to tell you why they are arresting you at the time of arrest. Anytime an officer puts someone in handcuffs, they should be required to state what law the individual broke before putting on the cuffs - not just for "Officer Safety". If and officer is so scared of everyone they come in contact with, they should find a different line of work.
Clearly, you've never had to stop a driver, gotten that driver out of his vehicle for some reason, and then had him attack you. If you had, you wouldn't be so cavalier about stating how you think officers should be. More cops die during traffic stops and responding to domestic assaults than any other kind of offense. Putting someone in cuffs for your own safety is the smart thing to do, because people are unpredictable, and you never know how they'll react. I personally knew a father of three who was as big and strong as an ox who was killed when walking up to the entrance of a home he'd had to respond to dozens of times. The couple were always drunk and fighting, but he'd dealt with them over and over and he let down his guard. On that occasion, the husband got ahold of a shotgun and fired from inside a dark house on a sunny day right through the screen door. My friend never even had time to react. He was dead before he hit the ground. I've personally had a situation where I had to fight someone to apprehend him, and then, after my partner and I got him cuffed, when I went back to the car to inventory it before it was impounded, I found a loaded pistol in the pocket of the door. He'd been an a**h*** with a warrant out for his arrest. If he'd known that we knew that there was a warrant out for him, and that we were pulling him over to apprehend him, the stop could have gone completely differently and myself or my partner might have been shot and/or killed. One never knows what people will do. Like I said, putting someone temporarily in cuffs for safety, if you can do that, is the smart thing to do.
@@mikeohandley1922 More civilians die from cops than there are cops killed by attackers. The LEADING cause of death to police officers in 2022 was COVID-19! Putting someone in cuff when you enjoy IMMUNITY is BS! If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen!
in Alabama if they don't give there rank name badge number the reason they stopped you it is an illegal stop I all ways request a supervisor when they don't
@@rickwhite5206 It provides an extra hook for people who know and follow their rights and laws. Might not mean much in practice, but when the lawsuits start piling up, it will
Cop: "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Citizen: "Yes, I do. You're targeting people who haven't harmed anyone or violated their rights in order to extort them to collect revenue for the State".
"uhh no, its for your safety" LOL!!! meanwhile they drove across 3 lanes of oncoming traffic making people slam on their brakes to collect $300 from me.
Had a LEO in the family 65-80s. A training sgt. A vouyer, racial harasser, abuser and much more. Also a braggart, he spoke often of pulling people over "for the hell of it", what "attitude adjustment" was warranted and how he dished it out. He hated the fact that Miranda warnings became required and criminals had rights too. His eventual passing was celebrated, not mourned.
God only knows how many folk he screwed over those years in police work!! He would have fit in the police depts. in banana republic countries from Mexico into deep South America!!
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
What needs to be REQUIRED is that LEO's CANNOT PAUSE, MUTE, or STOP their body worn video & audio recording devices, & same should go for their squad cars onboard dash cameras!
Let them pause, mute, or whatever, but build the camera so that it continues to record, and let the paused/muted portion be unlocked when a sufficiently-high authority authorizes it. Like a valid subpoena or the chief of police, for example.
I've had a couple nice officers immediately tell me why they pulled me over. Then others want to know where I'm going, coming from, how long was I there, what I do for a living, is this my car, what's in my cup... This needs to be federal law!
I was pulled over recently and he wouldn't tell me why. After checking my ID, he tells me some bogus story and hands me a $700 fine. He encouraged me to pay online since I was from out of town. I knew this was a racket after watching my dashcam video, so I pled not guilty and demanded a trial. Sure enough the liar never showed, didn't even submitted a statement and I won by default. I truly believe he made it all up cause he thought I would just pay online since I was from out of town.
That is crappy that he did that to you. If someone stops you from actually driving and pulls you over, there should be repercussions to that police officer or their department, if they further cause injury by them having been dishonourable and not showing up.
Right? As if you’re a mind reader. “How could I possibly know what you think you saw? I’m sure it’ll be on the citation. BTW, if I happened to be using a set of front and rear facing cameras, do you think they would confirm what you think you saw?”
This should be law everywhere, along with having to properly identify themselves when requested, not allowed to lie to you and claiming they “Smell” something as an excuse to search you, your vehicle, or as a reason to extend a stop…. Calling a dog in to sniff a vehicle should be illegal, unless you are under arrest for some crime that would warrant the need for a drug sniffing dog. Police abuse their rights as often they can…
@@kenchorney2724 Tell them you'd rather take a blood test. If they're bullshitting it will be very obvious very quickly and you can file suit when they find nothing wrong.
@@lucasokeefe7935then they take you in and have your car impounded when they mess it up searching it. Then you have to pay to get it out and hopefully its still running and they have not messed it up or stolen your things. All legal of course. 😂😂lol I
@lucasokeefe7935 I would not recommend a blood test. A police department in FL or GA claimed a trace amount of an otc antihistamine in a person's blood was evidence of DUI and would not drop charges.
The “I’ll tell you in a minute” nonsense causes more problems than it’s worth for sure. It stresses people out and sometimes leads to someone being face down in handcuffs without even knowing why.
Besides the fact that they want your ID, insurance, and registration immediately without telling why they pulled you over which is a violation of "Our" 4th amendment if it was an unlawful stop.
@@macpat6458 The ID is a driver's privilege card (driving is a privilege) insurance is a State requirement, as is registration. Nothing to do with the 4th amendment.
The last two times I was pulled over started by the officer asking "Do you know why I stopped you?" Both times I had to bite my tongue and not reply with a smile "No, do you??"
@veramae4098 An example would be a cop telling you they pulled you over for no licence plate lights, but they really just want to search your car for drugs.
When Officers first make contact with you they should be required by law to give their name, badge number, what agency they work for and why they pulled you over.
@Steve Lehto I'm pissed that the Supreme Court ruled that the police don't have to know the law. That they can be completely ignorant of what they are trying to enforce.
@@khatdubell I have been pulled over by police officers for things like: - Frost on my rear window. Which wasn't illegal or a violation. He wanted to write me a ticket because my vision was obscured. I told him to go back to his car and check the statute, because if you were required to see out your back window then many panel vans and all semi-trucks would be illegal. He came back and admitted he was wrong. - Another cop wanted to write me up for having out of state plates while having an instate drivers license. I told him that car are registered in the state that the own of the car lives and I was not the owner of the car. The owner was a family member who lived in another state. He then told me to fix it or he would give me a ticket the next time he saw me. I humored him and called the DMV. The agent broke out laughing at the idea of registering a car for an out of state owner. The cops don't have to know ALL the laws, but they shouldn't take an action against a person unless they know there is a law that has been broken. People shouldn't have to pay for lawyers and spend years in jail because they couldn't afford bail just because a cop arrested someone for something that wasn't a crime.
@@khatdubellThe police is responsible for protecting and serving the citizens and to enforce the law, how can you do that when you don't have a basic understanding of the law you took a oath to enforce, also they don't answer to lawyers?
@@jm823 Seriously? Here's how.... Here's a parking meter, OK? I'm giving you a ticket pad and the authority to ticket any car at the meter when time runs out. There you go. Now, you don't know the law, you don't know the statute or anything else, but you can enforce the law. That's the same thing for cops. You're taught how to enforce, not how to legislate.
Its important because most laws say you have to present ID when you have been LAWFULLY stopped. You can't know if the stop is lawful until you know the reason.
I always followed the same routine when I conducted traffic stops. I introduce myself and what agency I work for, I then ask if I can see your Driver License so I know who I am talking to, and then I explain the reason for my stop. Then ask for other documents such as insurance and registration. It is just good manners to make introductions so we both know who the other person is, then conduct our business. I always tried to be as polite as possible. If the driver refused to cooperate I would politely explain my intentions and any consequences to their refusal if any. I was able to deescalate a lot of stress for most of the drivers by following that pattern. Often they would expect an officer to be rude or forceful and when I was professional and polite it often took them by surprise. I used the same approach for everyone if it was just a traffic stop or investigation into more serious crimes. Even on felony stops, I would explain that in order to make sure neither of us got hurt they needed to follow my directions closely. You would be surprised how well that worked, even when I worked in the gang unit for 4 years.
They don't want that. They want the control of the encounter. If you tell them what they did before you got the license, they will argue with you and have you standing by that window for an hour, waiting for that paperwork. If they still don't get their way, they cry for a supervisor to stop by
@@Missunderstood103 if stopped for reasonable suspicion, the Supreme Court has ruled that a person is obligated to provide their identifying information. All an officer needs to legally detain is reasonable suspicion. In short, the police don’t have to positively identify a person to detain or arrest them. If that standard has been met and the person refuses to identify themselves, that is grounds for arrest. You shouldn’t try to turn a conversation or a citation and release into an arrest.
