This is the best video on this topic that I've found so far. Thanks. While it's a hard thing to explain, nobody else was able to help me wrap my head around the whole concept of Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause.
If you're being detained the best advice is to refuse to answer any questions and request a lawyer. At that point all questioning has to stop until an attorney is present. Don't just roll over and cooperate. Be polite exert your rights by refusing to answer any questions beyond you identification. Keep your mouth shut. Refuse a search attempt as well.
Reasonable suspicion is when something is so obvious that any reasonable person would suspect that crime is afoot. Probable cause is when it's not obvious to everyone but a trained officer could observe the totality of circumstances and suspect that crime is afoot. The law has perverted Terry v Ohio to make reasonable suspicion mean whatever they pull out of their ear.
The law hasn’t perverted the doctrine of RAS found in Terry…. Piss poor police training has led to the perversion of understanding! That and the fact that police departments go out of their way to hire bullies and the uneducated and easily manipulated.
Deliberately vague laws are the main reason for resisting arrest. Even if the person is found not guilty in court, it leads to stress and financial loss for the accused. The public cannot be expected to follow laws that officers often don't even know.
That what happens when you elect lawyers to be law makers.... It's virtually a given that they are going to write laws in ways that can benefit themselves and / or their colleagues.
@@CJ-ty8sv True that, it is about creating work fabricating legal jobs, not making just laws. A Lawyer is just a contractor with a little more education on average.
Zero-tolerance enforcement is always practiced on the tax-paying civilian middle-class. Real criminals such as thugs and thieves have more rights than we do, and often beat all charges.
The problem is the law is vague and causes conflict between citizens and law enforcement. Cops often lie and don't know simple laws like trespass, 1'st, 2'nd, 4'th and 5'th amendments, etc.
Sir, I am sorry but, in your video at 5:32 you said police can not ask you to get out of your car simply because they pulled you over. That is incorrect. US Supreme Court decided in Pennsylvania v. Mimms that the police could tell drivers to exit their vehicles as long as it happened during a reasonable traffic stop. This is for protection of officers and it does nothing more than cause a minor inconvenience for the violator or passengers. (Maryland v. Wilson applies to passengers being ordered to exit the vehicles as well.) Probable cause and reasonable suspicion have absolutely nothing to do with having occupants exit a car.
Roswell police were advised that a vehicle not belonging to anyone in the neighborhood had been parked in front of a house for thirty minutes. It was late at night, 11:30 p.m., when an officer observed two males in the vehicle. Because of recent burglaries, he asked both people for ID. The driver was cooperative. The passenger gave his name and address but refused to give the officer his ID. He was charged with obstructing. State v. Hudson (2007). Was the officer correct arresting the passenger for obstructing? (no) The officer had a generalized suspicion about the situation. But he didn’t have an individualized reasonable suspicion that Defendant was committing or had committed a crime. The two subjects were sitting in a car, legally parked, and not involved in any criminal activity. In a situation like this, where the individual refuses to provide identification, and no individualized reasonable suspicion exists, that’s the end of the story. We cannot charge concealing ID or obstructing an officer. Conviction reversed.
What's stopping the officer from making up a story that ultimately results in officers word verses the passenger's word?? Doesn't the officer get out of falsifying arrests with made up bullshit and because of a sworn oath will 95% of the time be believed by judges and prosecutors???
That is why most agencies are niw requiring their officers to wear body worn cameras. Dependent on the state as long as you provide an officer with your true name, date of birth and address and DO NOT falsify it in any manner you should not have to be require to show your ID. Now this point is a bit moot for most states in which a person is operating a vehicle in which most states require you to display your driver's license to the officer per the state's transportation code. Dependent on state, passengers of vehicles may refuse to ID or display their ID, but they are still considered detained for that traffic stop. As long as the passenger does not give any false information about who they are during the detention they are fine.
This just happened to me a few days ago. We were pulled over for speeding, supposedly 79 in a 70. Then cop claims that our out of state tags were covered illegally, which is not true. He claimed you couldn’t see the issuing state. 😒 Had the driver get out, asked us both a series of questions about our relation to each other, where we’re coming from, going, etc. Then he told the person driving (my vehicle) that he was going to bring the dog around the car. She said OK, without my knowledge. He claimed the dog hit on marijuana which is legal in my state. But there was no marijuana, no drugs, no reason the car would have smelled like it. He asked me if any illegal drugs, weapons, large amounts of money. Nope. They searched my vehicle and found nothing. They actually disconnected my dash cam AND took my memory card from it. Calling tomorrow to discuss with a supervisor bc I know they cannot tell us that we can’t record them, and to disconnect it is one thing, but to take my memory card and not say a damn thing about it? You know damn well you lied through your teeth on several things and didn’t want us to have proof of that. Smh
@@doofsdoofs no, I never got around to making contact with the supervisor. Wish I had, but the time difference and my busy schedule didn’t allow for it. Tried to submit something online, but it wouldn’t submit, so I gave up.
Start a fire. If everyone did the same, these clowns may back down. I'm filing an official complaint today, through a city police agency, an affidavit that claims the officer used tort against my consent and will to gather what he needed to issue A STOP SIGN VIOLATION. WTF. LOL. I ride private, no plates, no anything. I told him I was not commercial and not for hire. Immediately. Then invoked my right to remain silent. Through this, his only option would be to use a tactic to get me to subdue. TORT
I had gotten pulled over this day last week on my way to work.The cop claimed I had cut someone off, which didn’t happen. I have front and Rear dash cam footage. He pulled me out of the car and searched everything I had all because I had a small 3inch knife sticking out my pocket. He didn’t even ask for registration or insurance. Yes I had a Gun in the back seat which was not visible. It was concealed in a backpack. Now I have a court date and it all started because the cop accused me of cutting someone off. LAWSUIT INBOUND SJPD.
On a traffic stop if you don't give consent to a search the cop will just call a k-9 and then 1 the dog will either false alert are 2 the Handler will Q the dog to alert are 3 the Handler will just straight up lie about the dog hitting if a cop wants to search he is going to search it doesn't matter what the reason for stopping you is it could be the smallest thing
This is why we have so many lawyers in this country because we can't write laws or police procedures in a common sense manner that are easily understandable and not so open to interpretation. The fact that an officer can just claim he smells an illegal substance on your breath or in the car allowing him/her to violate your 4th Amendment rights is clearly a loophole that needs to be plugged, especially since the courts have determined that police have the legal ability to lie to you. There are dozens of TH-cam videos showing cops using the "I smell..." claim as retaliation against people who are attempting to exercise their rights.
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY !!! They lie to get you out of your car to be able to harrass,intimidate ,hurt or yes it has happened ,kill you !!!!!! If you know you haven't drank alcohol ,used drugs ,I would remain in the SAFETY of my car !!! If I err it will be on the side of my SAFETY not the cops !!!! Too many rogue cops out there to trust them !!!!! DOORS LOCKED ,WINDOWS UP !!!! A simple road stop , all transactions can be done through the window !!! Right !!! I'm not placing myself in harm's way if I might encounter a rogue cop !!!! If you know your innocent of any alcohol or drug use ,let them bust your window to forcibly extract you and somebody will lose his job with you getting a settlement !!! Use a little common sense here !!!!
Larry Lamb if an officer has lawfully pulled you over they can order you out of the vehicle and you do have to comply with that. It’s not a request, you have to. See Pennsylvania vs. Mimms SCOTUS ruling. You & the passenger even, have to get out if ordered out during a lawful traffic stop.
I recently was pulled over by police... I politely asked why I was pulled over.. and the officer said that I did not look 85 years of age as the car was borrowed and I am under his insurance as a Driver , wtf, just happened to drive his car to store as my car was in shop getting new tires mounted..
So you're telling me that if I'm sitting in my car on a public roadway and an officer approaches me and wants to see ID.. He can and he says reasonable suspicion is because it's a high crime area.. You're saying he has the right to detain me legally and that qualifies as reasonable suspicion? I disagree..
He’s not saying that… your example will allow you to not engage or engage with the officer. If you tell the officer you didn’t want to communicate with him, it’s perfectly legal. Also, if you provide your Id to confirm who you are that’s fine too. However, if he vets your id for outstanding warrants, then that’s an investigatory stop, which requires reasonable suspicion based on the totality of facts and circumstances. If the pats you down, such action also requires reasonable suspicion that you’re armed with a weapon based on the totality of facts and circumstances.
What if the officer thinks a vehicle that's in a high crime area, or on the same street as a known drug house? Does that qualify as long as they tie the reason for being pulled over to a traffic violation. Its common for them to make up, or find any reason to pull the person over. Such as window tint, loud exhaust, tire being on the line at stop sign, etc. Would the prosecuting attorney have to prove the reason for the stop was justified in order for any evidence to be used against the defendant?
@@mateobaysa2055 And In my state Alabama The cop Can pat you down but can not manipulate anything in your pockets, My father is a retired Traffic Sgt and he told me that. but he also said that Profiling is Ilegal but He couldn`t do his job if he wasnt profiling, which means There just twisting words up and not saying the Word Profiling and I think thats the Biggest POS thing Cops do dailey, its like saying Humans Shouldn`t judge people and its wrong but Everyone does it because your stupid if you don`t do it. Just Don`t voice your suspisions or what you think and its all good I guess?
correct me if i’m wrong, but i’m not a lawyer and work in landscaping . He did a great job explaining. I’m not that smart, but I think if you are just stopped in the middle of the road for no apparent reason stopping traffic lol the police can legally detain you and probably issue you a ticket, however, at that point it’s only civil and no crime has been committed and he is not suppose to order you out of the vehicle and check you for weapons drugs etc . Just based on what you saying . I think that’s what the lawyer is trying to say . I think i’m right ??
Reasonable suspicion is not enough to for a mandatory I.d. correct ? meaning they cannot articulate any law I've broken so no I'D.. suspicion, acting weird, acting goofy, acting unusual, anti social, acting different is NOT against the law.
The Police may ask you for id in an attempt to allay their reasonable suspicion, and about half the States have passed State Statutes that mirror the Terry Decision that require you to produce id or id yourself. The Terry Decision basically says if the Police reasonably suspect that you have committed, are committing OR ARE ABOUT TO COMMIT a crime they may stop you (detain) and ask you who you are and a reasonable explanation of your conduct. Further if the Officer reasonably suspects you are armed he may perform a limited frisk for weapons not drugs. However if the Officer detects something that is discernible as contraband he can seize it and charge you with it. Next the Officer does not have to articulate a specific crime only that your conduct when taken in totality of the circumstances would make a reasonable person (ruled to be the Police Officers) judgement believe that you may be engaged in criminal conduct.
The reasoning these State actors / revenue collectors ask or demand for a ID. is to try to find a pattern of criminal activity so they can base their investigation around that particular situation. and when they run you private information for warrants. is when they revenue collector comes into play. because you you are worth money to the system that you have to pay a ransom fee to be free.
@@baseballlife5884 Sorry but your period is definitely the wrong punctuation mark. You are a clueless idiot..PERIOD. However the majority of States do have a stop and id Statute, where refusing to provide one's identity is a separate crime. In addition another batch of states, although there is no Stop and Identify Statute, you can be charged with an obstruction type charge for refusing to do so. As far as Texas, you are correct, however the Texas law was an oversight in an attempt to fix a bad law that was ruled unconstitutional. Texas also has a law that you can be arrested based upon reasonable suspicion (a much lower standard than the usual probable cause) of criminal activity in certain circumstances. So that throws it right back that in that situation you can be arrested for what you normally only can be detained for, based upon only reasonable suspicion. So rather than detain you, the Texas cop arrests you and now you are required to id yourself. Do some research outside of what you think you know from TH-cam before you remove all doubt of your stupidity.
Question I have a jeep that bought and been working on apparently it didn't have a license plate and it has a busted ignition key ....but it's registration is still good .....would the busted ignition key be a properble couse
I do not get the last part that we are the one giving them probable cause by doing the test and we do not have to. Can you clarify . Can we deny the test without legal consequence?
Since police have no duty to articulate to a "suspect" any reasonable suspicion (or probable cause), in public or while driving, typically it would be best to identify yourself and then quietly ask: "I am being detained? ... Am I free to go?" Try hard to stay quiet and calm. In your own mind remember that you have no duty to explain yourself or speak further. Doing so tends to cause problems, only for you! (Maybe ask for names and badge numbers.)
what if the person has tented windows on vehicle . the driver very slightly roll window just enough to give offficer drivers license . is person required to roll down window?
NO, we the people are not allowed to lie to the police, you can and most likely will be charged for lying to them, they can lie to us, which makes me not trust any police, they lie on police reports all the time and when they are on the stand and asked about a lie or wrong information on their report they say "oh that was a mistake", i seen them do this, it should qualify for perjury.
My family member hired an attorney. Then the attorney charged her account for a 10 min phone 📞 call 😩 that was crazy 😂 the 4,000.00 retainer ran out pretty quick . Can you imagine having just 5 cases . you could probably retire in a few years being an attorney .
When someone is on foot walking 🚶♂️can an officer arrest you on disorderly conduct or obstruction of justice for not answering their questions or for not wanting to provide ID?
depends on your state but if your state requires you to provide ID when a police officer either detains your or arrests you then yes you can be arrest you for that. But it wouldnt be disorderly conduct.
Legally constitutionally no. You are protected under the 5th amendment remain silent and not incriminate yourself, and your ID/license is your papers protected under the 4th amendment warrant clause.