I got pulled over for "being one of a few cars on the road at 3:30am" in Arizona in 2022. I asked was that a crime and was sent on my way. I live in Virginia and my car was registered there.
There also needs to be a law that police cannot ask you where you're going or where you are coming unless you get arrested and charge with a crime and that line of questioning needs to have a significant reason for the crime investigation!
Such a law would be extremely difficult to construct. Police may ask any person any question within the framework of a "consensual encounter." Even when they have detained you for suspicion of wrongdoing, such as violating a traffic law, they're allowed to ask anything they want to ask. It's really up to us to know we don't have to offer answers to the doughnut dumpster.
Just don't answer the question. You have ZERO obligation to answer their questions. Even if somehow arrested you still don't have to answer. Plead the 5th and pray to whatever god you follow.
Thousands of misdemeanors should be removed from the books. The fact that you can be arrested and thrown in jail for failure to signal a lane change, for example, is absurd.
Well it depends. I think after you show a pattern of reckless behavior like not signaling multiple times you 100% deserve it. There is no reason not signaling should become a habit.
@@mtdfs5147 I think he's referencing a recent video of a TX police officer who arrested a woman who he had previous beef with over a failure to signal. I agree that people should be using turn signals, and reprimanded for not doing so in an unsafe manner, but using armed and practically unaccountable police to do so is preposterous. They're all bastards
Kidnapping is a felony. You may resist a kidnapping with deadly force. An unlawful arrest is a kidnapping. Do the math. Subtract the one carried by six. 🌈⭐️
@@franklyanogre00000 So if the police tries to arrest you and you believe it to not be a legal reason, you would try to use "deadly force" against them?
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
When I got out the Navy I went back to college in central Illinois & I was working 2nd shift at the post office. I was on my way home from work around 2 in the morning & got pulled over about a block from my apartment. The officer asked me did I know why he pulled me over & I said honestly I really don’t. He said he did it because I was doing 37 in a 35. I just knew at that point this was a case of DWB but I kept my cool & he just let me go. Later I found out that it may not at least solely been DWB but the police in the that town would harass students especially if your plates were from the Chicago area. This should be a law adopted everywhere because then at least maybe some of these BS stops won’t happen as much.
I'm white as a sheet and have been pulled over for nonsense like that more than a few times. Small towns in Texas are known for it. I never had to worry about if they would beat me up or shoot me though. One time I was on a roadtrip with another white friend that happened to have a red Cadillac with gold wheels and whitewalls. The cop was visibly confused when he saw us. He questioned us for a while, even got the driver out and questioned us separately. I don't think ever even offered a reason for the stop. It was obvious what he thought. All that ended when I got a handgun license. The only thing they say now is "try to be more careful and have a nice day".
@@SalisburySnake Yeah,... I figured out a long time ago that it isn't race that gets one pulled over.... then again, I don't try to blame any of my own problems on that-- I'm not melanated enough to have that excuse for my behaviors.
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
This USED to be what “articulable” meant legally. Articulable people as implied to mean immediately…but then they interpreted it to mean “we can conspire later and figure out an agreed upon reason which will make us cops NOT liable for what we did next which was violate your rights!”
@@mervyngreene6687 Correct. That's what Steve L. referred to in the video as a "pretextual stop". They have to tell you something, so they offer the pretext to cover their butts from a legal standpoint. But in the privacy of their own mind, the real reason (as you mentioned) is the true 'why' they pulled you over.
"Do you know why I pulled you over today?" "No. But I do know if you don't have a reason, this interview is over." A conversation I have had with too many Washington State Patrolmen. And as far as "Pretexts for stops" goes, I remember being told in Arizona that "I was weaving within my lane."
What is happening is that the good folk are now being targeted by this lefty-socialist government from the federal, state, county & local levels to destroy this country!!
So many situations can be de-escalated if they start with the reason first. Most ppl are on the defensive if they truly don’t know why they were pulled over. But that goes against the 3 golden rules of LEOs. Escalate, retaliate, fabricate
The author of this video gives police too much power. I think it is pretty serious to pull people over at gunpoint for going over a "fog line" or having a light out over a license plate.
No they can swear all they want , unless it's a regulation . Just like I can I won't curtail their rights just I won't let mine be . The real problem is the Courts not explaining the real reason they make some of these seemingly crazy rulings about what cops can and can't do. If they had to be 100% open the nonsense would come to an end quickly.
That's why dash cams are an essential piece of equipment for every car. Protects you from bad driver claims AND bad cops. "You hit the fog line" : NO I DIDN'T, I HAVE A DASH CAM!
This is common sense that a cop would tell you why they pulled you over, it would solve so many issues. It is a literal de-escalation before the interaction even starts and people who don't have warrants and other issues are more likely to just cooperate instead of getting argumentative. This should be in all States for sure
I was always taught that when asked "Do you know why I pulled you over?" you should either respond with a simple "no" or "I am exercising my right to remain silent on this matter." With body-cams any other answer is essentially self incrimination.
I'll never forget the time that the reason given for pulling me over was "You almost executed an improper procedure change of lanes." What actually happened is that I'm stopped in a left turn lane, waiting for the light to turn green and a squad car is behind me. When I turned into the correct nearest lane he turned wide into the far lane. I already had started signalling to get into the rightmost lane when I observed conflicting traffic and cancelled the lane change signal and slowed to allow him to get past me. But instead he lit up and pulled behind me to pull me over. When he gave the reason for stopping me, I didn't hold back and told him that everything I had done was completely safe and legal and that he was the one that illegally turned into the far lane causing me to have to postpone my lane change. He asked if he could search the car and I said I don't consent to a search and asked if I was free to go. He wasn't at all happy to find that I knew my rights and my license, registration and proof of insurance all checked out. The actual reason for pulling me over was probably boredom and seeing a car too beat up looking to expect it to be insured.
If the law is written in such a way that they only have to disclose their reason for pulling you over before asking you any questions, then there's an obvious loophole for them to circumvent disclosure: don't ask any questions.
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
Wow! This is HUGE! I experienced this cop behavior. I was so afraid (and angry with myself for being afraid) when I was pulled over when I knew I was not speeding. I am black, I was in the middle of a one-way interstate move, and it was night time. My first comment was to ask why I was being pulled over because I know I was not speeding. And he responded by asking me lots and lots of questions about irrelevant crap and scrutinizing me to try to find something suspicious. He was clearly trying to provoke me. Game recognizes game, so I kept my cool because I knew I just needed to get through this without landing myself in jail. After he finally ran out of questions, he eventually told me that I had a tail light out.
THERE YOU GO! The operative phrase there is “I kept my cool”!!!! You weren’t disrespectful or obnoxious. You didn’t immediately start telling the officer what you would and not do nor what the officer could and could not do. You kept yourself together and walked away without so much as a ticket! That’s the way to do it!
South Carolina has that but it is "when asked". It is also a felony if they do not answer when asked or answer truthfully. SC CODE OF LAWS SECTION 17-13-50.
Any time I've ever been pulled over, they've always asked me if I knew why they pulled me over. Once I responded "Aren't you supposed to know that already?" He wasn't amused.
I don't know why I'm the only person saying this, but we need state laws preventing resisting arrest as the only thing you're being arrested for. It is unconstitutional, and it makes no logical sense whatsoever when it's a charge by itself.
Not unconstitutional at all. A police officer can stop you for reasonable suspicion. Say you match a description put out for a burglar and an officer stops you in the area. If you take off running, an officer should be able to chase you; and if it turned out you were not the burglar, you will have a resistance charge. Edit: punctuation
@@danielthomas9983If someone is not "placed under arrest" then they cannot resist arrest. They can't legally arrest you for something that is not a crime, so there has to be another charge. If not, then the arrest is technically invalid.
It just all goes back to whether or not you do a good job at your job. Work ethic. When I went through training it was instilled in us that when you walk up to the side of the car you introduce yourself, what department you work for, and this is why I pulled you over. Too many officers don't take it serious enough that you're messing with people's liberties.
The fact that cops can make up lies about why they pulled you over really makes me want to invest in a driving camera. And I haven't even been pulled over since like... 2010
Dude they're cheap and it could save your ass some day. I agree and I'm investing in 1 soon. Bc it also changes how they behave when they realize they're being recorded
I've been watching body cam footage that has been released. In a great many cases when they say you are detained if you don't freeze in place and let your arms go limp to be cuffed if you turn AT ALL to ask a question they will interpret that as resisting and because the judge isn't there they side with the officer. The absolute SHAME is the district attorneys who condone this and file the charges. Further in. The same incidents (on body cam) those officers then hash out what they can get away with charging the victim with. This new law will go a long way to protect the innocent who are being victimized by the police in order for them to make quotas (which they say don't exist) for writing citations. If they don't have quotas why do they remind and emphasize pulling people over on traffic stops.
When I was still working as a cop, I stopped a vehicle, approached the driver and told him that he was free to go at any time . I identified myself, told him that I only pulled him over because I wanted to check out his vehicle. He laughed and thanked me for being honest with him then gave me a good tour of his vehicle. The vehicle in question....The Oscar Meyer Wiener mobile!
That sounds fun and funny and all but imo civil rights violations are never funny. You illegally detained that man for no good reason. I don't think you are necessarily evil or bad, but your actions certainly was. I would be so damn annoyed if some cop wasted my time like that
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
@6:40 Yes, police can always come up with a reason, but now that they have to state a reason at the start, at least you can more easily catch them in a lie
In St. Louis, MO I watched a US Park Police officer post up on the street near the St. Louis Arch. My kids noticed he'd only pull people over that had a broken headlight. Over and over again he jammed people up for this. When you're the Park Police you get really really bored.
I love it. Californian here and absolutely agree with this law. I expect most (at least Democrat) states will follow suit. This is all about citizens rights. Newsom has been doing an outstanding job of changing laws so things make sense. It is amazing that no one has done this before.
This would fix an issue where they don't want to tell you until after they get the ID. They expect us to forego our 4th amendment rights on the assumption they had a legal reason to stop you.
This needs to be federal law.
💯
Get outta here with your common sense! 😂
That may require an amendment to the constitution (which would be fine of course!) to make it legal. Otherwise just trying to enact a federal law may be overstepping the bounds between fed and state. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, yada, yada... :)
But yeah, we don't want them setting precedence for them to change other stuff improperly just because we like this change.
They should also be required to state reason for any detainment at the time of the detainment.
- - -
End qualified immunity. Require public servants to maintain insurance or bond.
The states should be in charge of their own police force. If we get too many federal regulations on the police we get another federal agency, and trust me they will screw it up.
Of course, this should apply ANY time the police detain you. Not just traffic stops.
The law says pedestrians stops also.
So once they tell you will you comply without any resistance of any kind? Verbal or otherwise?
@@adamcasas6519 First Amendment. You're constitutionally allowed to talk shit as long as you don't make threats. Besides nearly every state has it written into their resistance laws that there needs to be a physical act for it to be considered resisting. Not only that but some officers would love to consider invoking your 5th Amendment rights to be "resisting" also.
@@Kmmlc First amendment yes but not the same on school grounds there is a code of conduct you agree too. Same as with a job. You agreed to certain rules. Read the fine print which everyone seems to ignore thinking the first trumps all. You mean the way she was resisting him while putting on the cuffs? Pulling, bending, twisting etc. Preventing it from happening is ALL resisting. Also this has nothing to do with the 5th. Stay on topic. Clearly you didnt watch the video or listen to it. Go back and do that and get back to me.
@@adamcasas6519 The video is about people being informed of the reason for a stop before any questions are asked.
Agreeing to rules is a contract. The First Amendment says that with limited exceptions, the government retaliate against you for saying something they don't like. What it doesn't say is anything about social consequences. Since I was specifically referring to law enforcement based on your comment about not resisting verbally or physically, I was pointing out that if lets say I tell an officer who I think is breaking the law that they're "the reason cops get shot at" they might not like it, but it's not a threat. There is nothing illegal about it. I can comply physically and be running my mouth the whole time. It's not smart but legally I have that right to use offensive language or make statements like that critical of the officer and they're via SCOTUS expected to have thicker skin.
Establishing the lawfulness of the stop should be the first step nation wide.
That's already law. You can't be stopped unlawfully for anything.
As long as people understand the futility of being disrespectful and argumentative when they tell younis pointless and stupid.
With so many self-trained people out there who think they know all the laws, when in fact they don't know what the law actually says, this law will do nothing to help establish the "lawfulness" of the stop. "I don't have to get out of my car", I don't have to roll my window down", I don't have to have a driver's license to drive my golf cart on the street" . . . .
Not changing shit you getting stopped and you getting a ticket or handcuffs .
@@mj9888s the 4th amendment already covers a probable cause stop!!!
Also there needs to be a bill nationally that police cannot mute or turn off their body cameras from time of the stop til conclusion of the stop!
Maybe an actual law saying it's illegal to turn it off or mute it.
This should be a law and a standard practice everywhere.
That has been a law in my state since the 90's and I live in the south so much for them being "progressive"
@@troyporter6323doesn't matter if a locale is "progressive" or "conservative", all jurisdictions use local and state police as their personal tax collection army.
Its called the forth amendment
@@VladTheInhaler.. local and state law enforcement are known for violating the 4th Amendment like it doesn't exist.
This should be the law nationwide. Also, they should be REQUIRED to tell you that you have the right to refuse searches.
And as soon as you refuse they bring out the dog and he finds something to allow them to search. Or so it seems anyway.
It is. It's in the Constitution.
@@mikepalmer2219wrong they cant extend the stop for dog searches. You have to agree
It’s up to you to know your Constitutional Rights, if you don’t you’re just a dummy
@@mikepalmer2219you mean DRUGS? 😂😂😂
IIRC, there was an officer who works for a city in VA. He would pull people over and cite them because they did not stop long enough at a stop sign - yes not long enough. The judge called the first case, and it was this scenario. The judge then asked the courtroom who was there for this issue. 90% of the room raised their hands. The judge then said "all cases are dismissed - give your name and present the summons/ticket to the clerk for dismissal." The judge then laid into the (AH) cop.
My relative told me she was pulled over for that reason, and the officer told her she should stop, then count to ten before proceeding! She didn't get a ticket, so she didn't complain about it.
I was taught to wait a few seconds at stop signs, but that may have been because our driver's ed teacher loved to give us tips on how to cover our butts from legal trouble 😂
Sounds like what happened to my wife- Red Jetta, got pulled over for “pulling out too sharply” - no ticket though. She was pretty sure it was because the car was Red & a VW.
@@THEDubbleHelixx He or she were on track, here’s the trick that almost always works, I know first hand since I taught my wife to practice counting 1 1thousand to 5 1 thousand and she has beaten 4 out 4 cases. Mind u my wife has an impeccable driving record.
FINALLY A GOOD JUDGE
This needs to be nationwide, especially Florida 🎉
How idiotic is it that they have to literally create a law forcing the police to tell you the reason why you’re being pulled over by them.
How idiotic is it that every law that exists needs to end with, "and this applies to cops, too."
@@chuck8094 Well said. 👍 🇺🇸
The same as needing a law so that the cops just can't steal tour money because they feel like it that day.
The traffic stop, technical is used to gauge, assess a driver's mood, behavior, impairment. 🚓 this law is +. New Mexico, state by traffic law restricted-ended allowing cars, unmarked units from doing traffic stops on motor vehicles. Cops would need the direct permission of a supervisor, Lt or Sheriff.
@@DavidLLambertmobilehalf of that post doesn't make sense can you clarify please? What are you trying to say?
A traffic stop is used to gauge the driver and their mood? That doesn't make any sense a traffic stop is a stop for the infringement of a statute or crime based on probable cause if you don't have probable cause the traffic stop is by definition illegal.
Imagine a world where 'law enforcers' are so lacking in professionalism there has to be A LAW requiring them to do the most basic professional action.
Exactly. Police in the USA act as gang members terrorizing the public and are accountable to nobody. They rarely pay for bad actions and often get promoted for doing horrible things.
Imagine a law whare a cop who dos'nt know the law , breaks the law , kidnaps someone , locks them up in a cage , illegaly & is imune from prosecution , that could never happen (COULD IT ) ? 🤔🥴
And what’s the first thing that say? “Do you know why I pulled you over?”. Me, “well if you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you!”.
Don't have to, we're living it. 😁😞
@geoffclifford3546 If you're speaking of "qualified immunity", that in a judicial doctrine, NOT a law.
I have long said that some officers will not tolerate any challenge to their authority even if that challenge is something as minor as wanting to know why you've been stopped. I have also long felt that some of these encounters that go bad start at the point that the officer refuses to answer this most basic of questions.
It makes complete sense to me that an officer should be required to tell you why they stopped you or why you're being arrested.
Proof of what you say and feel is all over the internet. Your 100% correct.
And they should be required to provide their probable cause before you give them anything no name no ID no compliance nothing until I have the probable cause for the stop and they should never ever be allowed to alter that probable cause afterwards whatever reason they give you they're stuck with no adjusting the narrative after the fact.