Sue them personally and officially in a federal court under 42 1983,1985 for violating your 4th,5th,14th section 1 constitutionally protected rights(liberties, privileges, immunities) and bring criminal charges against them in the court in violation of title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection 5, title 18 U.S.C. section 1918.
I pass a Parks and Recs police on a dead end road, I have had more than my share of being pulled over and I always knew why, My observation of this officer is he didn't turn around for at least a 1/2 mile concidering where we passed and how far it was to the lake and last parking lot. As I was parking, My friend observed the police had turned around and are now parked, this is around 800 yards away. He doesn't pull me over, and I stop here regular with My dogs. So I'm out of my truck with my dogs when he's ready to talk. I think he beyond taking his time to turn around
Guess it depends on your state....but the US Supreme court says an officer can order a driver out of the car or to stay in the car at his discretion without "articulable" reason.
Nobody should be listening to J Whome. Remember what Benjamin Franklin says we have a Republic if we can keep it. People need to go to the law library (every court has a law library)and pray and study instead of listening to this fool. J Whome tries to act like he knows what the United States Constitution was based on, and he says not the Holy Bible, and he knows the law. Remember If Congress or your state legislative (public servants) made the laws over the people of United States of America you would not need the constitution. J Whome says the Constitution does not come from the bible but these men do not agree with him.The first and almost the only book deserving of universal attention is the Bible. I speak as a man of the world…and I say to you, “Search the Scriptures.””- John Quincy Adams, Sixth President “That Book, sir, is the Rock on which our Republic rests.” - Andrew Jackson, Seventh President “In regard for this Great Book, I have this to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book.” - Abraham Lincoln, Sixteenth President “Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties, write its precepts in your hearts, and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book are we indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in the future. Righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people.” - Ulysses S. Grant, Eighteenth President “If you take out of your statutes, your constitution, your family life all that is taken from the Sacred Book, what would there be left to bind society together?” - Benjamin Harrison, Twenty third President “The Bible is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God, and spiritual nature and needs of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation. America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.” - Woodrow Wilson, Twenty eighth President “The strength of our country is the strength of its religious convictions. The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.” - Calvin Coolidge, Thirtieth President “We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.” - Franklin Roosevelt, Thirty second President “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul…. If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State!” - Harry Truman, Thirty third President “Inside the Bible’s pages lie all the answers to all of the problems man has ever known… It is my firm belief that the enduring values presented in its pages have a great meaning for each of us and for our nation. The Bible can touch our hearts, order our minds, and refresh our souls.” - Ronald Reagan, Fortieth President. THIS IS NOT THE QURAN THEY ARE QUOTING.
@@jwhome9319 How would you know you don't know anything about the Holy Scriptures or the history of this country and the influence of the Holy Bible.I told you JWhome just because you do not believe do not mean is not true. Go study and pray because i am not given you no Information. Like this stupid doctrine you have adapted because you follow the men that work for the government, you think public servants can tell you what to do so please you know nothing only what the people that work the government wants you to know, you J Whome are a slave to the public servants. Matthew 10:14 King James Version 14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Can reasonable suspicion be registration pass due by few days or police computer not finding your drivers license and police strongly says you have no drivers license when you do but it's not with you and you give him state ID
This article examines the Supreme Court's decision in Mimms v. Pennsylvania, which allows officers to order the driver from a lawfully stopped vehicle; examines the Supreme Court's extension of this authority to passengers within the vehicle, decided in Maryland v.
My question starts with a hypothetical situation in which I have a medical marijuana card. Let’s say I ingested thc and then maybe 10 hours later I drive a car. If I get pulled over for speeding and I don’t have any trace of marijuana in or around my car, is that probable cause for a dui arrest? This is also considering I could possibly have 2 marijuana DUIs on my record.
Never sign anything saying you are giving up your rights. And if you do sign anything always sign U.C.C. 1-308 all rights reserved with prejudice right behind your signature.
I had a few drinks 🍺. Ok more than a few. I got stopped. The officer told me to get out of car to do test I told him no he arrested me for dui even if i didn’t do the test ???? wtf
Isn't it reasonable suspicion "that a crime may have been, is, or is about to be committed"? How does a civil or traffic infraction allow an officer to demand identification. Especially in non stop and identify states?
Excellent video, does anyone know what direction I need to rereach when a officer or county clerk can run my name for warrants. When you get your car inspected they ask for your Driver's license then go do a National Database Search for warrants. I'm only at the sheriff's office for a VIN verification.
When the lawyer says “reasonable suspicion is where the cop says hold on I’m gonna check you for drugs” ... does this guy not know search a seizure? You can’t just stop and check for drugs on reasonable suspicion. You can check for WEAPONS, IF you also have reasonable,e suspicion that a subject is armed with a weapon, gun, knife, etc. AND IF you feel an object that is consistent with contraband that is felt without further manipulation, it could be seized as well. for a lawyer this is just sloppy bad information for someone that doesn’t know more... can we get a BAR check? What’s this guy specialize in elder law and not know criminal law?
NO INFORMATION.... means that the officer doesn't know anything about the location of evidence linked to a crime or the person who committed the crime. HUNCH..... means that the officer has a gut feeling that something is not right, but the officer cannot point to any specific facts; it is something like intuition. MERE SUSPICION.... means that the officer knows a minor fact, or has some larger fact that came from an unknown or unreliable source that suggests that evidence may be located somewhere or someone has committed a crime. REASONABLE SUSPICION... means that the officer knows several minor facts, a large fact, or a large fact from a source of unknown reliability that points to a particular person engaging in some criminal activity. PROBABLE CAUSE... means that an officer has enough evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has or is about to engage in criminal activity or that the items searched for are connected with criminal activity and will be found in the place to be searched. PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE... is the amount of evidence needed to be successful when suing in a civil case. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT... is the highest amount of proof and is required to convict a person of a criminal charge. www.nmlea.dps.state.nm.us/legal/documents/Laws_of_Arrest-Part_I.pdf
One who is not a cop could never it all out, yet and attorney will post scare tactics as a hopeful retainer fee...ur not a cop, do what the cop says, then co.p.plain later if need be
I would just file a motion remove qualified immunity for the purpose of prosecution file formal charges or continue with failure to prosecute take your fucking pick idoot
Pennsylvania v. Mims states that you can pull someone out of the car for traffic stop regardless of it do you have probable cause if it is for your safety. This is because the safety of the officers is greater than the slight inconvenience of having somebody step out of their car during the traffic.
@@rebeccacostello86what do you mean? Lie about RAS to search a vehicle? If youre worried about this, record your interaction. Its hard to disprove something like odor in court so a cop could say they smell such and such and it would be difficult to disprove. Yes, a cop lying about RAS is a violation of the 4th amendment.
You mentioned in your video to comply with police for ( traffic) asking for you to step out of car.. even though you haven't broken any law.. and what if you have lowsy balance (vertigo)...
@ The Feldman Law Firm. What about my situation that happened the other day. I literally left my house in the country, peaceful neighborhood, not known for crime. Within one minute of walking from my house to my uncles house, I was walking on the right side of the road, I have no criminal record, wasn’t opening carrying any weapons, I was pulled over by a police officer and started be questioned what I was doing and he even ran my license but lucky my grandma drove by and started asking what was wrong and he let me go. I think this was wrong personally based off watching your video.
I was pulled over for a routine traffic stop I had legal license legal insurance I asked the car was I being detained the cop told me no and then proceeded to search the glove block cuz he said I had a record for this after all that being done answers to call for 35 minutes unlock the glove box and found a controlled substance I didn't waive the preliminary hearing I'm in the state of Mississippi how long does it take for preliminary hearing from my understanding 21 days is all that they have if nothing doesn't happen in the 21 days does the case get dismissed so do I still go to a probable cause hearing
The police can not search your vehicle unless you gave permission or unless they have probable cause. A prior arrest/conviction can not be used for probable cause to search your car now. Was this misdemeanor or felony ?? If felony definitely get a lawyer even though you should for the misdemeanor also.
I have an experiment... now police officers have right too...so this would have to be done under a terms of employment exemption...Give 1000 K9 cops randomly and without warning a lie detector test and simply ask them two questions.1)Do you have a secret signal for your dog so that he will indicate on a car that there are drugs? 2)Have you ever used it to illegally search a car? If we are honest it is likely that the result would be a horrible failing grade on top of the dogs themselves already getting a failing grade. I am aghast that after testing was done showing your average K9 police dog is only about 52% accurate, that the supreme court said 52% was good enough. 52% was a failing grade on every test I have ever heard of.
The supreme court has ruled that location alone (high crime, high drug area) or suspicious person + high crime/drug area is not enough on its own to warrant probable cause. The officer must have something with the location like someone called and reported you or pull over for speeding. There is also a difference between a consentual conversation and making a investigatory stop. During a consentual conversation the officer can not frisk you even to make sure you don't have any weapons on your persons. During a consentual conversation you don't even have to acknowledge the officer or say 1 word to them. If the officer elevates the encounter to ivestagatory stop. Usally starts out as a suspicion person but doesn't have enough for reasonable suspicion or probable cause the officer can perform a terry stop. The officer can frisk you but only looking for weapons for "officer and your safety" but this frisk does not give the officer permission to enter your pockets.
Officer safety is the cowardly way of policing considering they are most often better armed & protected by body armor. It is a violation of our rights regardless what the Supreme Court says about it. They got this one wrong in Terry v. Ohio.
Second amendment,14th amendment section 1, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 therefore the terry stop/frisk is unconstitutional therefore unlawful illegal.
So if a game warden just decides to do a safety check is lawful? Despite the open sea rule is kind of a grey area. They say they need to check your safety equipment and and check your registration. The tags are on the boat and you haven’t broken a law yet they stop and search uou. Basically because your on the water they say it’s enough to detain you and search you.
No legal lawful search warrant then it's unlawful illegal, game wardens/park rangers are state and federal officials therefore they are bound under the warrant clause.
I was pulled over last night because I turned off the road just after passing a cop to turn around. I had just pulled out my friends driveway an realized I left my phone so I was turning around to go get it. So he pulled me over then said my eyes were glossy an I was slurring my speech an made me get out and do a field sobriety. I passed but is that legal?
I believe, tho I may be misinformed, that there seems to be a missing KEY element .. "OF A CRIME that has, is, or may be about to happen" with the operative word 'CRIME' being necessary in the application of the legal concepts 'probable cause' and 'reasonable suspicion' when it comes to Officers legally acting towards someone? We can all be 'suspicious' and we all can have 'reasonable suspicion' BUT of a crime demands articulable FACTS? Or have I misunderstood that basic idea? Many thanks
Criminals cases always remain silent and ask for an attorney. Simple traffic ticket the more cooperative you are the more likely they're might just give you a verbal ⚠️ or write you a warning ticket. If you don't cooperate with them you're more than likely guaranteed a citation.
hmmm. so you support cops using NO cause instead? whats your standard? Some cause? A little Cause? No Cause? something between No cause and Some cause?
What if your detained in handcuffs? And they don’t even tell you why they’re handcuffing you or why they’re detaining you I was in a swat raid a guy that had a complaint warrant and probably cause I happen to be walking to buy purse when they made entry I thought it was two gunshots and I thought the guy was being robbed. I hid behind a bedroom door because I thought there was an active shooter in the house and it turned out to be police. The guy that I was buying a purse off of had a complaint warrant, and probably cause, they searched me two times they put me in handcuffs, entertain me for three hours and later found out it was flashbacks not gunshots. It was an awful experience to be in a no knock warrant. The cops treated me like a criminal and I have no criminal history at all never been arrested before my life and I’m 52 years old. This was extremely devastating on my mind because when the cops went behind the door, they wrapped it took AK-47s on my eye and face, and the cop got stunned, and he held the gun there for a little bit on my eye and then said hands up on me and cut handcuffs. They never told me anything that they were cops or nothing. They did find drugs in the house meth and I had nothing to do with it. I didn’t even know the guy had drugs in the house cause I had just met him to buy a purse. He was selling online.
Yes and No- They can lie to a suspect in order to obtain a confession or to conduct a sting operation. However, the police CANNOT lie in a sworn affidavit or in court- because police are not exempt from perjury. However, most of them tend not to do this because they know their work will be critiqued by the defense- This is where the private investigator comes in.
Lawrence F.: Who snitched me off copper? Cop: I cannot tell a lie...it was your wife. But, she can write you in prison and you can kiss and make up. Crazy Neighbor: Ok copper, who snitched me off? Cop: I cannot lie...it was your neighbor Lawrence F. Do you have any guns in the house?
Big Dog NO!! A traffic stop has nothing to do with passenger. unless the officer has a reason to believe the passenger is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime there is no reason to speak to passenger..
Reasonable suspicion all they have to do is lie they don't need anything all they have to do is just make something up and it becomes your word against theirs and obviously they have the power
Legally under the supreme law of the land the constitution no law enforcement officials should be arresting (seizing)any American citizen without a legal lawful search warrant,and no citizen should be seeing the inside of any jail or prison unless they have been found guilty by a public trial by a judge and jury first.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms It is reasonable for an officer to ask a person to get out of a car after being detained for safety reasons. A search is also justified if the officer sees a bulge that could potentially be a weapon. yes, a cop can ask you to get out of the car while being detained.