" I have long said,..." Who are you;...do we know you?! Unbelievable!! " I have also long felt, "...." ( " I,"..." I," ..." I, "....unreal,....but,....but not to worry in that there is a cure for narcissism. )
The officers that don’t want to tell you why they stopped you are the ones that pulled you over for some bs and are on a fishing expedition. And many people are aware that police need to have a lawful reason why they pulled you over before they can demand ID. This law needs to be made across the US.
lf you're looking for a place where regular people don't get to talk about what they think, stick to TV @@jaden0019
Now they need this in EVERY STATE.
As a retired police officer from California, who worked traffic enforcement for many years, the fist thing I told the driver, officer safety notwithstanding, was why I pulled them over. I never understood why this was an issue.
It's an issue for stops with a nonsense pretext. Ie "I pulled you over for suspicious activity."
Well like your self we wondered the same thing…..
Good thing you are retired, you would not fit in with their agenda nowadays.
I personally feel that not telling the motorist why, is an attempt to shift the balance of power in their favor. It would allow them to ask directed questions and push a narrative in their favor. It seems to me that police have been searching for any little or not so little thing to give them the upper hand. It makes sense from a "fighting crime" perspective, but the reality is that there MUST be balance of power between people and their government. If the scales tip too far to the government's favor, then you end up with direct or indirect authoritarian rule.
Food for thought - the US has both the highest percentage incarcerated people of most of the rest of the civilized world (incl Russia and China) AND the highest rate of recidivism.. Yet our various crime stats are not among the highest in the world. The math doesn't add up. Steve's remark about not telling folks why they were pulled over, creating a hostile environment and then escalating the stop to an arrest is very true.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts as an ex leo - would you be willing to share them?
Because some cops love to fish.
I live in a teeny town in the TX hill country - there's one four way stop off the main road to get into the hilltop neighborhood, and the city cops sit there all day and pull people over for not fully stopping at the stop sign. This is an over-40/retirement 'hood for the most part, and my retired nurse neighbor told me they pulled her over right in front of her house and wouldn't tell her why she was pulled over, asked her a bunch of questions etc., she wouldn't answer his questions and kept asking why she got pulled over (he told her eventually and gave her a ticket). Well, her two neighbors saw and heard the cop being a little pushy with her, and she got a few phone calls from them after the cop left - a county politician and retired county judge. Needless to say that cop's superior got an earful the next day, and she fought the ticket and won...
I love how they always ask "do you know why I pulled you over?"
Yes officer, let me admit guilt by telling you exactly what I did wrong. 😏
You should admit guilt.
When I'm asked if I know why I was pulled over, I always say "Dang, has that tail light burned out again?" Its not admitting to anything other than the fact that you've had issues with a light that could warrant a stop. If one is out, then it seems like an issue you are addressing and they may give you a pass or at worst give you a ticket you were already getting. If there was another reason (like speeding) then I didn't admit I was or guess something else they didn't see and admit to some violation.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
- "Did you forget already?"
Nice work!
Just answer with “I don’t answer questions” and say nothing further.
This law needs to be nationalized. This has been the teaching given during training “do you know the reason for the stop”.
It’s done to cause the person to admit to guilt and also to fluster you. It’s a dominant and intimidating tactic.
The more they confuse you the more they can prolong the stop to try provoke the situation, along with try building a case against you.
They are never satisfied with just charging you with what the original infraction is if any.
I was pulled over by a cop in my city, he simply walked up and said “sir, you didn’t stop on the right turn at the red light back there” .. yes I was 100% guilty. I then handed him the required paperwork and license and said I made a mistake for that officer.
He wrote me a warning and ended the encounter.
If they have the evidence, they don’t need you to tell them what the stop you for.
It’s all a cat and mouse game they play.
This makes plain sense. If a friend starts asking you random questions, it makes you feel uneasy. When a stranger with weapons surrounding his body does it, it makes you feel threatened.
I'm glad this is a law, but it should be a FEDERAL law.
Case law but not a big huge federal law. They might attach anything to it.
Why? This is why we have states. Tell your state lawmakers to do it. Stop handing more and more power to feds.
@@daninphoenix6851 If it were up to me, the only change would be where it applies, but NOT what it entails.
Yes trust the feds to do something right and not abuse it. Lol.
@@mikepalmer2219
Are we pretending local law enforcement aren't corrupt AF now?
That law should be nation wide. That would probably cause alot less violence on the side of the roads.
Less violence? You’re joking right?
Proper incentives do work.
It's the first step in de-escalation, is knowing why you are being stopped. The second is to tell you why you are being arrested. Anytime there is an unknown, there is tension. Knowledge is King, this gives you a way to not panic. Ture, should be nation wide for both the stop and arrest. Lying to anyone, should be also prohibited. Not knowing is the root of all problems.
It should be left to each state to decide. The federal government has too much power as it is. That being said, I hope each state follows California's lead on this issue.
@@jonahzablow2132this isn't a gain in power but a limitation so it being imposed by federal government would be a good thing
When you get pulled over, the cop should say his name, badge # and what police or sheriff's office they from. Then they should state what you did wrong.
Here's a perfect model tag line: "Good Evening, I'm Officer Doe from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the reason why I'm stopping you today is Speeding" then "how are you doing" if you are being nice but if not just jump straight to "can you please provide your License, Registration, and Proof of Insurance"
@@AnthonyBrusca You are now on a list.
@@DKNguyen3.1415 Why? A lot of police do this already?
I also think they shouldn’t be able to ask unrelated questions to fish for a supposed crime. If they say you’re speeding, they should be required to just write the speeding ticket and move on.
@@Maki-00 Nah, this should be allowed. I think they also shouldn't have to tell you the true suspicion... just at least one reason for the stop. They can't just say "I'm pulling you over because you're speeding and I also suspect drug activity" like... No.
As it should be- remember to have your phone recording the interaction for your protection ! They can lie to you legally ! 🙏🏼
Dash cam
Dependent on the state, that could be an eavesdropping charge. Some states prohibit recording the public, others ban recording sound, but video is allowed.
It’s never illegal to record your interactions with LE.@@ravenbarsrepairs5594
If you do that it threatens their power and control, and they call out more for backup. Then you get the SHIT BEATEN OUT OF YOU. It’s getting to the point where people are paranoid when they pass by a police car. If eye contact is made the police want to know why the eye contact was made and will escalate to the point the driver is shot and killed.
@@ravenbarsrepairs5594 If you're in your own car or in public its completely legal. Eavesdropping charges don't apply in your own vehicle or public. ALWAYS record the police.
That’s great news. The next law that needs to be passed is that hospitals should be required to inform patients about the cost of treatments and procedures prior to them receiving it. Its disgusting and predatory to go to the ER, receive treatment without any kind of billing consultation, then have a medical bill mailed to you for thousands of dollars. Shit is ridiculous.
I like that law. I hate the question from them saying "do you know why I pulled you over?" That's just them giving you a chance to incriminate yourself.
To me that’s fair, and only a fool would answer that question. The two that are just stupid are “where are you going” and “where are you coming from”, as if we’re obligated to justify our presence on earth.
I heard a comic say cop stopped him while he was doing a delivery. Cop - Do you know why I stopped you? Comic - I guess you saw the Krispy Kreme sign on the truck. Cop - Step out of the vehicle. Comic - Officer there are no donuts in the vehicle. Just delivered them to your precinct. If you hurry you may be able to get one...
Ummmm, if they pull you over for a traffic violation, why would they need you to “incriminate” yourself?
@@ninadaly7639 In USA traffic citations can be contested in court. Certain way to lose is when police officer testifies to judge that driver admitted guilt.
@@brianshaw373 Oh come on. They don’t need statements from you for a traffic violation. All they have to say is they pulled behind and tracked you going over the speed limit or that they witnessed you fail to stop at the stop sign.
I pulled you over to go on a fishing expedition and try to fabricate crimes even if none have been committed.
Unfair prejudice.
Fair enough officer, it's not like i can refuse without escalating, fish away sir
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
I once went to a friend's house to help me replace the radio which had been stolen from my car. On my way home I was pulled over. My tail and break lights had gone out due to a blown fuse caused by the new radio. I had with me a box of fuses that I had when we replaced the radio. The cop used his flashlight and helped me replace it. He never asked for ID and was very courteous and helpful. After seeing that the lights were functioning properly, he sent me on my way. This was about 30 years ago and I still appreciate his professionalism. Now I've had bad experiences with cops too who behaved like a tyrannical jerk. Cops need to understand that their interactions with the public will shape a persons perspective for years and decades. Be good to the public you serve.
Things used to be A LOT different, huh?
Did you know if you have a light out and get a ticket, you have 24 hours to get it repaired? Just bring the car and ticket to any police officer and they will inspect the car and fill out a perfect of repair form to send in with the ticket . Only cops doing that has no other calls to go to.
Say what you want but I’m going home after my tour. So forget your feelings.
You met an officer who became an officer to help people as a public servant. I applaud that officer and say,,, stay safe. Unfortunately that quality officer is becoming fewer in number especially in and near big cities. Too many officers in big cities speak with citizens that they are sworn to serve in a highly aggressive and confrontational manner from the get go causing immediate immense stress. Probably to trigger an excuse to,, (investigate their behavior because they were acting suspiciously). All too often those who use the traffic stop to manufacture broken laws only joined the police because they are bullies and closet cowards or the want and get off on the power and ego trips, or god forbid that is what gives them wood!
@tax905972
This is not true or accurate in all jurisdictions within the United States. I have lived in jurisdictions where you may be written a warning. Then you will have a certain amount of time up to even 30 days to repair the defect and submit evidence to the court at which time all fines would be waived sometimes the majority of the fine will be waived with only a 10 or $20 Court processing fee. But other jurisdictions, even in most if they don't write you a warning and they write you an actual ticket for failure to comply with the law. That's it. You have a violation not only do you have to deal with it but you have to pay the fine. It all depends on the jurisdiction that you're in City county State they all vary widely across the USA so just because it's accurate where you may live doesn't make that accurate in all jurisdictions within the United States. Think twice before you go spouting off on the internet
I’m so glad that this happened and I also think they should have to inform people of why they’re being arrested. I live in CA and I’m in my 60s, but to this day I still remember being pulled over by the police at night (when I was in my early 20s) and being asked for my number. I had been scared and unsure of what was going on when I was pulled over, but this person wanted my phone number. Having seen movies like “Cotton comes to Harlem,” I realize how much worse that encounter could have been.
Being pulled over without incident in the 80's sounds horrifying.
My answer to that question is always "BR549"
A lesson I learned early in my Utah Highway Patrol career: always give name and reason for stop at initial contact. This reduced my court challenges to almost zero.
Does it? I always got the impression (I live in a small town so maybe it's different.) that cops pull you over and ask "do you know why I pulled you over?" so they can establish if you intentionally broke a law. Usually if you didn't they let you off with a warning.
Also made it a lot harder to make up a reason after the fact, didn't it?
It also reduces anxiety for the driver and starts the conversation of in a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach.
@@chrisjackson1215yea, they ask that here. I usually spill my guts. Hardly ever get a warning. Meaning I get to send money in to prevent the ticket from going on my insurance. The address is usually to a sergeant at his house. He works on line and doesn’t have to go to the station. They’re pretty nice around here. Live in nice houses and drive fine personal cars. 👍
I make sure to ask the officer why have I been stopped officer? They have no authority to stop you unless you have violated a specific law. His answer tells me if the stop is a legal stop or an illegal stop.
I ALWAYS have my dashcam on that records everything going on in and around my vehicle. If he/she said I stopped you for speeding and my dashcam can prove I WASN”T speeding I will tell him/her you detained me illegally and I can prove it with my dashcam. I’ll ask if he/she is sure they want to continue with this illegal stop? The stop will usually turn into a warning unless they think you’re lying. I offer to show them my recording if necessary. My dashcam is the type that immediately sends the recording to the cloud… just in case he/she tries to erase it.👍
This needs to be written into federal law. What the hell is the point in requiring an officer to have reasonable articulable suspicion when there's absolutely nothing that will force them to state what that suspicion was.
Indeed, a person's ability to articulate the basis suspicion was is what makes it "articulable".
They do have to explain their suspicion.
In their report.
Up to days later.
After being allowed to review their body-cam video.
@@MonkeyJedi99 Except that is NOT the law. Which is the POINT. They have to, CONSTITUTIONALLY, have a LEGAL REASON right then and there AT THE STOP. PERIOD. Not days later when writing up the report. This will FORCE them to tell the reason, right then and there, and it WILL be on the bodycam. So if they lie, or the cam is tampered with, the victim is freed, and the cop is now facing Constitutional breaking lawsuits.
The law is they have to be able to articulate their reason. This is the first law requiring telling the suspect at the stop. I've always believed they should have to report their reason before making contact outside of emergency situations.
@@Jirodyne You see, you're quoting the law, and I'm conveying what actually happens all too often.
You know that police and their unions will piss and moan over this one.
"But we rely on not telling suspects so they can self-incriminate, even though we swore an oath to defend the Constitution, which includes the right against self-incrimination in the 5th Amendment."
I think this is a good thing for us. Can't wait to see how law enforcement handle's this and how they try to get around this.
Yup. Once one cops finds a loop, they all tell each other the hack.
For example, you want to beat up on someone you detained? Just yell "stop resisting!"
People's instinct is to protect themselves by using their hands to cover themselves but they use any movement you make as resisting
@@tocadadj2951 Then don’t commit any violations of the law.
@ninadaly7639 why dont tell the cops the same? You can tell your education didnt go past high school. Take a damn sociology class, a criminology class and you will learn that power can easily corrupt people.
People who have power over you cant wait to use for any infraction you commit.
I got pulled over once for going 70 on a 65. I smiled while cop was writing his ticket. I smile when i get nervous. Cop put a gun on my head asking me if i thought it was funny. Was smiling breaking the law?
@@tocadadj2951 they conducted a reasonable suspicion stop of a suspect wanted for a gun possession charge. It can’t get any worse than that . They made the stop and cleared the vehicle. When they realized they had the wrong vehicle I’m sure they holstered up and apologized for their actions. Now how did they mixed, that wasn’t mentioned up the identity of the vehicle and suspect . Something you people should know, when you call 911 and give them the description of the suspect in vehicle and direction of travel , all cops on patrol will be looking for that suspect. Once the officer gets to the victim or witness, they will verify that information and rebroadcast it. Anyone fitting that description will be detained. Probable cause is required for an arrest , a show up or filed line up will be conducted. Victims will be brought to wherever those suspects were stopped.
@@tocadadj2951 a cop’s job is to detect , investigate and aggressively pursue violators of the law
Got pulled over in TN a few years ago; the cop told me right away why he initiated the traffic stop.
He said it was suspicious I came to a complete stop at a stop sign, no kidding.
He reasoned that I must be up to no good because I was going out of my way to not get pulled over.
That's an obviously suspicious act. I should watch that more carefully!
That must have been the same cop that regularly pulls folks over for driving under the speed limit. It's suspicious, right.
I agree 100%! Whether being stopped in a vehicle or being stopped on a sidewalk an officer should be required to identify themselves and state why they are stopping you. If arrested by an officer, the officer should be required to tell you why they are arresting you at the time of arrest. Anytime an officer puts someone in handcuffs, they should be required to state what law the individual broke before putting on the cuffs - not just for "Officer Safety". If and officer is so scared of everyone they come in contact with, they should find a different line of work.
You stated that very well needs to be law.
Clearly, you've never had to stop a driver, gotten that driver out of his vehicle for some reason, and then had him attack you. If you had, you wouldn't be so cavalier about stating how you think officers should be. More cops die during traffic stops and responding to domestic assaults than any other kind of offense. Putting someone in cuffs for your own safety is the smart thing to do, because people are unpredictable, and you never know how they'll react.
I personally knew a father of three who was as big and strong as an ox who was killed when walking up to the entrance of a home he'd had to respond to dozens of times. The couple were always drunk and fighting, but he'd dealt with them over and over and he let down his guard. On that occasion, the husband got ahold of a shotgun and fired from inside a dark house on a sunny day right through the screen door. My friend never even had time to react. He was dead before he hit the ground. I've personally had a situation where I had to fight someone to apprehend him, and then, after my partner and I got him cuffed, when I went back to the car to inventory it before it was impounded, I found a loaded pistol in the pocket of the door. He'd been an a**h*** with a warrant out for his arrest. If he'd known that we knew that there was a warrant out for him, and that we were pulling him over to apprehend him, the stop could have gone completely differently and myself or my partner might have been shot and/or killed. One never knows what people will do. Like I said, putting someone temporarily in cuffs for safety, if you can do that, is the smart thing to do.
@@mikeohandley1922 More civilians die from cops than there are cops killed by attackers. The LEADING cause of death to police officers in 2022 was COVID-19! Putting someone in cuff when you enjoy IMMUNITY is BS! If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen!
@@mikeohandley1922then they shouldn't be cops if you don't expect to be attacked
There are far more dangerous jobs than a cop. Do you hear them crying? Nope!
My wife is friendly, my dogs were not hungry, and now California is passing a reasonable law! This is the most screwed-up day ever!
Opposite Day
You may want to play the Lottery today!
You may be joking, but some people are seriously addicted to complaining.