!!!Why do you have a picture that is placed on the wall at an odd angle? 01:38 Now, at this level of reasonable suspicion, that's really what allows the officer to start saying, you know, I wanna frisk you, I want to check you for drugs, something to that effect. !!!Frisking (limited for weapons) and searching for drugs require TWO DIFFERENT levels of suspicion. Just because some has been stopped, doesn't mean they can be Frisked, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean you can be searched for drugs. !!!Frisking REQUIRES separate RAS that the person may be "armed and dangerous" 02:28 And when that stop takes place, they then have the ability to arguably frisk you, check for drugs, check for firearms, what have you. 3:55 So, reasonable suspicion is articulable facts that allow this officer to really just stop you, quote unquote "detain you", ask you some questions, frisk you even, check for drugs, weapons, or any criminal contraband. 04:39 now we're really invoking the fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We are all free from search and from seizure, to be secure in our person or houses, papers, effects, are all those things associated with the fourth Amendment, and we have that freedom. !!!Your prior statements have already thrown the fourth Amendment out of the window. If cops can "check you for drugs" or "any criminal contraband" then YOU HAVE NO 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. 05:33 They can't ask you to get out of the car simply because they pulled you over. A lot has changed since you made this video, THEY CAN AND DO ask you to step out of the car. 06:16 Asks you some questions, you're now talking and he can smell the alcohol on your breath, he can see that your face is a little flushed, or he can tell that your words sound a little slow or slurred. !!!NOPE. I don't have to talk. Only say, "I don't answer questions". I don't have to look at cop. (I don't drive with alcohol in my system, but 'not talking' is always a good thing.) 06:48 He's got that reasonable suspicion that you might be committing a DUI. 06:52 You get out of the car and he starts doing these tests, the eye test, you know where he's got that pen [flashlight] and you're supposed to follow it with your eyes. !!!NOPE, DECLINE to do FST.
What if the officer thinks a vehicle that's in a high crime area, or on the same street as a known drug house? Does that qualify as long as they tie the reason for being pulled over to a traffic violation. Its common for them to make up, or find any reason to pull the person over. Such as window tint, loud exhaust, tire being on the line at stop sign, etc. Would the prosecuting attorney have to prove the reason for the stop was justified in order for any evidence to be used against the defendant?
In some states its harder for the defendant to request body cam evidence because their local records office deny it under federal law rule 16 (a)(2). How would the defense prepare without this crucial piece of evidence? What options are available if both the dashcam and bodyworn camera footage is denied to the defendant for use in preparing their case?
So, here's my question; frisking someone would be a type of search, right? And the 4th Amendment says that we should be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, so then frisking someone upon 'reasonable suspicion' would, in fact, be a violation of the 4th Amendment.
You said they can't pull you out of your car without reasonable suspicion, but.. Pennsylvania v. Mimms Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Reasonable suspicion seems to be enough to arrest someone on mental health grounds (no crime required, maybe just a phone call) Note the few rights to a lawyer in "civil" cases like this. Plus hospital costs accrue.
I live in California as far as I know you have the right to refuse any eye test of sobriety you might be taking to jail but without the charge of the dui please let me know if I'm wrong.. I appreciate your professionalism
You can refuse a field sobriety or even a breath test. However you may still be arrested for dui and in this case you exercising your rights may be entered against you. Also dmv will suspend your license whether you are found guilty or not.
I tried that one,slightly rolled my window down, handed out my license and put my hands on the wheel,the police broke my window and pulled me out of the vehicle.
Sue him personally and officially in a federal court under 42 1983,1985, and press charges against them in the court under title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection 5, title 18 U.S.C. section 1918,And kidnapping.
@@dragonf1092 I was dragged out of the car and arrested after consuming 3 beers in a 2 hour period and charged with drunk driving,there was no blood or breath test performed,they put me down as a refusal even though they never offered me a test of either kind.
@@eastside0434 then they had no legal evidence therefore no legal case. They had no legal warrant to search or seize your person,or effects (personal property) therefore unlawful search and kidnapping.
@@eastside0434 then they violated your 4th amendment right because they had no legal lawful warrant, they violated your 5th amendment rights to remain silent and not incriminate yourself, and you're 5th amendment right to a immediate public trial by jury. And your 10th,14th section 1 amendment rights to travel, and be free from government intrusion.
I got arrested for DUI. I was drinking not drunk and I kinda went over the line a few times according to police I refused to speak to him and refused the exercise and only gave him my drivers license. HE TOOK ME TO JAIL ANYWAY . He didn’t have probable cause to me he only had reasonable suspicion I didn’t speak 🗣️ to him. I rolled down window and he said he smelled alcohol. He arrested me illegally.
Ok. Soooo please answer. When a cop stops you either on a stop and talk or shows up because of a “call” is suspicious enough to force an id cookie? (They constantly are asking for it like it’s a treat.) A traffic stop is a whole Nother animal. Your driving, when you get your id your required to provide id for the traffic stop. Suspicious isn’t a crime.
Reasonable suspicion can lead to pat down for weapons only, not for contraband. Also, an officer can ask someone to step out of their vehicle for literally every single traffic stop. (Pennsylvania V. Mimms)
@BULL SCHEIST if the evidence is immediately apparent to the officer when he pats it. He is not allowed to manipulate (continue to feel, turn over, and touch.) However most officers will just wait until they have probable cause to arrest and then they can do a full search any way. Also, if the person is only being detained and the officer asks, "you don't have anything on you that will prick me like needles?" (which they are allowed to ask for officer safety) and the suspect says "no but I have a crack pipe in my pocket" then the suspect has voluntarily given the officer probable cause to arrest.
@BULL SCHEIST also keep in mind that reasonable suspicion can and very often does lead to probable cause and the suspect can then be arrested and full searched anyway. So just because an officer detains you and Terry pats you for weapons, doesn't mean you are guaranteed not to be fully searched. A lot of people, when they are only detained, will tell the officer what they have in their pockets when they don't have to. Which gets them arrested. Lol
@BULL SCHEIST and to be clear, a pat down is not going into pockets unless the officer pats something he believes is a weapon. So if he pats a crack pipe, honestly thinks it's a knife, and goes into the pocket to get it, pulls out the pipe... yes that is admissable. As long as the officer can articulate why he thought it was a knife.
@BULL SCHEIST if cops have a warrant to search a house for particular things, it gives them lawful reason to be in that house. So if they find something that isn't on the warrant, they can still use it because it falls under the plain view doctrine, which an exception to the 4th amendments warrant requirement. Now if they're looking for, say, a murder weapon but they find drugs, then hey find more drugs, there is a good chance they are going to keep finding drugs and they should probably stop searching the house and add drugs to the search warrant. Also, no, cops cannot just say officer safety and pat someone down. That is the underlying reason for the pat down, bu they have to have reasonable suspicion that a suspect just committed or is about to commit a crime AND is armed and dangerous. Now, a lot of cops pat down people they shouldn't legally pat down, and a lot of the evidence from these pat downs gets tossed. But you have to understand, cops operate Ina completely different environment than regular people. Most cops don't give a shit about personal drug use. They just want to be absolutely sure that the person they're talking to isn't about to try to kill them. I think it is very wrong for people to make light of the phrase officer safety. Cops are people. And like most people, they want to go to work, do the right thing, and go home in one piece to their families. Yes there are bad cops, just like there are bad politicians, doctors, lawyers, and mechanics. If you were a cop, would you risk your life, your friends lives, innocent people lives, and the life of the suspect, just because there's a chance that thing you just felt might NOT have been a weapon? Are you going to leave it there because you might be able to get this guy on a drug charge? Fuck no. Besides 9/10 times the suspect will just voluntarily tell you what he has, whether it's a drug or weapon, because they know they are about to be arrested anyway. You seem like a smart guy so don't take me the wrong way. I value privacy too. But go on a ride along, a lot of departments offer them. You will see that most cops just want to keep everyone, including the suspect, safe.
@BULL SCHEIST no problem, happy to help. Maybe I will start a channel once I graduate from my academy. I love this stuff and I love answering questions. Cheers.
Looking suspicious is not reasonable suspision for a search in and of its self.. According to this guy you could be searched for anything, he could be a cop with this advice.. Supreme court has already ruled on this..
I'm not sure that applies if you haven't committed a crime. I also live in Illinois but the research I've done is that our constitutional rights have been and are continuing to be violated. This guy works for the cops, and if not them the court systems. If your being detained they must be able to tell you what crime you have committed.
You have to read the whole thing. It was not a legal seizure. A total violation of his 4th ammendment rights. The stop itself was fine and justified, but this officer violates every person 4th ammendment rights that he pulls over. I invoke and refuse to waive my 1st, 4th, and 5th ammendment rights. It's a shame how easily the sheep bow down to LEO's.
@@drdrum1000 ...violates every person 4th amendment rights - in your opinion. The Supreme Court places "officer safety" above your rights, so any cop can order you out of your vehicle "because they feel threatened or unsafe" because the USSC says they legally can.
@@somebodyelse6673 sounds like the police need a blankie and a pacifier. "Officer safety" is not heroism its cowardice. The thin blue line is "Stolen Valor". Police need to stay in their lane and quit violating rights in the name of their cowardice safety! Keep licking boots!!
I have a question about a residential search warrant that was served on my boyfriends property. The police searched his house with a warrant that didn't have his name on it anywhere. However, the warrant did have his roommates name as the main subject and purpose for the warrant. The police were successful in finding what they were looking for and promptly arrested my bfs roommate. Unfortunately, a very small amount of drugs were subsequently found in my bfs bedroom, resulting in my bfs arrest. There was another female there with the roommate and she went to jail as well for possession. My question is Can my bf ask his p.defender to file a motion for dismissal due to his name Not being on the search warrant??? The police were only there for the roommate and they seized his drugs and he's going to prison for a while now!! I just wanted to know if the exclusionary rule would apply because that reasonable suspicion and probable cause defense seems like a pretty fine line. And bc the police initially thought the property/house belonged to the roommate. My bf wasn't even in the picture. The policemen thought that the house was roommates. Let me guess, no! Because of the Good Faith Doctrine?? Or inevitable discovery??? Why do they even have the exclusionary rule??? Is it there for a delusion of right to privacy and 4th amendment infringement??? Thanks in advance!!🎲✌💋
No...a persons name doesnt have to be on the warrant...just the place is sufficient. A name may be on the warrant which would give authority to search that person too. A warrant can be for a person, place or thing to be searched/seized. All three are not required.
Supreme court ruled, if police have a warrent and there are say 3 people renting the place . police can ONLY search what the name on warrent has access to , if your bf has a room at same address , they can NOT legally search his room do to he is paying and is his privet area separate from warrent, and attorney can motion to suppress any evidence ceased from his room .
It should apply the warrant only gave them permission to seize the roommate and his property (effects). Something most Americans don't comprehend and realize all drug laws are unconstitutional therefore illegal null and void, Congress never made a amendment to the constitution of the united states of America outlawing drugs making them illegal so technically constitutionally they illegally kidnapped your boyfriend and roommate 🤣😂🤣😂
Use fruit of the poisonous tree as well, because the warrant was not for you and your boyfriend or your property therefore they violated you and your boyfriends constitutionally protected rights (liberties, privileges, immunities).
@@jwhome9319wrong the fourth amendment warrant clause explicitly states a warrant must have the name of the person who is to be searched and seized."and the persons to be seized"
Minnesota vs Dickerson. If an officer does conduct a Terry frisk, and can articulate why something in your pocket is contraband, they can seize it without a warrant.
No and Yes. No the reasonable suspicion is armed with a weapon not necessarily a firearm. Yes the frisk can only be used to find the weapon however the courts have ruled that if anything felt is immediately discernible as contraband they can seize it and charge you with it. Also the Courts have ruled that if they detect a hard container such as a hard cigarette pack which could conceal a weapon it can be seized and looked into.
So if the frisk you and find nothing of weapons or drugs, can the police take your coat off by demand and throw it inside their police car with the doors shut and essentially seize your property even though your not convicted of anything?
That's a violation of your 4th,5th,and 14th amendment section 1, and article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 constitutionally protected rights (liberties, privileges, immunities) therefore illegal.
Guns are legal under the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land. Technically constitutionally all drugs are legally protected under the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land as well. Congress has never amended the constitution outlawing making drugs illegal.
High frequency radio explains how to file a commercial lien on public servants when they violate you, if more people started to lien them things would change.
Why does this guy keep saying you can use a frisk to search for drugs or contraband? From what I understand, a frisk is limited to looking for weapons only. What am I misunderstanding here?
The problem I have with this is that it is the government's burden to prove reasonable suspicion or probable cause, not the Defendants. Therefore the problem becomes how does an officer prove "I smelled X" before a neutral and detached magistrate, to even a minimal degree of certainty the officer is telling the truth? The mere fact a statement is sworn doesn't mean that statement isn't a bald face lie, as it has been demonstrated many a time that the police don't always tell the truth under oath or otherwise. This is where one must be cognizant of Franks v. Delaware.
@@jwhome9319 You miss the point of "probable cause". The law looks to whether probable cause existed to believe that fact X is present, regardless of whether or not fact X is actually present. Its rather about a reasonable and subjective belief which is then sworn out under penalty for perjury. The problem is that because we have no way to tell whether or not a person is lying about whether or not they smelled something (because smell is a subjective sense vs. an objective sense- One person might think marijuana smells like strawberries where another may not)- it becomes that it therefore shouldn't be trusted, because there is no way to prove the statement as to smell to be either true or false- where the government has the burden of proof to demonstrate probable cause in the affirmative- e.g. probable cause doctrine is to be construed in the favor of the Defendant wherever reasonably possible.