So glad I subscribed this channel. Live in California and didn’t know this thanks Steve
Great to hear CA is doing this! We need to do this nationwide
in Alabama if they don't give there rank name badge number the reason they stopped you it is an illegal stop I all ways request a supervisor when they don't
Worthless law, they don't know nor follow existing laws, and don't have to thanks to qualified immunity.
@@scruf153 That’s great! I don’t know anything about Alabama law but I love to hear that
@@rickwhite5206 It provides an extra hook for people who know and follow their rights and laws. Might not mean much in practice, but when the lawsuits start piling up, it will
@@rickwhite5206 QI isn't the magic bullet you think it is, it is starting to become an urban myth level of absurdity.
Cop: "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Citizen: "Yes, I do. You're targeting people who haven't harmed anyone or violated their rights in order to extort them to collect revenue for the State".
"uhh no, its for your safety" LOL!!!
meanwhile they drove across 3 lanes of oncoming traffic making people slam on their brakes to collect $300 from me.
And that's when they arrest you for 'disorderly conduct'.
good! i hope they do! instant lawsuit@@mhfuzzball
Because I have donuts ?
FACT, that pisses them to the highest degree.
Had a LEO in the family 65-80s. A training sgt. A vouyer, racial harasser, abuser and much more. Also a braggart, he spoke often of pulling people over "for the hell of it", what "attitude adjustment" was warranted and how he dished it out. He hated the fact that Miranda warnings became required and criminals had rights too. His eventual passing was celebrated, not mourned.
😂 it's always a celebration
Where's the grave? I need to pee.
God only knows how many folk he screwed over those years in police work!! He would have fit in the police depts. in banana republic countries from Mexico into deep South America!!
That criminals have the same rights as the rest of us protects all of us.
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
What needs to be REQUIRED is that LEO's CANNOT PAUSE, MUTE, or STOP their body worn video & audio recording devices, & same should go for their squad cars onboard dash cameras!
Let them pause, mute, or whatever, but build the camera so that it continues to record, and let the paused/muted portion be unlocked when a sufficiently-high authority authorizes it. Like a valid subpoena or the chief of police, for example.
As I understand it, they're supposed to turn on the body cam before leaving the cruiser. And never turn off the dash cam.
This is awesome and needs to be implemented throughout the US!
If we get a supreme court and/or other judicial folks actually protecting peoples rights, like as the constitution for once then maybe
I am in 100% agreement here. Cops should have to tell you why they pulled you over.
I've had a couple nice officers immediately tell me why they pulled me over. Then others want to know where I'm going, coming from, how long was I there, what I do for a living, is this my car, what's in my cup... This needs to be federal law!
This needs to be applied in all 50 states and DC and territories.
Yes, by each state individually. Not the federal government.
@@jonahzablow2132the really sad part is that the crooked court system has been aware of this for ever its all about the money.
I was pulled over recently and he wouldn't tell me why. After checking my ID, he tells me some bogus story and hands me a $700 fine. He encouraged me to pay online since I was from out of town. I knew this was a racket after watching my dashcam video, so I pled not guilty and demanded a trial. Sure enough the liar never showed, didn't even submitted a statement and I won by default. I truly believe he made it all up cause he thought I would just pay online since I was from out of town.
Very common. Same thing happened to me when I was driving through Nebraska.
That is crappy that he did that to you. If someone stops you from actually driving and pulls you over, there should be repercussions to that police officer or their department, if they further cause injury by them having been dishonourable and not showing up.
Was it in Ohio? They LOVE taxation without representation!
A policeman who doesn't show up for a trial after writing a ticket should be penalized for failure to appear, just like a juror.
Who cares. Until you're done suing him he'll stay corrupt. You've accomplished nothing.
Thank you for educating me on the law regarding stops in California
The cops always look at me and say, " Do you know why i pulled you over?". I generally answer, " You tell me. Then I'll know ".
Officer if you don't remember maybe you shouldn't be a cop"
Because they want you to self-incriminate.
Right? As if you’re a mind reader. “How could I possibly know what you think you saw? I’m sure it’ll be on the citation. BTW, if I happened to be using a set of front and rear facing cameras, do you think they would confirm what you think you saw?”
Because you got C's in school and this is the only job you could get
“You pulled me over to say thank-you for driving so well”
This should be law everywhere, along with having to properly identify themselves when requested, not allowed to lie to you and claiming they “Smell” something as an excuse to search you, your vehicle, or as a reason to extend a stop….
Calling a dog in to sniff a vehicle should be illegal, unless you are under arrest for some crime that would warrant the need for a drug sniffing dog.
Police abuse their rights as often they can…
Police and Goverments have no Rights.
The "drug sniffing" dogs are not any better. Their handlers frequently make them "trigger" on nothing.
@@kenchorney2724 Tell them you'd rather take a blood test. If they're bullshitting it will be very obvious very quickly and you can file suit when they find nothing wrong.
@@lucasokeefe7935then they take you in and have your car impounded when they mess it up searching it. Then you have to pay to get it out and hopefully its still running and they have not messed it up or stolen your things. All legal of course. 😂😂lol I
@lucasokeefe7935 I would not recommend a blood test. A police department in FL or GA claimed a trace amount of an otc antihistamine in a person's blood was evidence of DUI and would not drop charges.
The “I’ll tell you in a minute” nonsense causes more problems than it’s worth for sure. It stresses people out and sometimes leads to someone being face down in handcuffs without even knowing why.
I simply reply then I'll give you my paperwork in a minute :-) you want this to be peaceful or do you want this to be violent? Your choice.
Besides the fact that they want your ID, insurance, and registration immediately without telling why they pulled you over which is a violation of "Our" 4th amendment if it was an unlawful stop.
@@macpat6458 The ID is a driver's privilege card (driving is a privilege) insurance is a State requirement, as is registration. Nothing to do with the 4th amendment.
@ChrisL-oz4lp except it is as they can't pull you over "just to check papers".
@@Apollo-Computers So this has happened to you?
technically speaking "how are you" is a question
and they wonder why almost everyone hates lawyers, even when we need one...
The last two times I was pulled over started by the officer asking "Do you know why I stopped you?" Both times I had to bite my tongue and not reply with a smile "No, do you??"
Seriously, talk about a leading question. How the hell do you not be a smartass when given an opening that wide?
We need to end pretextual stops, altogether. And no-knock warrants while we're at it.
Castle doctrine needs to be strengthen
oh that will help
@@veramae4098if you paid attention to the video he actually did do that.
pretextual: dubious or spurious.
@veramae4098 An example would be a cop telling you they pulled you over for no licence plate lights, but they really just want to search your car for drugs.
When Officers first make contact with you they should be required by law to give their name, badge number, what agency they work for and why they pulled you over.
"I pulled you over to violate your civil rights, and commit a crime."
Facetious remarks don't help anything.
or two."
@@louf7178 there's always "voting" because it really seems to be working... hahaha
@@ebr-fan1117 The point is to make sense.
Congrats to California for actually getting something right.
A rarity indeed.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"Gee, no, Officer, I figured that YOU would know!"
That’s been the Law in Maryland for a while. They are also required to identify themselves.
This needs to be a Federal Law.
Hopefully this law will spread across the country.
@Steve Lehto
I'm pissed that the Supreme Court ruled that the police don't have to know the law. That they can be completely ignorant of what they are trying to enforce.
Yet ignorance of the law for citizens is now excuse
Because they are enforcers, not lawyers.
Their job is, the lawyers tells them if you see someone do x, arrest them and bring them before us.
@@khatdubell
I have been pulled over by police officers for things like:
- Frost on my rear window. Which wasn't illegal or a violation. He wanted to write me a ticket because my vision was obscured. I told him to go back to his car and check the statute, because if you were required to see out your back window then many panel vans and all semi-trucks would be illegal. He came back and admitted he was wrong.
- Another cop wanted to write me up for having out of state plates while having an instate drivers license. I told him that car are registered in the state that the own of the car lives and I was not the owner of the car. The owner was a family member who lived in another state. He then told me to fix it or he would give me a ticket the next time he saw me. I humored him and called the DMV. The agent broke out laughing at the idea of registering a car for an out of state owner.
The cops don't have to know ALL the laws, but they shouldn't take an action against a person unless they know there is a law that has been broken. People shouldn't have to pay for lawyers and spend years in jail because they couldn't afford bail just because a cop arrested someone for something that wasn't a crime.
@@khatdubellThe police is responsible for protecting and serving the citizens and to enforce the law, how can you do that when you don't have a basic understanding of the law you took a oath to enforce, also they don't answer to lawyers?
@@jm823 Seriously? Here's how.... Here's a parking meter, OK? I'm giving you a ticket pad and the authority to ticket any car at the meter when time runs out. There you go. Now, you don't know the law, you don't know the statute or anything else, but you can enforce the law. That's the same thing for cops. You're taught how to enforce, not how to legislate.
Its important because most laws say you have to present ID when you have been LAWFULLY stopped. You can't know if the stop is lawful until you know the reason.
Absofreakinglutly!
I always followed the same routine when I conducted traffic stops. I introduce myself and what agency I work for, I then ask if I can see your Driver License so I know who I am talking to, and then I explain the reason for my stop. Then ask for other documents such as insurance and registration. It is just good manners to make introductions so we both know who the other person is, then conduct our business.
I always tried to be as polite as possible. If the driver refused to cooperate I would politely explain my intentions and any consequences to their refusal if any. I was able to deescalate a lot of stress for most of the drivers by following that pattern. Often they would expect an officer to be rude or forceful and when I was professional and polite it often took them by surprise. I used the same approach for everyone if it was just a traffic stop or investigation into more serious crimes. Even on felony stops, I would explain that in order to make sure neither of us got hurt they needed to follow my directions closely. You would be surprised how well that worked, even when I worked in the gang unit for 4 years.
They don't want that. They want the control of the encounter. If you tell them what they did before you got the license, they will argue with you and have you standing by that window for an hour, waiting for that paperwork. If they still don't get their way, they cry for a supervisor to stop by
@@Missunderstood103 well you got pulled over due to a pc stop.
@@Missunderstood103 how you know it’s a valid reason ? Funny how everyone has a law degree in these groups.
@@Missunderstood103 if stopped for reasonable suspicion, the Supreme Court has ruled that a person is obligated to provide their identifying information. All an officer needs to legally detain is reasonable suspicion. In short, the police don’t have to positively identify a person to detain or arrest them. If that standard has been met and the person refuses to identify themselves, that is grounds for arrest. You shouldn’t try to turn a conversation or a citation and release into an arrest.
THAT is the best, safest, most respectful and courteous way to handle a traffic stop ! ! !
I got pulled over for "being one of a few cars on the road at 3:30am" in Arizona in 2022. I asked was that a crime and was sent on my way. I live in Virginia and my car was registered there.
There also needs to be a law that police cannot ask you where you're going or where you are coming unless you get arrested and charge with a crime and that line of questioning needs to have a significant reason for the crime investigation!
Huh? You never have to answer ANY questions. Know your rights yourself.
I really don't know why that would be an issue. The police can ask any question they want and you can decide if you want to answer.
Such a law would be extremely difficult to construct. Police may ask any person any question within the framework of a "consensual encounter." Even when they have detained you for suspicion of wrongdoing, such as violating a traffic law, they're allowed to ask anything they want to ask. It's really up to us to know we don't have to offer answers to the doughnut dumpster.
Then play suspicious card because you know your rights and want to assert them.
Just don't answer the question. You have ZERO obligation to answer their questions. Even if somehow arrested you still don't have to answer. Plead the 5th and pray to whatever god you follow.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
Your response gives them a reason.
The Law is perfectly well said. The Legislators must go further for different issues about pulling an Individual over.
Thousands of misdemeanors should be removed from the books. The fact that you can be arrested and thrown in jail for failure to signal a lane change, for example, is absurd.
Well it depends. I think after you show a pattern of reckless behavior like not signaling multiple times you 100% deserve it. There is no reason not signaling should become a habit.
@@mtdfs5147 I think he's referencing a recent video of a TX police officer who arrested a woman who he had previous beef with over a failure to signal. I agree that people should be using turn signals, and reprimanded for not doing so in an unsafe manner, but using armed and practically unaccountable police to do so is preposterous. They're all bastards
Kidnapping is a felony. You may resist a kidnapping with deadly force. An unlawful arrest is a kidnapping. Do the math. Subtract the one carried by six. 🌈⭐️
@@franklyanogre00000 So if the police tries to arrest you and you believe it to not be a legal reason, you would try to use "deadly force" against them?
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
When I got out the Navy I went back to college in central Illinois & I was working 2nd shift at the post office. I was on my way home from work around 2 in the morning & got pulled over about a block from my apartment. The officer asked me did I know why he pulled me over & I said honestly I really don’t. He said he did it because I was doing 37 in a 35. I just knew at that point this was a case of DWB but I kept my cool & he just let me go.
Later I found out that it may not at least solely been DWB but the police in the that town would harass students especially if your plates were from the Chicago area.
This should be a law adopted everywhere because then at least maybe some of these BS stops won’t happen as much.
Always jump to the racism first and then apply logic.... smfh, that's pitiful but not surprising.
Tint those windows son
I'm white as a sheet and have been pulled over for nonsense like that more than a few times. Small towns in Texas are known for it. I never had to worry about if they would beat me up or shoot me though.
One time I was on a roadtrip with another white friend that happened to have a red Cadillac with gold wheels and whitewalls. The cop was visibly confused when he saw us. He questioned us for a while, even got the driver out and questioned us separately. I don't think ever even offered a reason for the stop. It was obvious what he thought.
All that ended when I got a handgun license. The only thing they say now is "try to be more careful and have a nice day".
@@SalisburySnake Yeah,... I figured out a long time ago that it isn't race that gets one pulled over.... then again, I don't try to blame any of my own problems on that-- I'm not melanated enough to have that excuse for my behaviors.
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
This USED to be what “articulable” meant legally. Articulable people as implied to mean immediately…but then they interpreted it to mean “we can conspire later and figure out an agreed upon reason which will make us cops NOT liable for what we did next which was violate your rights!”
Articulable applies only to the judge. The reason they pulled you over will be on the warning, ticket, or arrest form.
Exactly, they've amended everything to their benefit for so long that they have infinite tools to just fish forever.
Depends on what the definition of "is" is.
@@blackened144Actually, in a lot (too many) situations, the "alleged" reason for the initial stop is not.
@@mervyngreene6687 Correct. That's what Steve L. referred to in the video as a "pretextual stop". They have to tell you something, so they offer the pretext to cover their butts from a legal standpoint. But in the privacy of their own mind, the real reason (as you mentioned) is the true 'why' they pulled you over.
They should have to tell people exactly what they pull you over immediately before any questions in all States.
Whatever moving violation they want to accuse you of should be recorded on the police dash camera - time stamped with GPS coordinates...
Cops have asked "Do you know why I pulled you over?" They are trying to get you to incriminate yourself.
"do you know why I pulled you over?"
No officer, if you don't know why you pulled me over how would I know?
"Do you know why I pulled you over today?"
"No. But I do know if you don't have a reason, this interview is over."
A conversation I have had with too many Washington State Patrolmen.
And as far as "Pretexts for stops" goes, I remember being told in Arizona that "I was weaving within my lane."
LOL @ "weaving within my lane" 😂
With modern cars recording everything, the pretext can be proven faulty
@@westernbody This is the very reason why I bought my very own Body Cam.
In California you can steal hundreds in merchandise and not be held but they can stop you and ruin your day for touching "the fog line" IRONY!
What is happening is that the good folk are now being targeted by this lefty-socialist government from the federal, state, county & local levels to destroy this country!!
If they ask "do you know why I pulled you over", just tell them "if you forgot I'm not telling you"... 😁🤣
NOT saying that is what people mean when they say to be calm, courteous and polite to law enforcement officers.
So many situations can be de-escalated if they start with the reason first. Most ppl are on the defensive if they truly don’t know why they were pulled over. But that goes against the 3 golden rules of LEOs. Escalate, retaliate, fabricate
That sounds like the golden rules of the Republican party.
How does this reconcile with the fact that police can lie to you?
The author of this video gives police too much power. I think it is pretty serious to pull people over at gunpoint for going over a "fog line" or having a light out over a license plate.
Then they would violate the law when they ask a question. They have to tell you THE reason they pulled you over.
I agree. The should also address people with respect with basic courtesy and also police should not swear.
Or lie!
No they can swear all they want , unless it's a regulation . Just like I can I won't curtail their rights just I won't let mine be . The real problem is the Courts not explaining the real reason they make some of these seemingly crazy rulings about what cops can and can't do. If they had to be 100% open the nonsense would come to an end quickly.
That's why dash cams are an essential piece of equipment for every car. Protects you from bad driver claims AND bad cops. "You hit the fog line" : NO I DIDN'T, I HAVE A DASH CAM!
This is common sense that a cop would tell you why they pulled you over, it would solve so many issues. It is a literal de-escalation before the interaction even starts and people who don't have warrants and other issues are more likely to just cooperate instead of getting argumentative. This should be in all States for sure
I was always taught that when asked "Do you know why I pulled you over?" you should either respond with a simple "no" or "I am exercising my right to remain silent on this matter." With body-cams any other answer is essentially self incrimination.
Yep. Most people will say "speeding", which just incriminates themselves.