@@Harlem55 maybe...but when the substance smelled is found, gives lots of credibility...and a smell can linger (smoke, alcohol beverage) without the substance found in measurable quantity...but odor still present....and if nothing unlawful is found, then the point becomes mostly moot
Can you refuse the circus acts (stand on one foot, say the alphabet backwards) and demand a breathalyzer, or blood test? In some states you are required to subject yourself to these tests, refusal to do so gives them probable cause, at least here in Maine.
Here’s is my question, probable cause and reasonable suspicion is being determine by a police officer and not a court of law. So are you saying he can restrain my Liberty without him going to a court of law.
Yes under the 4th amendment a police officer can take away your freedoms and liberty without the permission of the court. Those powers come from the 10th amendment.
Yes because he's a sworn officer of the law. It's his job to manipulate the situation in order to trip you up and sway things over to his side. Because ultimately, his main objective is to hope you're breaking the law with drugs or alcohol because your arrest, bail, fines, dui school, court costs, and monthly probation fees are a feather in his hat and nothing but generated revenue for the county this occurrence took place!!! It's all about the money for your crimes!!!! And meeting their quota for the month!!! Nevermind that, they would rather have you take a plea deal like probation because they like setting you up for failure. That way, they're hoping you'll fuck up while on your probation because probation violations only generate more revenue for the county!!!! It's just one big "racket" ball club and you ain't in it!!! George Carlin RIP.
Yes. The fourth amendment doesnt stop the police from search and seizure without a court order. It only stops him from UNreasonable searches and seizures. A court will ultimately determine if the search/seizure was reasonable or not. Until they put judges in police cars at all times, that is how it works.
@@jwhome9319 All I have to say you are wrong. No man or women working for the government can take away your rights. You rights comes from YHVH written in the constitution. 2 Corinthians 3:17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.You need to study and pray that YHVH shows you the truth. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) The Law of Arrest, 25 Iowa L.Rev. 201, 254 (1940). Cf. Pepper v. Mayes, 81 Ky. 673 (1884). It was clear, moreover, that the only element bearing upon the reasonableness of delay was not such circumstances as the pressing need to conduct further investigation, but the arresting officer's ability, once the prisoner had been secured, to reach a magistrate who could issue the needed warrant for further detention. 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arrest, supra, §§ 76, 77 (1962); 1 Restatement of Torts § 134, Comment b (1934); Keefe v. Hart, 213 Mass. 476, 482, 100 N.E. 558, 559 (1913); Leger v. Warren, 62 Ohio St. 500, 57 N.E. 506, 508 (1900); Burk v. Howley,Any detention beyond the period within which a warrant could have been obtained rendered the officer liable for false imprisonment. See, e.g., Twilley v. Perkins, 77 Md. 252, 265, 26 A. 286, 289 (1893); Wiggins v. Norton, 83 Ga. 148, 152, 9 S.E. 607, 608-609 (1889); Brock v. Stimson, 108 Mass. 520 (1871); Annot., 98 A.L.R.2d 966 (1964). 1 We discussed and relied upon this common-law understanding in Gerstein, see 420 U.S., at 114-116, 95 S.Ct., at 863-864, holding that the period of warrantless detention must be limited to the time necessary to complete the arrest and obtain the magistrate's review. "A policeman's on-the-scene assessment of probable cause provides legal justification for arresting a person suspected of crime, and for a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest. Once the suspect is in custody . . . the reasons that justify dispensing with the magistrate's neutral judgment evaporate." Id., at 113-114, 95 S.Ct., at 863 (emphasis added). We said that "the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty," id., at 114, 95 S.Ct., at 863, "either before or promptly after arrest," id
@@davidlaw770 Sorry...no Messianic Law, Mosaic Law, Christian law, Sharia Law, Buddhist law, Hindu law, Scientology law, Druid law, Satanic law etc applies to the US Constitution or the laws made under it. Religious law does not apply. Some religious traditions are used as some philosophic basis of the law...but religious texts do NOT apply.
Great video explanation but the only thing that does not set well is when you say a cop pulls you over for a civil infraction is that is from the beginning it is a civil not criminal issue and a civil issue can never have the minimal criminal requirement of reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime because IT is already stipulated as civil. Therefore a cop seeing a person using a car that in their opinion violated some traffic code who them stops that person has made a legal determination and acted under their purported authority as a peace officer, authorized to apprehend violators of criminal actions, to apprehend and detain said person who is only possibly however unsubstantiatedly committed a non criminal infraction. Therefore by default the peace officer is violating persons rights for stopping them at all. And any ruling contrary is a contradiction to our civil rights and is unconstitutional.
In other words if a cop can detain me for a civil infraction at all can then detain any person for any reason civil or criminal which is a contradiction. Cops only have authority for criminal offense
Reasoable suspicion is an objective ananylsis....articulable FACTS mixed with rational inferences that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a particular crime in or has been commited by that person
How can a Civil matter be placed within the same class as Criminal? You said a cop can stop and detain you for a civil matter then get probable cause… I have never seen a supreme courts opinion regarding reasonable suspicion and probable cause mention Civil activity. Only criminal elements can give rise to a seizure. So in states where traffic is civil almost every stop is an illegal violation of ones protection against illegal searches and seizures. Everything done at the stop is fruit of the poisonous tree. Right or wrong?
Can I send you the bodycam footage? The officer was very pushy, even grabbed my wallet from me when I denied his request to search. Threatened to arrest me and put me in jail if I didn't let him search.
That all sounds fine and well. There are officers and deputies that think they can make the law up as they go. I get pulled over ,the reason being was I was in a high drug area. (My ass) I let him have my DL. And brings my passenger his id back and asks me to step out of the vehicle, I complied I didn't have to. He asks me if he can search my vehicle. Do you have a probable cause? I've complied, I'm legal, not speeding. What is your probable cause? Technically officer, you actually are breaking the law right now for running your emergency lights,what is your emergency? He sent me on my way.
Okay, well can you please explain this hypothetical incident. The officer states during the traffic stop and in his written complaint, the reason for pulling you over is for failing to stop for a school bus when it's flashers were on. After running your license, because of unpaid surcharges , he places you under arrest for dwli. At your first court appearance, the court clerk calls you over and states the DA would like to offer you a deal, but you must first sign a paper, waiving your right to an attorney. You sign it, because you have printed out the state statue and federal law which confirms you were not required to stop for a school bus. You happen to be traveling in the far right lane, going in the opposite direction, on a 6 lane HWY with a dividing center lane. So the DA is looking in there computer and talking among themselves and tell you your free to go if you show prove of insurance. So the Da steps out in the hall and gets on the phone with your insurance agent. Who tells him her computer is down and she could not pull it up at that time. So you fax it, but due to Harvey the criminal courts we're sharing court rooms in the family law building, they obviously lost it, because a year later you are being arrested, for a warrant they issued for dwli. Now if you didn't break the law, then the officer had no cause to pull you over, so anything found during the stop should be inadmissable, right?
Correct, it's called fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine based on the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co vs United States which was a Supreme Court decision. Essentially what the Supreme court decided was that any evidence found from an improper stop or illegal search and seizure is now deemed inadmissable in a court hearing. If you were on a divided highway like you mentioned and the bus was on the other side of the divider dependent on what your state laws are then it may have been an invalid traffic stop. I would recommend getting with your lawyer and consider the correct course of action. Of course it also depends on your current financial situation in which fighting it through the court system and paying the legal fees may cost you more money in the long run vs paying the surcharge and this will solely depend on your own decisuon in which route you opt to take. Hope this helps, best of luck to you.
@@jwhome9319 maybe the story just wasn't that easy to follow. So let's try starting here. After the prosecutor stepped out into the hall & spoke w/ the insurance agent, he resets the case. He tells you to fax a copy or email him a copy of your current insurance before the reset date. He clarifies that once he receives the proof of insurance he will dismiss the case & you won't be required to appear on the reset date. He even is gracious enough to write on the reset form, "🔺(triangle symbol) to send proof of insurance" followed w/ an email address & his initial. You faxed a copy of proof of insurance as soon as you returned home. However, a year later you are arrested for failure to appear. My question is if both state statue & federal law prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer, HONESTLY had no probable cause to pull you over, then shouldn't any discovery thereafter be inadmissible? I would just like to add that surcharges were challenged from the very start. The Supreme Court has finally ruled against using that scheme and it's been replaced with a new scheme that doesn't unfairly target the poor & criminalize them for their inability to pay a debt. Which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
@@born2breality well shame on you for not following up and making sure it was received so you are not arrested. If you dont care much, why would other follks.. stuff happens. YOU can prevent it.
@@jwhome9319 Really??? How about shame on the prosecutor. The case should of just been dismissed, because the officer shouldn't of pulled you over in the 1st place. When you sent the fax it printed a paper verifying the fax was sent and retrieved. It even verifies what time & where you sent it to. Besides, the prosecutor wasn't asking you to prove you had insurance when you got pulled over. He's asking you to prove you currently have insurance when he knows your license is suspended. Lucky for you, you did despite that fact. The prosecutor had all yourinfo & the vehicles info. He could of easily made a call to the DMV & verified the insurance. Remember, the burden of proof is on him not you. You spent a total of 6 days(3 days after being pulled over & 3 days a year later) in jail for supposedly failing to appear. Finding a bondsman's who was willing to bond you out the second time, was nearly impossible. You lost your job, because you didn't show up for work. On top of what it cost you to bail out of jail twice, it also cost you $865 to get the vehicle out of impound. So you say shame on me. Well, I say shame on our justice system. Shame on them for throwing a stumbling block in your path. Shame on them for impeding on your pursuit of happiness. Shame on the officer & the prosecutor for pur"suing" you without any probable cause to do so. Shame on them both for using your tax dollar to make you a criminal instead of protecting you from one.
That's right. That is why during cross examination you ask the cop, Q: "did you determine on your own that the law you applied was applicable to me and that you had jurisdiction to stop me?" A: "YES." Q: "on what specific fact did you rely to make that determination and why were they not included in discovery?" A: "the law applies to everyone in this city. Q: "So my presence within a city is crucial to your argument?" A: "Yes". Q: "What is a city?" (Prosecution) OBJECTION- Calls for a legal determination. (Judge) Sustained. Objection point of clarification- how can the officer testify that I was in a city and the codes of that city create a valid obligation upon me if he cant even determine what a city is? (Judge) steamroll steamroll steamroll
false...they are making conclusions about circumstances and applying the law (e.g., concluding there is probable cause to believe a law has been broken and that a person has broken it) which they are qualified to do, but not ruling on law. Only judges can make a legal ruling on the law.
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the best video on this topic that I've found so far. Thanks. While it's a hard thing to explain, nobody else was able to help me wrap my head around the whole concept of Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause.
If you're being detained the best advice is to refuse to answer any questions and request a lawyer. At that point all questioning has to stop until an attorney is present. Don't just roll over and cooperate. Be polite exert your rights by refusing to answer any questions beyond you identification. Keep your mouth shut. Refuse a search attempt as well.
Lol
Reasonable suspicion is when something is so obvious that any reasonable person would suspect that crime is afoot.
Probable cause is when it's not obvious to everyone but a trained officer could observe the totality of circumstances and suspect that crime is afoot.
The law has perverted Terry v Ohio to make reasonable suspicion mean whatever they pull out of their ear.
You hit it on the nail.
The law hasn’t perverted the doctrine of RAS found in Terry….
Piss poor police training has led to the perversion of understanding!
That and the fact that police departments go out of their way to hire bullies and the uneducated and easily manipulated.
Deliberately vague laws are the main reason for resisting arrest. Even if the person is found not guilty in court, it leads to stress and financial loss for the accused. The public cannot be expected to follow laws that officers often don't even know.
Pigs are in the slaughter shop.
. ... Right now.
That what happens when you elect lawyers to be law makers.... It's virtually a given that they are going to write laws in ways that can benefit themselves and / or their colleagues.
@@CJ-ty8sv True that, it is about creating work fabricating legal jobs, not making just laws. A Lawyer is just a contractor with a little more education on average.
These cops don't even know how to arrest someone without beating them to literally......death. Unfortunately it's true.
Zero-tolerance enforcement is always practiced on the tax-paying civilian middle-class. Real criminals such as thugs and thieves have more rights than we do, and often beat all charges.
The problem is the law is vague and causes conflict between citizens and law enforcement. Cops often lie and don't know simple laws like trespass, 1'st, 2'nd, 4'th and 5'th amendments, etc.
Sir, I am sorry but, in your video at 5:32 you said police can not ask you to get out of your car simply because they pulled you over. That is incorrect. US Supreme Court decided in Pennsylvania v. Mimms that the police could tell drivers to exit their vehicles as long as it happened during a reasonable traffic stop. This is for protection of officers and it does nothing more than cause a minor inconvenience for the violator or passengers. (Maryland v. Wilson applies to passengers being ordered to exit the vehicles as well.) Probable cause and reasonable suspicion have absolutely nothing to do with having occupants exit a car.
Roswell police were advised that a vehicle not belonging to anyone in the neighborhood had been parked in front of a house for thirty minutes. It was late at night, 11:30 p.m., when an officer observed two males in the vehicle. Because of recent burglaries, he asked both people for ID. The driver was cooperative. The passenger gave his name and address but refused to give the officer his ID. He was charged with obstructing. State v. Hudson (2007). Was the officer correct arresting the passenger for obstructing? (no) The officer had a generalized suspicion about the situation. But he didn’t have an individualized reasonable suspicion that Defendant was committing or had committed a crime. The two subjects were sitting in a car, legally parked, and not involved in any criminal activity. In a situation like this, where the individual refuses to provide identification, and no individualized reasonable suspicion exists, that’s the end of the story. We cannot charge concealing ID or obstructing an officer. Conviction reversed.
Finbar Martin:
Well done.
What's stopping the officer from making up a story that ultimately results in officers word verses the passenger's word?? Doesn't the officer get out of falsifying arrests with made up bullshit and because of a sworn oath will 95% of the time be believed by judges and prosecutors???
That is why most agencies are niw requiring their officers to wear body worn cameras. Dependent on the state as long as you provide an officer with your true name, date of birth and address and DO NOT falsify it in any manner you should not have to be require to show your ID. Now this point is a bit moot for most states in which a person is operating a vehicle in which most states require you to display your driver's license to the officer per the state's transportation code. Dependent on state, passengers of vehicles may refuse to ID or display their ID, but they are still considered detained for that traffic stop. As long as the passenger does not give any false information about who they are during the detention they are fine.
@@cmash transportation codes are all commercial codes, means only applicable to commercial drivers, being paid to drive in commerce.
@@bornfree3124 Found the sovereign citizen. You're wrong bro.
Love the help and advice. I can’t agree with the no music part though. I’ve built some great mental fortitude and not gonna lie, music helped A LOT.
This just happened to me a few days ago. We were pulled over for speeding, supposedly 79 in a 70. Then cop claims that our out of state tags were covered illegally, which is not true. He claimed you couldn’t see the issuing state. 😒 Had the driver get out, asked us both a series of questions about our relation to each other, where we’re coming from, going, etc. Then he told the person driving (my vehicle) that he was going to bring the dog around the car. She said OK, without my knowledge. He claimed the dog hit on marijuana which is legal in my state. But there was no marijuana, no drugs, no reason the car would have smelled like it. He asked me if any illegal drugs, weapons, large amounts of money. Nope. They searched my vehicle and found nothing. They actually disconnected my dash cam AND took my memory card from it. Calling tomorrow to discuss with a supervisor bc I know they cannot tell us that we can’t record them, and to disconnect it is one thing, but to take my memory card and not say a damn thing about it? You know damn well you lied through your teeth on several things and didn’t want us to have proof of that. Smh
Did anything ever come of this?
@@doofsdoofs no, I never got around to making contact with the supervisor. Wish I had, but the time difference and my busy schedule didn’t allow for it. Tried to submit something online, but it wouldn’t submit, so I gave up.
Start a fire. If everyone did the same, these clowns may back down. I'm filing an official complaint today, through a city police agency, an affidavit that claims the officer used tort against my consent and will to gather what he needed to issue A STOP SIGN VIOLATION. WTF. LOL. I ride private, no plates, no anything. I told him I was not commercial and not for hire. Immediately. Then invoked my right to remain silent. Through this, his only option would be to use a tactic to get me to subdue. TORT
I had gotten pulled over this day last week on my way to work.The cop claimed I had cut someone off, which didn’t happen. I have front and Rear dash cam footage. He pulled me out of the car and searched everything I had all because I had a small 3inch knife sticking out my pocket. He didn’t even ask for registration or insurance. Yes I had a Gun in the back seat which was not visible. It was concealed in a backpack. Now I have a court date and it all started because the cop accused me of cutting someone off. LAWSUIT INBOUND SJPD.
@@Otis-Tank I don't understand "You ride private," what does that mean?
On a traffic stop if you don't give consent to a search the cop will just call a k-9 and then 1 the dog will either false alert are 2 the Handler will Q the dog to alert are 3 the Handler will just straight up lie about the dog hitting if a cop wants to search he is going to search it doesn't matter what the reason for stopping you is it could be the smallest thing
This is why we have so many lawyers in this country because we can't write laws or police procedures in a common sense manner that are easily understandable and not so open to interpretation. The fact that an officer can just claim he smells an illegal substance on your breath or in the car allowing him/her to violate your 4th Amendment rights is clearly a loophole that needs to be plugged, especially since the courts have determined that police have the legal ability to lie to you. There are dozens of TH-cam videos showing cops using the "I smell..." claim as retaliation against people who are attempting to exercise their rights.
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY !!! They lie to get you out of your car to be able to harrass,intimidate ,hurt or yes it has happened ,kill you !!!!!! If you know you haven't drank alcohol ,used drugs ,I would remain in the SAFETY of my car !!! If I err it will be on the side of my SAFETY not the cops !!!! Too many rogue cops out there to trust them !!!!! DOORS LOCKED ,WINDOWS UP !!!! A simple road stop , all transactions can be done through the window !!! Right !!! I'm not placing myself in harm's way if I might encounter a rogue cop !!!! If you know your innocent of any alcohol or drug use ,let them bust your window to forcibly extract you and somebody will lose his job with you getting a settlement !!! Use a little common sense here !!!!
Larry Lamb if an officer has lawfully pulled you over they can order you out of the vehicle and you do have to comply with that. It’s not a request, you have to. See Pennsylvania vs. Mimms SCOTUS ruling. You & the passenger even, have to get out if ordered out during a lawful traffic stop.
@@larrylamb3480 if you know your innocent...get out
@@jwhome9319that's not the point
I recently was pulled over by police... I politely asked why I was pulled over.. and the officer said that I did not look 85 years of age as the car was borrowed and I am under his insurance as a Driver , wtf, just happened to drive his car to store as my car was in shop getting new tires mounted..
Great job! I'm showing this to my high school class.
Have you done a detained vs arrested video yet? Thanks
I told the last cop that asked to search me ‘nah man, I ain’t got no Dunkin Donut gift cards’
So you're telling me that if I'm sitting in my car on a public roadway and an officer approaches me and wants to see ID.. He can and he says reasonable suspicion is because it's a high crime area.. You're saying he has the right to detain me legally and that qualifies as reasonable suspicion? I disagree..
He’s not saying that… your example will allow you to not engage or engage with the officer. If you tell the officer you didn’t want to communicate with him, it’s perfectly legal. Also, if you provide your Id to confirm who you are that’s fine too. However, if he vets your id for outstanding warrants, then that’s an investigatory stop, which requires reasonable suspicion based on the totality of facts and circumstances.
If the pats you down, such action also requires reasonable suspicion that you’re armed with a weapon based on the totality of facts and circumstances.
What if the officer thinks a vehicle that's in a high crime area, or on the same street as a known drug house? Does that qualify as long as they tie the reason for being pulled over to a traffic violation. Its common for them to make up, or find any reason to pull the person over. Such as window tint, loud exhaust, tire being on the line at stop sign, etc. Would the prosecuting attorney have to prove the reason for the stop was justified in order for any evidence to be used against the defendant?
@@mateobaysa2055 And In my state Alabama The cop Can pat you down but can not manipulate anything in your pockets, My father is a retired Traffic Sgt and he told me that. but he also said that Profiling is Ilegal but He couldn`t do his job if he wasnt profiling, which means There just twisting words up and not saying the Word Profiling and I think thats the Biggest POS thing Cops do dailey, its like saying Humans Shouldn`t judge people and its wrong but Everyone does it because your stupid if you don`t do it. Just Don`t voice your suspisions or what you think and its all good I guess?
correct me if i’m wrong, but i’m not a lawyer and work in landscaping . He did a great job explaining. I’m not that smart, but I think if you are just stopped in the middle of the road for no apparent reason stopping traffic lol the police can legally detain you and probably issue you a ticket, however, at that point it’s only civil and no crime has been committed and he is not suppose to order you out of the vehicle and check you for weapons drugs etc . Just based on what you saying . I think that’s what the lawyer is trying to say . I think i’m right ??
Reasonable suspicion is not enough to for a mandatory I.d. correct ? meaning they cannot articulate any law I've broken so no I'D.. suspicion, acting weird, acting goofy, acting unusual, anti social, acting different is NOT against the law.
The Police may ask you for id in an attempt to allay their reasonable suspicion, and about half the States have passed State Statutes that mirror the Terry Decision that require you to produce id or id yourself. The Terry Decision basically says if the Police reasonably suspect that you have committed, are committing OR ARE ABOUT TO COMMIT a crime they may stop you (detain) and ask you who you are and a reasonable explanation of your conduct. Further if the Officer reasonably suspects you are armed he may perform a limited frisk for weapons not drugs. However if the Officer detects something that is discernible as contraband he can seize it and charge you with it. Next the Officer does not have to articulate a specific crime only that your conduct when taken in totality of the circumstances would make a reasonable person (ruled to be the Police Officers) judgement believe that you may be engaged in criminal conduct.
The reasoning these State actors / revenue collectors ask or demand for a ID. is to try to find a pattern of criminal activity so they can base their investigation around that particular situation. and when they run you private information for warrants. is when they revenue collector comes into play. because you you are worth money to the system that you have to pay a ransom fee to be free.
@@baseballlife5884 Sorry but your period is definitely the wrong punctuation mark. You are a clueless idiot..PERIOD. However the majority of States do have a stop and id Statute, where refusing to provide one's identity is a separate crime. In addition another batch of states, although there is no Stop and Identify Statute, you can be charged with an obstruction type charge for refusing to do so. As far as Texas, you are correct, however the Texas law was an oversight in an attempt to fix a bad law that was ruled unconstitutional. Texas also has a law that you can be arrested based upon reasonable suspicion (a much lower standard than the usual probable cause) of criminal activity in certain circumstances. So that throws it right back that in that situation you can be arrested for what you normally only can be detained for, based upon only reasonable suspicion. So rather than detain you, the Texas cop arrests you and now you are required to id yourself. Do some research outside of what you think you know from TH-cam before you remove all doubt of your stupidity.
Good advice there !! Is there any video on what to do when cop come to you in a private parking with no reason like Walmart ...
Police powers only can be used if there's a crime being committed or has been committed when on private property, from what I've learned.
Question I have a jeep that bought and been working on apparently it didn't have a license plate and it has a busted ignition key ....but it's registration is still good .....would the busted ignition key be a properble couse
I do not get the last part that we are the one giving them probable cause by doing the test and we do not have to. Can you clarify . Can we deny the test without legal consequence?
Yes
He was speaking in the sense of someone who was impaired
@thefeldmanlaw does a "call" cops said, constitute probable cause?
Since police have no duty to articulate to a "suspect" any reasonable suspicion (or probable cause), in public or while driving, typically it would be best to identify yourself and then quietly ask: "I am being detained? ... Am I free to go?" Try hard to stay quiet and calm. In your own mind remember that you have no duty to explain yourself or speak further. Doing so tends to cause problems, only for you! (Maybe ask for names and badge numbers.)
what if the person has tented windows on vehicle . the driver very slightly roll window just enough to give offficer drivers license . is person required to roll down window?
One more question, If police are trained to lie to you, and are in fact allowed to lie. Are you allowed to lie to them as well
NO, we the people are not allowed to lie to the police, you can and most likely will be charged for lying to them, they can lie to us, which makes me not trust any police, they lie on police reports all the time and when they are on the stand and asked about a lie or wrong information on their report they say "oh that was a mistake", i seen them do this, it should qualify for perjury.
My family member hired an attorney. Then the attorney charged her account for a 10 min phone 📞 call 😩 that was crazy 😂 the 4,000.00 retainer ran out pretty quick . Can you imagine having just 5 cases . you could probably retire in a few years being an attorney .
When someone is on foot walking 🚶♂️can an officer arrest you on disorderly conduct or obstruction of justice for not answering their questions or for not wanting to provide ID?
depends on your state but if your state requires you to provide ID when a police officer either detains your or arrests you then yes you can be arrest you for that. But it wouldnt be disorderly conduct.
Legally constitutionally no. You are protected under the 5th amendment remain silent and not incriminate yourself, and your ID/license is your papers protected under the 4th amendment warrant clause.
Claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
Miller V. US 230 F. 2d. 486,489.
Sue them personally and officially in a federal court under 42 1983,1985 for violating your 4th,5th,14th section 1 constitutionally protected rights(liberties, privileges, immunities) and bring criminal charges against them in the court in violation of title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection 5, title 18 U.S.C. section 1918.
I pass a Parks and Recs police on a dead end road, I have had more than my share of being pulled over and I always knew why, My observation of this officer is he didn't turn around for at least a 1/2 mile concidering where we passed and how far it was to the lake and last parking lot. As I was parking, My friend observed the police had turned around and are now parked, this is around 800 yards away. He doesn't pull me over, and I stop here regular with My dogs. So I'm out of my truck with my dogs when he's ready to talk. I think he beyond taking his time to turn around
Guess it depends on your state....but the US Supreme court says an officer can order a driver out of the car or to stay in the car at his discretion without "articulable" reason.
Nobody should be listening to J Whome. Remember what Benjamin Franklin says we have a Republic if we can keep it. People need to go to the law library (every court has a law library)and pray and study instead of listening to this fool. J Whome tries to act like he knows what the United States Constitution was based on, and he says not the Holy Bible, and he knows the law. Remember If Congress or your state legislative (public servants) made the laws over the people of United States of America you would not need the constitution. J Whome says the Constitution does not come from the bible but these men do not agree with him.The first and almost the only book deserving of universal attention is the Bible. I speak as a man of the world…and I say to you, “Search the Scriptures.””- John Quincy Adams, Sixth President
“That Book, sir, is the Rock on which our Republic rests.” - Andrew Jackson, Seventh President
“In regard for this Great Book, I have this to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book.” - Abraham Lincoln, Sixteenth President
“Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties, write its precepts in your hearts, and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book are we indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in the future. Righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people.” - Ulysses S. Grant, Eighteenth President
“If you take out of your statutes, your constitution, your family life all that is taken from the Sacred Book, what would there be left to bind society together?” - Benjamin Harrison, Twenty third President
“The Bible is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God, and spiritual nature and needs of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation. America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.” - Woodrow Wilson, Twenty eighth President
“The strength of our country is the strength of its religious convictions. The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.” - Calvin Coolidge, Thirtieth President
“We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.” - Franklin Roosevelt, Thirty second President
“The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul…. If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State!” - Harry Truman, Thirty third President
“Inside the Bible’s pages lie all the answers to all of the problems man has ever known… It is my firm belief that the enduring values presented in its pages have a great meaning for each of us and for our nation. The Bible can touch our hearts, order our minds, and refresh our souls.” - Ronald Reagan, Fortieth President. THIS IS NOT THE QURAN THEY ARE QUOTING.