Got pulled over at about 2:00AM. When asked if I knew why I was pulled over, my response was that he wanted to smell my breath. 😂😅 Taillight was out.
Starting with that nonsense too soon guarantees you get a ticket. A less confrontational answer is, "Why'd you pull me over, officer? 😅"
You can say "what am I? Psychic?"
How would that incriminate you?
Or better yet just pretend you don't speak English.
Taught where? YT university?
I'll never forget the time that the reason given for pulling me over was "You almost executed an improper procedure change of lanes."
What actually happened is that I'm stopped in a left turn lane, waiting for the light to turn green and a squad car is behind me. When I turned into the correct nearest lane he turned wide into the far lane. I already had started signalling to get into the rightmost lane when I observed conflicting traffic and cancelled the lane change signal and slowed to allow him to get past me. But instead he lit up and pulled behind me to pull me over.
When he gave the reason for stopping me, I didn't hold back and told him that everything I had done was completely safe and legal and that he was the one that illegally turned into the far lane causing me to have to postpone my lane change.
He asked if he could search the car and I said I don't consent to a search and asked if I was free to go. He wasn't at all happy to find that I knew my rights and my license, registration and proof of insurance all checked out.
The actual reason for pulling me over was probably boredom and seeing a car too beat up looking to expect it to be insured.
He thought you were trying to get him off your tail. And was irritated that he had not had enough time to run your plates.
If the law is written in such a way that they only have to disclose their reason for pulling you over before asking you any questions, then there's an obvious loophole for them to circumvent disclosure: don't ask any questions.
"You ALMOST did something illegal"
Yeah in the same way that ALMOST was a reason to pull you over...
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
In light of No Offense, It seems unreasonable for them to ask anything else. Even the routine DL, Reg, ect.
You have a right to know why you're being pulled over, especially arrested. The fact you don't goes to show you how many rights you REALLY have. 😒
I agree with you Steve about arrests too. Cops should when arresting be forced to tell people why they are being arrested
First thing they ask is, “Do you know why I pulled you over?” They want you to confess to something they’re not aware of.
Or admit guilt. End of story. Here comes the ticket.
I would have sworn this was already law in CA... this should be law Nation wide.
Wow! This is HUGE! I experienced this cop behavior. I was so afraid (and angry with myself for being afraid) when I was pulled over when I knew I was not speeding. I am black, I was in the middle of a one-way interstate move, and it was night time. My first comment was to ask why I was being pulled over because I know I was not speeding. And he responded by asking me lots and lots of questions about irrelevant crap and scrutinizing me to try to find something suspicious. He was clearly trying to provoke me. Game recognizes game, so I kept my cool because I knew I just needed to get through this without landing myself in jail. After he finally ran out of questions, he eventually told me that I had a tail light out.
THERE YOU GO! The operative phrase there is “I kept my cool”!!!! You weren’t disrespectful or obnoxious. You didn’t immediately start telling the officer what you would and not do nor what the officer could and could not do. You kept yourself together and walked away without so much as a ticket! That’s the way to do it!
South Carolina has that but it is "when asked". It is also a felony if they do not answer when asked or answer truthfully. SC CODE OF LAWS SECTION 17-13-50.
Any time I've ever been pulled over, they've always asked me if I knew why they pulled me over. Once I responded "Aren't you supposed to know that already?" He wasn't amused.
My go to has always been "Not a clue" Occasionally I've tossed in "I'm not a mind reader, so no"
They ask why you know to see if you'll incriminate yourself
Sometimes they'll use a double entendre.
"You know why I pulled you over"
wow. so edgy!! 😮
Because they all read from the same playbook.
I always just answered "no".
I don't know why I'm the only person saying this, but we need state laws preventing resisting arrest as the only thing you're being arrested for. It is unconstitutional, and it makes no logical sense whatsoever when it's a charge by itself.
right! its a nonsensical tautology or 'Catch-22' & I can't even believe how its acceptable..
Not unconstitutional at all. A police officer can stop you for reasonable suspicion. Say you match a description put out for a burglar and an officer stops you in the area. If you take off running, an officer should be able to chase you; and if it turned out you were not the burglar, you will have a resistance charge.
Edit: punctuation
@@danielthomas9983If someone is not "placed under arrest" then they cannot resist arrest. They can't legally arrest you for something that is not a crime, so there has to be another charge. If not, then the arrest is technically invalid.
@@danielthomas9983That sounds more like obstruction than resistance as you're not under arrest at the time you take off running.
@@danielthomas9983 Cops should _never_ chase anyone. Ever. Think about how many dire situations would require it. Essentially none.
Sad that this hasn’t always been federal law. Along with laws preventing any public servant from lying to or deceiving any member of public
It just all goes back to whether or not you do a good job at your job. Work ethic. When I went through training it was instilled in us that when you walk up to the side of the car you introduce yourself, what department you work for, and this is why I pulled you over. Too many officers don't take it serious enough that you're messing with people's liberties.
The fact that cops can make up lies about why they pulled you over really makes me want to invest in a driving camera. And I haven't even been pulled over since like... 2010
Dude they're cheap and it could save your ass some day. I agree and I'm investing in 1 soon. Bc it also changes how they behave when they realize they're being recorded
Me too.
"And I haven't even been pulled over since like... 2010"
Could you be tempting fate? 🤣
Same here, after watching dash cam videos, it has convinced me to buy a dash cam.
@@veramae4098,sonny, I was in abwar before you were born!
Having a Dash cam is a must for every car.
I've been watching body cam footage that has been released. In a great many cases when they say you are detained if you don't freeze in place and let your arms go limp to be cuffed if you turn AT ALL to ask a question they will interpret that as resisting and because the judge isn't there they side with the officer. The absolute SHAME is the district attorneys who condone this and file the charges. Further in. The same incidents (on body cam) those officers then hash out what they can get away with charging the victim with. This new law will go a long way to protect the innocent who are being victimized by the police in order for them to make quotas (which they say don't exist) for writing citations. If they don't have quotas why do they remind and emphasize pulling people over on traffic stops.
That's why the body cams and informed jurys are the only defense against corruption. Rn it's so rigged it's not even a court. It's just sad.
Sheriffs Association complaining is a perfect reason for this to be nationwide
When I was still working as a cop, I stopped a vehicle, approached the driver and told him that he was free to go at any time . I identified myself, told him that I only pulled him over because I wanted to check out his vehicle. He laughed and thanked me for being honest with him then gave me a good tour of his vehicle. The vehicle in question....The Oscar Meyer Wiener mobile!
There is a new picture of the weinermobile at THE URANUS FUDGE COMPANY! You should look it up! Uranus MO.
Should've wrote him a warning for "too much mustard". 😊
Nice omission 🤘🏼
That sounds fun and funny and all but imo civil rights violations are never funny. You illegally detained that man for no good reason. I don't think you are necessarily evil or bad, but your actions certainly was. I would be so damn annoyed if some cop wasted my time like that
What about where it says in the Constitution: No victim, no crime? If we are RECOGNIZING the "Constitution" as a STANDAR here. Conveniently no mention of this passage of the Constitution by MOTOR VEHICLE. Hmmm! Citations for Speeding, plates, swerving, no seat belt, blowing your horn, no signal ETC. ETC. All violate the "CONSTITUTION" of this United States Of America. Don't tell anybody that our current judicial system is the BIGGEST violator and WE are the VICTIMS.
@6:40 Yes, police can always come up with a reason, but now that they have to state a reason at the start, at least you can more easily catch them in a lie
and they have less time to fabricate one.
Excellent! We're making progress, little by little. This is GOOD news!
I am absolutely shocked! California lawmakers actually did something that makes sense. This should be headline news across the nation.
I’m sure they’ll nullify their own law once they realize it actually makes sense.
A broken clock is correct twice a day.
They get it right a lot more often than you think. And then the rest of the country plays catch-up.
The republican party has done MORE damage to our country then ANY foreign entity ever has.
@@troystallard6895 Yeah, that’s why people are fleeing other states in record numbers to come to California. Oh wait, it’s just the opposite of that.
In St. Louis, MO I watched a US Park Police officer post up on the street near the St. Louis Arch. My kids noticed he'd only pull people over that had a broken headlight. Over and over again he jammed people up for this. When you're the Park Police you get really really bored.
"I'm pulling you over because I'm a road pirate and we want some of your money." They should just print that on cards to hand out. 😜
I love it. Californian here and absolutely agree with this law. I expect most (at least Democrat) states will follow suit. This is all about citizens rights. Newsom has been doing an outstanding job of changing laws so things make sense. It is amazing that no one has done this before.
This would fix an issue where they don't want to tell you until after they get the ID. They expect us to forego our 4th amendment rights on the assumption they had a legal reason to stop you.