@@davidlaw770 ....and the Constitution does not quote anything from the Bible.
@@jwhome9319 How would you know you don't know anything about the Holy Scriptures or the history of this country and the influence of the Holy Bible.I told you JWhome just because you do not believe do not mean is not true. Go study and pray because i am not given you no Information. Like this stupid doctrine you have adapted because you follow the men that work for the government, you think public servants can tell you what to do so please you know nothing only what the people that work the government wants you to know, you J Whome are a slave to the public servants.
Matthew 10:14
King James Version
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
@@jwhome9319 This free one INFLUENCE Authority, credit, ascendance. black laws Dictionary
@@davidlaw770 I know lots. and the bible is not part of the US Constitution...by design and on purpose
How about when you don't want to answer quesions and they say that gives them RAS?
Can reasonable suspicion be registration pass due by few days or police computer not finding your drivers license and police strongly says you have no drivers license when you do but it's not with you and you give him state ID
This article examines the Supreme Court's decision in Mimms v. Pennsylvania, which allows officers to order the driver from a lawfully stopped vehicle; examines the Supreme Court's extension of this authority to passengers within the vehicle, decided in Maryland v.
My question starts with a hypothetical situation in which I have a medical marijuana card. Let’s say I ingested thc and then maybe 10 hours later I drive a car. If I get pulled over for speeding and I don’t have any trace of marijuana in or around my car, is that probable cause for a dui arrest? This is also considering I could possibly have 2 marijuana DUIs on my record.
Hello. In my case, they found no probable cause, yet, they asked me to " sign a Stipulation of Probable cause." Can a judge do that ?
Let me guess you signed it😂🤣😂
Never sign anything saying you are giving up your rights.
And if you do sign anything always sign U.C.C. 1-308 all rights reserved with prejudice right behind your signature.
I had a few drinks 🍺. Ok more than a few. I got stopped. The officer told me to get out of car to do test I told him no he arrested me for dui even if i didn’t do the test ???? wtf
Isn't it reasonable suspicion "that a crime may have been, is, or is about to be committed"? How does a civil or traffic infraction allow an officer to demand identification. Especially in non stop and identify states?
I turned off his video right when he said that.
Excellent video, does anyone know what direction I need to rereach when a officer or county clerk can run my name for warrants. When you get your car inspected they ask for your Driver's license then go do a National Database Search for warrants. I'm only at the sheriff's office for a VIN verification.
Uhhh...don't do that if you have warrants?
@@adamchristensen8566 don't do what? And I don't have any warrants. But why are they checking me for warrants, for a car vin inspection?
@@raworthyel3786 they just do it to find an easy arrest
Or he claims he smells alcohol when you have never consumed alcohol in your entire life. True story.
They will lie. Has happen to many.
When the lawyer says “reasonable suspicion is where the cop says hold on I’m gonna check you for drugs” ... does this guy not know search a seizure? You can’t just stop and check for drugs on reasonable suspicion. You can check for WEAPONS, IF you also have reasonable,e suspicion that a subject is armed with a weapon, gun, knife, etc. AND IF you feel an object that is consistent with contraband that is felt without further manipulation, it could be seized as well.
for a lawyer this is just sloppy bad information for someone that doesn’t know more... can we get a BAR check? What’s this guy specialize in elder law and not know criminal law?
NO INFORMATION.... means that the officer doesn't know anything about the location of evidence linked to a crime or the person who committed the crime.
HUNCH..... means that the officer has a gut feeling that something is not right, but the officer cannot point to any specific facts; it is something like intuition.
MERE SUSPICION.... means that the officer knows a minor fact, or has some larger fact that came from an unknown or unreliable source that suggests that evidence may be located somewhere or someone has committed a crime.
REASONABLE SUSPICION... means that the officer knows several minor facts, a large fact, or a large fact from a source of unknown reliability that points to a particular person engaging in some criminal activity.
PROBABLE CAUSE... means that an officer has enough evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has or is about to engage in criminal activity or that the items searched for are connected with criminal activity and will be found in the place to be searched.
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE... is the amount of evidence needed to be successful when suing in a civil case.
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT... is the highest amount of proof and is required to convict a person of a criminal charge.
www.nmlea.dps.state.nm.us/legal/documents/Laws_of_Arrest-Part_I.pdf
Finbar Martin, that's a very good list of difference, I must jot them down, very meaningful.
Finbar you just broke it all the way down and had me laughing all the way through it too although it's not funny at all.
But good job on your post.
All examples are vague, ambiguous and open for interpretation. Of course coming from a lawyer about DUI its a shocker...smh
One who is not a cop could never it all out, yet and attorney will post scare tactics as a hopeful retainer fee...ur not a cop, do what the cop says, then co.p.plain later if need be
Great video thank you very much.
You said in regard to a traffic stop and you are automatically detained in every traffic stop.
Yes, the detainment starts when your vehicle stops.
For being an attorney he explains reasonable suspicion very poorly
This guy is a tool who made numerous mistakes.
I file formal criminal charges statue or articles for the abuse of power and official misconduct
I totally agree tell him shut up how do I keep the cop away from my care
I understood it perfectly but maybe bc I'm in law school I actually thought he explained it better than my law professor!
I would just file a motion remove qualified immunity for the purpose of prosecution file formal charges or continue with failure to prosecute take your fucking pick idoot
Pennsylvania v. Mims states that you can pull someone out of the car for traffic stop regardless of it do you have probable cause if it is for your safety. This is because the safety of the officers is greater than the slight inconvenience of having somebody step out of their car during the traffic.
Can a cop legally lie about a drug charge. For an excuse to search?
@@rebeccacostello86what do you mean? Lie about RAS to search a vehicle? If youre worried about this, record your interaction. Its hard to disprove something like odor in court so a cop could say they smell such and such and it would be difficult to disprove. Yes, a cop lying about RAS is a violation of the 4th amendment.
You mentioned in your video to comply with police for ( traffic) asking for you to step out of car.. even though you haven't broken any law.. and what if you have lowsy balance (vertigo)...
Explain that to them, have a medical card describing your condition, and try and be calm and polite as possible when explaining.
@ The Feldman Law Firm. What about my situation that happened the other day. I literally left my house in the country, peaceful neighborhood, not known for crime. Within one minute of walking from my house to my uncles house, I was walking on the right side of the road, I have no criminal record, wasn’t opening carrying any weapons, I was pulled over by a police officer and started be questioned what I was doing and he even ran my license but lucky my grandma drove by and started asking what was wrong and he let me go. I think this was wrong personally based off watching your video.
you would have no way to know what the cop knew when he stopped you.
I was pulled over for braking to hard. Going to slow but the light was red.
What ever happened to the right not to self-incriminate. ??
nothing. you dont have to say anything. but if you say nothing...there is nothing on your side the cops will consider
You can incriminate yourself if you want. You have the right
We need more videos like this. Thank you to all the professionals of law who help citizens like us understand
I was pulled over for a routine traffic stop I had legal license legal insurance I asked the car was I being detained the cop told me no and then proceeded to search the glove block cuz he said I had a record for this after all that being done answers to call for 35 minutes unlock the glove box and found a controlled substance I didn't waive the preliminary hearing I'm in the state of Mississippi how long does it take for preliminary hearing from my understanding 21 days is all that they have if nothing doesn't happen in the 21 days does the case get dismissed so do I still go to a probable cause hearing
The police can not search your vehicle unless you gave permission or unless they have probable cause. A prior arrest/conviction can not be used for probable cause to search your car now. Was this misdemeanor or felony ?? If felony definitely get a lawyer even though you should for the misdemeanor also.
I have an experiment... now police officers have right too...so this would have to be done under a terms of employment exemption...Give 1000 K9 cops randomly and without warning a lie detector test and simply ask them two questions.1)Do you have a secret signal for your dog so that he will indicate on a car that there are drugs? 2)Have you ever used it to illegally search a car? If we are honest it is likely that the result would be a horrible failing grade on top of the dogs themselves already getting a failing grade. I am aghast that after testing was done showing your average K9 police dog is only about 52% accurate, that the supreme court said 52% was good enough. 52% was a failing grade on every test I have ever heard of.
The supreme court has ruled that location alone (high crime, high drug area) or suspicious person + high crime/drug area is not enough on its own to warrant probable cause. The officer must have something with the location like someone called and reported you or pull over for speeding.
There is also a difference between a consentual conversation and making a investigatory stop. During a consentual conversation the officer can not frisk you even to make sure you don't have any weapons on your persons. During a consentual conversation you don't even have to acknowledge the officer or say 1 word to them. If the officer elevates the encounter to ivestagatory stop. Usally starts out as a suspicion person but doesn't have enough for reasonable suspicion or probable cause the officer can perform a terry stop. The officer can frisk you but only looking for weapons for "officer and your safety" but this frisk does not give the officer permission to enter your pockets.
Officer safety is the cowardly way of policing considering they are most often better armed & protected by body armor. It is a violation of our rights regardless what the Supreme Court says about it. They got this one wrong in Terry v. Ohio.
A phone call is never probable cause
Second amendment,14th amendment section 1, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 therefore the terry stop/frisk is unconstitutional therefore unlawful illegal.
If they say they smell alcohol which can be made up can they lawfully demand you get out of the car?
Yes
So if a game warden just decides to do a safety check is lawful? Despite the open sea rule is kind of a grey area. They say they need to check your safety equipment and and check your registration. The tags are on the boat and you haven’t broken a law yet they stop and search uou. Basically because your on the water they say it’s enough to detain you and search you.
No legal lawful search warrant then it's unlawful illegal, game wardens/park rangers are state and federal officials therefore they are bound under the warrant clause.
I was pulled over last night because I turned off the road just after passing a cop to turn around. I had just pulled out my friends driveway an realized I left my phone so I was turning around to go get it. So he pulled me over then said my eyes were glossy an I was slurring my speech an made me get out and do a field sobriety. I passed but is that legal?
Possible RAS on the stop and RAS on the sfst. You can make a complaint but not enough info here to determine if illegal
liked the way you explained!
I believe, tho I may be misinformed, that there seems to be a missing KEY element .. "OF A CRIME that has, is, or may be about to happen" with the operative word 'CRIME' being necessary in the application of the legal concepts 'probable cause' and 'reasonable suspicion' when it comes to Officers legally acting towards someone?
We can all be 'suspicious' and we all can have 'reasonable suspicion' BUT of a crime demands articulable FACTS?
Or have I misunderstood that basic idea? Many thanks
I would simply say ALWAYS that I do not answer questions...EVER
Criminals cases always remain silent and ask for an attorney. Simple traffic ticket the more cooperative you are the more likely they're might just give you a verbal ⚠️ or write you a warning ticket. If you don't cooperate with them you're more than likely guaranteed a citation.
@@douglasshortridge4343 Agree. Traffic stops are different, as you are already ID'd.
Probable cause will eventually lead to an uprising.
hmmm. so you support cops using NO cause instead? whats your standard? Some cause? A little Cause? No Cause? something between No cause and Some cause?
@@jwhome9319 he is a cop hater. They always make comments like that.
Thank you
What if your detained in handcuffs? And they don’t even tell you why they’re handcuffing you or why they’re detaining you I was in a swat raid a guy that had a complaint warrant and probably cause I happen to be walking to buy purse when they made entry I thought it was two gunshots and I thought the guy was being robbed. I hid behind a bedroom door because I thought there was an active shooter in the house and it turned out to be police. The guy that I was buying a purse off of had a complaint warrant, and probably cause, they searched me two times they put me in handcuffs, entertain me for three hours and later found out it was flashbacks not gunshots. It was an awful experience to be in a no knock warrant. The cops treated me like a criminal and I have no criminal history at all never been arrested before my life and I’m 52 years old. This was extremely devastating on my mind because when the cops went behind the door, they wrapped it took AK-47s on my eye and face, and the cop got stunned, and he held the gun there for a little bit on my eye and then said hands up on me and cut handcuffs. They never told me anything that they were cops or nothing. They did find drugs in the house meth and I had nothing to do with it. I didn’t even know the guy had drugs in the house cause I had just met him to buy a purse. He was selling online.
In other words police can lie.
Duh
Yes and No- They can lie to a suspect in order to obtain a confession or to conduct a sting operation. However, the police CANNOT lie in a sworn affidavit or in court- because police are not exempt from perjury. However, most of them tend not to do this because they know their work will be critiqued by the defense- This is where the private investigator comes in.
Lawrence F.: Who snitched me off copper? Cop: I cannot tell a lie...it was your wife. But, she can write you in prison and you can kiss and make up.
Crazy Neighbor: Ok copper, who snitched me off? Cop: I cannot lie...it was your neighbor Lawrence F. Do you have any guns in the house?
@@jwhome9319 Very weird guy.
@@newmexicoballer3867 Cops cant lie eh?
I have a question, when a cop stops my buddy and me. He is driving, i am the passenger. I refused to show my Id. Am i wrong to refuse?
Big Dog NO!! A traffic stop has nothing to do with passenger. unless the officer has a reason to believe the passenger is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime there is no reason to speak to passenger..
This guy below you is wrong in varies depending on the state u live in. In some states everyone in the car is required to give ID
Reasonable suspicion all they have to do is lie they don't need anything all they have to do is just make something up and it becomes your word against theirs and obviously they have the power
Start filming all interactions with them.
I was gonna say thats why you record everything.
or know their job and apply it....even when you dont agree with it.
Legally under the supreme law of the land the constitution no law enforcement officials should be arresting (seizing)any American citizen without a legal lawful search warrant,and no citizen should be seeing the inside of any jail or prison unless they have been found guilty by a public trial by a judge and jury first.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms It is reasonable for an officer to ask a person to get out of a car after being detained for safety reasons. A search is also justified if the officer sees a bulge that could potentially be a weapon. yes, a cop can ask you to get out of the car while being detained.
!!!Why do you have a picture that is placed on the wall at an odd angle?
01:38 Now, at this level of reasonable suspicion, that's really what allows the officer to start
saying, you know, I wanna frisk you, I want to check you for drugs, something to that effect.
!!!Frisking (limited for weapons) and searching for drugs require TWO DIFFERENT levels of suspicion.
Just because some has been stopped, doesn't mean they can be Frisked, and it CERTAINLY
doesn't mean you can be searched for drugs.
!!!Frisking REQUIRES separate RAS that the person may be "armed and dangerous"
02:28 And when that stop takes place, they then have the ability to arguably frisk you,
check for drugs, check for firearms, what have you.
3:55 So, reasonable suspicion is articulable facts that allow this officer to really just stop
you, quote unquote "detain you", ask you some questions, frisk you even, check for drugs, weapons,
or any criminal contraband.
04:39 now we're really invoking the fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
We are all free from search and from seizure, to be secure in our person or houses, papers,
effects, are all those things associated with the fourth Amendment, and we have that freedom.
!!!Your prior statements have already thrown the fourth Amendment out of the window. If cops
can "check you for drugs" or "any criminal contraband" then YOU HAVE NO 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
05:33 They can't ask you to get out of the car simply because they pulled you over.
A lot has changed since you made this video, THEY CAN AND DO ask you to step out of the car.
06:16 Asks you some questions, you're now talking and he can smell the alcohol on your breath,
he can see that your face is a little flushed, or he can tell that your words sound a little slow
or slurred.
!!!NOPE. I don't have to talk. Only say, "I don't answer questions". I don't have to look at cop.
(I don't drive with alcohol in my system, but 'not talking' is always a good thing.)
06:48 He's got that reasonable suspicion that you might be committing a DUI.
06:52 You get out of the car and he starts doing these tests, the eye test, you know where
he's got that pen [flashlight] and you're supposed to follow it with your eyes.
!!!NOPE, DECLINE to do FST.
What if the officer thinks a vehicle that's in a high crime area, or on the same street as a known drug house? Does that qualify as long as they tie the reason for being pulled over to a traffic violation. Its common for them to make up, or find any reason to pull the person over. Such as window tint, loud exhaust, tire being on the line at stop sign, etc. Would the prosecuting attorney have to prove the reason for the stop was justified in order for any evidence to be used against the defendant?
In some states its harder for the defendant to request body cam evidence because their local records office deny it under federal law rule 16 (a)(2). How would the defense prepare without this crucial piece of evidence? What options are available if both the dashcam and bodyworn camera footage is denied to the defendant for use in preparing their case?
So, here's my question; frisking someone would be a type of search, right? And the 4th Amendment says that we should be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, so then frisking someone upon 'reasonable suspicion' would, in fact, be a violation of the 4th Amendment.
You said they can't pull you out of your car without reasonable suspicion, but..
Pennsylvania v. Mimms
Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Reasonable suspicion seems to be enough to arrest someone on mental health grounds (no crime required, maybe just a phone call) Note the few rights to a lawyer in "civil" cases like this. Plus hospital costs accrue.
What if I have someone attempting to say I am crazy so they can ignore my physical health
I live in California as far as I know you have the right to refuse any eye test of sobriety you might be taking to jail but without the charge of the dui please let me know if I'm wrong.. I appreciate your professionalism
You can refuse a field sobriety or even a breath test. However you may still be arrested for dui and in this case you exercising your rights may be entered against you. Also dmv will suspend your license whether you are found guilty or not.
@Richard Richard In these instances your refusal may be introduced as evidence against you.
I tried that one,slightly rolled my window down, handed out my license and put my hands on the wheel,the police broke my window and pulled me out of the vehicle.
Sue him personally and officially in a federal court under 42 1983,1985, and press charges against them in the court under title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection 5, title 18 U.S.C. section 1918,And kidnapping.
@@dragonf1092 I was dragged out of the car and arrested after consuming 3 beers in a 2 hour period and charged with drunk driving,there was no blood or breath test performed,they put me down as a refusal even though they never offered me a test of either kind.
@@eastside0434 then they had no legal evidence therefore no legal case. They had no legal warrant to search or seize your person,or effects (personal property) therefore unlawful search and kidnapping.
@@eastside0434 did you demand your 5th amendment right to a trial by jury? They had no physical evidence proving you guilty only hearsay.
@@eastside0434 then they violated your 4th amendment right because they had no legal lawful warrant, they violated your 5th amendment rights to remain silent and not incriminate yourself, and you're 5th amendment right to a immediate public trial by jury. And your 10th,14th section 1 amendment rights to travel, and be free from government intrusion.
I got arrested for DUI. I was drinking not drunk and I kinda went over the line a few times according to police I refused to speak to him and refused the exercise and only gave him my drivers license. HE TOOK ME TO JAIL ANYWAY . He didn’t have probable cause to me he only had reasonable suspicion I didn’t speak 🗣️ to him. I rolled down window and he said he smelled alcohol. He arrested me illegally.
So what happened in court?
@@myothercarisadelorean8957 probation
@@myothercarisadelorean8957I got probation
does reasonable suspicion give them the power to see your ID?
Fourth amendment warrant clause (PAPERS), your ID, license, insurance, registration are your papers protected under the warrant clause.
Ok. Soooo please answer. When a cop stops you either on a stop and talk or shows up because of a “call” is suspicious enough to force an id cookie? (They constantly are asking for it like it’s a treat.) A traffic stop is a whole Nother animal. Your driving, when you get your id your required to provide id for the traffic stop. Suspicious isn’t a crime.
Can a cop put a person in handcuffs during a Terry stop or just suspicion, not reasonable suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion can lead to pat down for weapons only, not for contraband. Also, an officer can ask someone to step out of their vehicle for literally every single traffic stop. (Pennsylvania V. Mimms)
@BULL SCHEIST if the evidence is immediately apparent to the officer when he pats it. He is not allowed to manipulate (continue to feel, turn over, and touch.) However most officers will just wait until they have probable cause to arrest and then they can do a full search any way. Also, if the person is only being detained and the officer asks, "you don't have anything on you that will prick me like needles?" (which they are allowed to ask for officer safety) and the suspect says "no but I have a crack pipe in my pocket" then the suspect has voluntarily given the officer probable cause to arrest.
@BULL SCHEIST also keep in mind that reasonable suspicion can and very often does lead to probable cause and the suspect can then be arrested and full searched anyway. So just because an officer detains you and Terry pats you for weapons, doesn't mean you are guaranteed not to be fully searched. A lot of people, when they are only detained, will tell the officer what they have in their pockets when they don't have to. Which gets them arrested. Lol
@BULL SCHEIST and to be clear, a pat down is not going into pockets unless the officer pats something he believes is a weapon. So if he pats a crack pipe, honestly thinks it's a knife, and goes into the pocket to get it, pulls out the pipe... yes that is admissable. As long as the officer can articulate why he thought it was a knife.
@BULL SCHEIST if cops have a warrant to search a house for particular things, it gives them lawful reason to be in that house. So if they find something that isn't on the warrant, they can still use it because it falls under the plain view doctrine, which an exception to the 4th amendments warrant requirement. Now if they're looking for, say, a murder weapon but they find drugs, then hey find more drugs, there is a good chance they are going to keep finding drugs and they should probably stop searching the house and add drugs to the search warrant. Also, no, cops cannot just say officer safety and pat someone down. That is the underlying reason for the pat down, bu they have to have reasonable suspicion that a suspect just committed or is about to commit a crime AND is armed and dangerous. Now, a lot of cops pat down people they shouldn't legally pat down, and a lot of the evidence from these pat downs gets tossed. But you have to understand, cops operate Ina completely different environment than regular people. Most cops don't give a shit about personal drug use. They just want to be absolutely sure that the person they're talking to isn't about to try to kill them. I think it is very wrong for people to make light of the phrase officer safety. Cops are people. And like most people, they want to go to work, do the right thing, and go home in one piece to their families. Yes there are bad cops, just like there are bad politicians, doctors, lawyers, and mechanics. If you were a cop, would you risk your life, your friends lives, innocent people lives, and the life of the suspect, just because there's a chance that thing you just felt might NOT have been a weapon? Are you going to leave it there because you might be able to get this guy on a drug charge? Fuck no. Besides 9/10 times the suspect will just voluntarily tell you what he has, whether it's a drug or weapon, because they know they are about to be arrested anyway. You seem like a smart guy so don't take me the wrong way. I value privacy too. But go on a ride along, a lot of departments offer them. You will see that most cops just want to keep everyone, including the suspect, safe.
@BULL SCHEIST no problem, happy to help. Maybe I will start a channel once I graduate from my academy. I love this stuff and I love answering questions. Cheers.
Looking suspicious is not reasonable suspision for a search in and of its self.. According to this guy you could be searched for anything, he could be a cop with this advice.. Supreme court has already ruled on this..
In the State of Illinois the cops can pull you out of a car for no reason if they tell you to get out of the car you have to get out of the car
I'm not sure that applies if you haven't committed a crime. I also live in Illinois but the research I've done is that our constitutional rights have been and are continuing to be violated. This guy works for the cops, and if not them the court systems. If your being detained they must be able to tell you what crime you have committed.
Pennsylvania v mimms / case law that governs being removed from your vehicle
You have to read the whole thing. It was not a legal seizure. A total violation of his 4th ammendment rights. The stop itself was fine and justified, but this officer violates every person 4th ammendment rights that he pulls over. I invoke and refuse to waive my 1st, 4th, and 5th ammendment rights. It's a shame how easily the sheep bow down to LEO's.
@@drdrum1000 ...violates every person 4th amendment rights - in your opinion. The Supreme Court places "officer safety" above your rights, so any cop can order you out of your vehicle "because they feel threatened or unsafe" because the USSC says they legally can.
@@somebodyelse6673 sounds like the police need a blankie and a pacifier. "Officer safety" is not heroism its cowardice. The thin blue line is "Stolen Valor". Police need to stay in their lane and quit violating rights in the name of their cowardice safety! Keep licking boots!!
I have a question about a residential search warrant that was served on my boyfriends property.
The police searched his house with a warrant that didn't have his name on it anywhere. However, the warrant did have his roommates name as the main subject and purpose for the warrant.
The police were successful in finding what they were looking for and promptly arrested my bfs roommate.
Unfortunately, a very small amount of drugs were subsequently found in my bfs bedroom, resulting in my bfs arrest. There was another female there with the roommate and she went to jail as well for possession.
My question is Can my bf ask his p.defender to file a motion for dismissal due to his name Not being on the search warrant???
The police were only there for the roommate and they seized his drugs and he's going to prison for a while now!!
I just wanted to know if the exclusionary rule would apply because that reasonable suspicion and probable cause defense seems like a pretty fine line. And bc the police initially thought the property/house belonged to the roommate. My bf wasn't even in the picture. The policemen thought that the house was roommates. Let me guess, no! Because of the Good Faith Doctrine??
Or inevitable discovery???
Why do they even have the exclusionary rule???
Is it there for a delusion of right to privacy and 4th amendment infringement???
Thanks in advance!!🎲✌💋
No...a persons name doesnt have to be on the warrant...just the place is sufficient. A name may be on the warrant which would give authority to search that person too. A warrant can be for a person, place or thing to be searched/seized. All three are not required.
Supreme court ruled, if police have a warrent and there are say 3 people renting the place . police can ONLY search what the name on warrent has access to , if your bf has a room at same address , they can NOT legally search his room do to he is paying and is his privet area separate from warrent, and attorney can motion to suppress any evidence ceased from his room .
It should apply the warrant only gave them permission to seize the roommate and his property (effects).
Something most Americans don't comprehend and realize all drug laws are unconstitutional therefore illegal null and void, Congress never made a amendment to the constitution of the united states of America outlawing drugs making them illegal so technically constitutionally they illegally kidnapped your boyfriend and roommate 🤣😂🤣😂
Use fruit of the poisonous tree as well, because the warrant was not for you and your boyfriend or your property therefore they violated you and your boyfriends constitutionally protected rights (liberties, privileges, immunities).
@@jwhome9319wrong the fourth amendment warrant clause explicitly states a warrant must have the name of the person who is to be searched and seized."and the persons to be seized"
I thought they could only frisk you on suspicion of firearms and not contraband
Minnesota vs Dickerson. If an officer does conduct a Terry frisk, and can articulate why something in your pocket is contraband, they can seize it without a warrant.
No and Yes. No the reasonable suspicion is armed with a weapon not necessarily a firearm. Yes the frisk can only be used to find the weapon however the courts have ruled that if anything felt is immediately discernible as contraband they can seize it and charge you with it. Also the Courts have ruled that if they detect a hard container such as a hard cigarette pack which could conceal a weapon it can be seized and looked into.
So if the frisk you and find nothing of weapons or drugs, can the police take your coat off by demand and throw it inside their police car with the doors shut and essentially seize your property even though your not convicted of anything?
That's a violation of your 4th,5th,and 14th amendment section 1, and article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 constitutionally protected rights (liberties, privileges, immunities) therefore illegal.
Guns are legal under the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.
Technically constitutionally all drugs are legally protected under the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land as well. Congress has never amended the constitution outlawing making drugs illegal.
High frequency radio explains how to file a commercial lien on public servants when they violate you, if more people started to lien them things would change.
Why does this guy keep saying you can use a frisk to search for drugs or contraband? From what I understand, a frisk is limited to looking for weapons only. What am I misunderstanding here?
Ur a super dude sir! My biggest problem, are my acquaintances in that moment. They just sheep things out with the popo.
The problem I have with this is that it is the government's burden to prove reasonable suspicion or probable cause, not the Defendants. Therefore the problem becomes how does an officer prove "I smelled X" before a neutral and detached magistrate, to even a minimal degree of certainty the officer is telling the truth? The mere fact a statement is sworn doesn't mean that statement isn't a bald face lie, as it has been demonstrated many a time that the police don't always tell the truth under oath or otherwise. This is where one must be cognizant of Franks v. Delaware.
but its real reliable when it turns out there was in fact X present.
@@jwhome9319 You miss the point of "probable cause". The law looks to whether probable cause existed to believe that fact X is present, regardless of whether or not fact X is actually present. Its rather about a reasonable and subjective belief which is then sworn out under penalty for perjury. The problem is that because we have no way to tell whether or not a person is lying about whether or not they smelled something (because smell is a subjective sense vs. an objective sense- One person might think marijuana smells like strawberries where another may not)- it becomes that it therefore shouldn't be trusted, because there is no way to prove the statement as to smell to be either true or false- where the government has the burden of proof to demonstrate probable cause in the affirmative- e.g. probable cause doctrine is to be construed in the favor of the Defendant wherever reasonably possible.
@@Harlem55 maybe...but when the substance smelled is found, gives lots of credibility...and a smell can linger (smoke, alcohol beverage) without the substance found in measurable quantity...but odor still present....and if nothing unlawful is found, then the point becomes mostly moot
Can you refuse the circus acts (stand on one foot, say the alphabet backwards) and demand a breathalyzer, or blood test? In some states you are required to subject yourself to these tests, refusal to do so gives them probable cause, at least here in Maine.
Under the 4th amendment probable cause is to do nothing but get a warrant or go kick rocks.
Here’s is my question, probable cause and reasonable suspicion is being determine by a police officer and not a court of law. So are you saying he can restrain my Liberty without him going to a court of law.
Yes under the 4th amendment a police officer can take away your freedoms and liberty without the permission of the court. Those powers come from the 10th amendment.
Yes because he's a sworn officer of the law. It's his job to manipulate the situation in order to trip you up and sway things over to his side. Because ultimately, his main objective is to hope you're breaking the law with drugs or alcohol because your arrest, bail, fines, dui school, court costs, and monthly probation fees are a feather in his hat and nothing but generated revenue for the county this occurrence took place!!! It's all about the money for your crimes!!!! And meeting their quota for the month!!!
Nevermind that, they would rather have you take a plea deal like probation because they like setting you up for failure. That way, they're hoping you'll fuck up while on your probation because probation violations only generate more revenue for the county!!!! It's just one big "racket" ball club and you ain't in it!!! George Carlin RIP.
Yes. The fourth amendment doesnt stop the police from search and seizure without a court order. It only stops him from UNreasonable searches and seizures. A court will ultimately determine if the search/seizure was reasonable or not. Until they put judges in police cars at all times, that is how it works.
@@jwhome9319 All I have to say you are wrong. No man or women working for the government can take away your rights. You rights comes from YHVH written in the constitution. 2 Corinthians 3:17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.You need to study and pray that YHVH shows you the truth.
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) The Law of Arrest, 25 Iowa L.Rev. 201, 254 (1940). Cf. Pepper v. Mayes, 81 Ky. 673 (1884). It was clear, moreover, that the only element bearing upon the reasonableness of delay was not such circumstances as the pressing need to conduct further investigation, but the arresting officer's ability, once the prisoner had been secured, to reach a magistrate who could issue the needed warrant for further detention. 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arrest, supra, §§ 76, 77 (1962); 1 Restatement of Torts § 134, Comment b (1934); Keefe v. Hart, 213 Mass. 476, 482, 100 N.E. 558, 559 (1913); Leger v. Warren, 62 Ohio St. 500, 57 N.E. 506, 508 (1900); Burk v. Howley,Any detention beyond the period within which a warrant could have been obtained rendered the officer liable for false imprisonment. See, e.g., Twilley v. Perkins, 77 Md. 252, 265, 26 A. 286, 289 (1893); Wiggins v. Norton, 83 Ga. 148, 152, 9 S.E. 607, 608-609 (1889); Brock v. Stimson, 108 Mass. 520 (1871); Annot., 98 A.L.R.2d 966 (1964). 1
We discussed and relied upon this common-law understanding in Gerstein, see 420 U.S., at 114-116, 95 S.Ct., at 863-864, holding that the period of warrantless detention must be limited to the time necessary to complete the arrest and obtain the magistrate's review.
"A policeman's on-the-scene assessment of probable cause provides legal justification for arresting a person suspected of crime, and for a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest. Once the suspect is in custody . . . the reasons that justify dispensing with the magistrate's neutral judgment evaporate." Id., at 113-114, 95 S.Ct., at 863 (emphasis added).
We said that "the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty," id., at 114, 95 S.Ct., at 863, "either before or promptly after arrest," id
@@davidlaw770 Sorry...no Messianic Law, Mosaic Law, Christian law, Sharia Law, Buddhist law, Hindu law, Scientology law, Druid law, Satanic law etc applies to the US Constitution or the laws made under it. Religious law does not apply. Some religious traditions are used as some philosophic basis of the law...but religious texts do NOT apply.
Great video explanation but the only thing that does not set well is when you say a cop pulls you over for a civil infraction is that is from the beginning it is a civil not criminal issue and a civil issue can never have the minimal criminal requirement of reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime because IT is already stipulated as civil. Therefore a cop seeing a person using a car that in their opinion violated some traffic code who them stops that person has made a legal determination and acted under their purported authority as a peace officer, authorized to apprehend violators of criminal actions, to apprehend and detain said person who is only possibly however unsubstantiatedly committed a non criminal infraction. Therefore by default the peace officer is violating persons rights for stopping them at all. And any ruling contrary is a contradiction to our civil rights and is unconstitutional.
In other words if a cop can detain me for a civil infraction at all can then detain any person for any reason civil or criminal which is a contradiction. Cops only have authority for criminal offense
Reasoable suspicion is an objective ananylsis....articulable FACTS mixed with rational inferences that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a particular crime in or has been commited by that person
What if nothing is found
How can a Civil matter be placed within the same class as Criminal? You said a cop can stop and detain you for a civil matter then get probable cause… I have never seen a supreme courts opinion regarding reasonable suspicion and probable cause mention Civil activity. Only criminal elements can give rise to a seizure. So in states where traffic is civil almost every stop is an illegal violation of ones protection against illegal searches and seizures. Everything done at the stop is fruit of the poisonous tree. Right or wrong?
Can I send you the bodycam footage? The officer was very pushy, even grabbed my wallet from me when I denied his request to search. Threatened to arrest me and put me in jail if I didn't let him search.
That all sounds fine and well. There are officers and deputies that think they can make the law up as they go. I get pulled over ,the reason being was I was in a high drug area. (My ass) I let him have my DL. And brings my passenger his id back and asks me to step out of the vehicle, I complied I didn't have to. He asks me if he can search my vehicle. Do you have a probable cause? I've complied, I'm legal, not speeding. What is your probable cause? Technically officer, you actually are breaking the law right now for running your emergency lights,what is your emergency? He sent me on my way.
Okay, well can you please explain this hypothetical incident. The officer states during the traffic stop and in his written complaint, the reason for pulling you over is for failing to stop for a school bus when it's flashers were on. After running your license, because of unpaid surcharges , he places you under arrest for dwli. At your first court appearance, the court clerk calls you over and states the DA would like to offer you a deal, but you must first sign a paper, waiving your right to an attorney. You sign it, because you have printed out the state statue and federal law which confirms you were not required to stop for a school bus. You happen to be traveling in the far right lane, going in the opposite direction, on a 6 lane HWY with a dividing center lane. So the DA is looking in there computer and talking among themselves and tell you your free to go if you show prove of insurance. So the Da steps out in the hall and gets on the phone with your insurance agent. Who tells him her computer is down and she could not pull it up at that time. So you fax it, but due to Harvey the criminal courts we're sharing court rooms in the family law building, they obviously lost it, because a year later you are being arrested, for a warrant they issued for dwli. Now if you didn't break the law, then the officer had no cause to pull you over, so anything found during the stop should be inadmissable, right?
Correct, it's called fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine based on the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co vs United States which was a Supreme Court decision. Essentially what the Supreme court decided was that any evidence found from an improper stop or illegal search and seizure is now deemed inadmissable in a court hearing. If you were on a divided highway like you mentioned and the bus was on the other side of the divider dependent on what your state laws are then it may have been an invalid traffic stop. I would recommend getting with your lawyer and consider the correct course of action. Of course it also depends on your current financial situation in which fighting it through the court system and paying the legal fees may cost you more money in the long run vs paying the surcharge and this will solely depend on your own decisuon in which route you opt to take. Hope this helps, best of luck to you.
apparently you missed something in the story...or you wouldnt have had a warrant for the same incident a year later.
@@jwhome9319 maybe the story just wasn't that easy to follow. So let's try starting here. After the prosecutor stepped out into the hall & spoke w/ the insurance agent, he resets the case. He tells you to fax a copy or email him a copy of your current insurance before the reset date. He clarifies that once he receives the proof of insurance he will dismiss the case & you won't be required to appear on the reset date. He even is gracious enough to write on the reset form, "🔺(triangle symbol) to send proof of insurance" followed w/ an email address & his initial. You faxed a copy of proof of insurance as soon as you returned home. However, a year later you are arrested for failure to appear. My question is if both state statue & federal law prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer, HONESTLY had no probable cause to pull you over, then shouldn't any discovery thereafter be inadmissible?
I would just like to add that surcharges were challenged from the very start. The Supreme Court has finally ruled against using that scheme and it's been replaced with a new scheme that doesn't unfairly target the poor & criminalize them for their inability to pay a debt. Which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
@@born2breality well shame on you for not following up and making sure it was received so you are not arrested. If you dont care much, why would other follks.. stuff happens. YOU can prevent it.
@@jwhome9319 Really??? How about shame on the prosecutor. The case should of just been dismissed, because the officer shouldn't of pulled you over in the 1st place. When you sent the fax it printed a paper verifying the fax was sent and retrieved. It even verifies what time & where you sent it to. Besides, the prosecutor wasn't asking you to prove you had insurance when you got pulled over. He's asking you to prove you currently have insurance when he knows your license is suspended. Lucky for you, you did despite that fact. The prosecutor had all yourinfo & the vehicles info. He could of easily made a call to the DMV & verified the insurance. Remember, the burden of proof is on him not you. You spent a total of 6 days(3 days after being pulled over & 3 days a year later) in jail for supposedly failing to appear. Finding a bondsman's who was willing to bond you out the second time, was nearly impossible. You lost your job, because you didn't show up for work. On top of what it cost you to bail out of jail twice, it also cost you $865 to get the vehicle out of impound. So you say shame on me. Well, I say shame on our justice system. Shame on them for throwing a stumbling block in your path. Shame on them for impeding on your pursuit of happiness. Shame on the officer & the prosecutor for pur"suing" you without any probable cause to do so. Shame on them both for using your tax dollar to make you a criminal instead of protecting you from one.
But officers can order you and passengers out of the car (or to remain in) for any reason or no reason at all.
Police officers are making legal conclusions, which the state will say they are not qualified to do.
That's right. That is why during cross examination you ask the cop,
Q: "did you determine on your own that the law you applied was applicable to me and that you had jurisdiction to stop me?"
A: "YES."
Q: "on what specific fact did you rely to make that determination and why were they not included in discovery?"
A: "the law applies to everyone in this city.
Q: "So my presence within a city is crucial to your argument?"
A: "Yes".
Q: "What is a city?"
(Prosecution) OBJECTION- Calls for a legal determination.
(Judge) Sustained.
Objection point of clarification- how can the officer testify that I was in a city and the codes of that city create a valid obligation upon me if he cant even determine what a city is?
(Judge) steamroll steamroll steamroll
I wouldn’t hang my hat on either interpretation
false...they are making conclusions about circumstances and applying the law (e.g., concluding there is probable cause to believe a law has been broken and that a person has broken it) which they are qualified to do, but not ruling on law. Only judges can make a legal ruling on the law.
"Frisk" when can a police officer reach in your pocket? Sharp object? Gun? Bag of cocaine or weed?
Only if they can define what is in your pocket. Example. An outline of a firearm.. they can now disarm you
Except for Civil Asset Forfeiture which gives them the right to seize money with zero cause, and a hand-wave of suspicion.
Unconstitutional therefore illegal and a crime.