Police tried to manufacture some reason to prolong motorist’s detention. Asked a bunch of questions.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ม.ค. 2025
- The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. When determining whether someone’s Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, “the ultimate touchstone . . . is ‘reasonableness.’ ” Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)
(citations omitted). Even an initial seizure based on probable cause “can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution.” Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005) (citation omitted). “[A] police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350 (2015). Specifically, whether a seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police officer’s investigation of that violation, and the duration of an officer’s inquiries “is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’- to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related
safety concerns.” Id. at 354 (citations omitted).
The government’s attempt to characterize the situation as an evolving one misses the mark. To the extent the situation did evolve, it was due to Sergeant Currie unlawfully prolonging what should have been a brief detention so that deputies could impound the vehicle. Otherwise, law
enforcement would be free to extend any detention long enough for probable cause to materialize for some offense, even if wholly unrelated to the offense justifying the initial intrusion.
This incident illustrates the danger in permitting law enforcement to take that approach. After the initial detention and pat down, Sergeant Currie availed himself of every opportunity to manufacture some reason to illegally prolong Davis’s detention. After the initial pat down, even though Davis was not the one approaching the Nissan’s driver side door, Sergeant Currie accused Davis of drinking.
Then, Sergeant Currie accused Davis of having dope on him after Davis
complied with his command to close his eyes. He then, for the first time, expressed that Davis was being “talkative” and “animated.” And once Davis asked for his lawyer and invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, Sergeant Currie used that as a basis to arrest Davis, claiming that his refusal to answer drug-related
questions interfered with an investigation into unlawful drug use - something wholly unrelated to the impound warrant about which Sergeant Currie had not asked Davis a single question.
These actions by Sergeant Currie unreasonably prolonged Davis’s detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 350 (“[A] police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.”). The unlawful arrest, and the search incident to arrest, which led to the discovery of the gun, suspected cocaine, and toot straw thus “followed directly in an unbroken causal chain of events from that constitutional violation. As a result, the seized [evidence] is the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ ” and is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. See Gorman, 859 F.3d at 714. The Court now turns to whether the government may nonetheless rely on the unlawfully obtained evidence under any exception to the exclusionary rule.
Read the full case here: US V. ROBERT DAVIS, 2024 wl 4795713 (NOV. 14, 2024), lawstache.com/...
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?
lawstache.com/...
Want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
lawstache.com/...
Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
russiansandieg...
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Now, those cops clearly violated known legal standard, time to remove qualified immunity and sue them personally.
Cops are above the law.
😂 you’re chosen one is about to give them federal immunity
@Bri_g3 You're right, Trump has been compromised, he is Deep State. I feel stupid and distrought.
The Kanas two step. Cops there are famous for violating our rights.
Seems like there was quite a lot of litigation around this subject in Kansas. Thanks for the comment and subscription! ~ Anton
Was ruled unconstitutional
I came to mention this.
Most cops seem too dim to do an investigation without violating rights once the victim clams up.
What a judge. Not only read the case, but delievered justice on multiple levels. Restores a little of pride to the judiciary on multiple levels.
I think there is a misconception that judges don’t read and don’t care. I observe quite the opposite on the federal level. Thanks for the comment and subscription! ~ Anton V.
That's what I'm missing... is a drawing of my beard on my wall. I dig the tie holder as well.
Thanks for the comment! You've got lots of great content on your channel. Let's think how we can collaborate! Cheers from San Diego. ~ Anton V.
It is nice to know that the courts found the the officers invalidly prolonged the stop. However, the question that was never addressed is if it is valid to arrest someone for obstructing justice because he invoked his 5th amendment. Personally I think the latter question is more interesting, because this should not be allowed but happens all the time.
They cannot arrest a person "For" Constitutional Protections. They have to manufacture a legal reason for that. Problem is, they arrest FOR it usually on emotion. So it becomes harder later to make their excuse, charges get dropped often and ultimately just wasted tax money
Need a federal law that clearly states that NO traffic stop can last for more than 15 minutes. Even one second after that then the motorist is free to go, no ticket, arrest, no subsequent stopping of the same motorist in any 24 hour period.
They found the car and waited to get the driver before impounding it? No they should have acted right away. They had no right to stop the brothers and search them or question them as they had not been accused of a crime only the car did they have a warrant for.
Thanks for the comment and subscription! ~ Anton V.
What’s funny to me is that the cops were called to the house but from what is said here , that they never went to the house . They obstructed their own investigation on that matter . 😂
My question from this discussion is whether any issue was made of the arrest obstructing the investigation, seemingly through asserting constitutional rights, i.e., to not speak under the 5th Amendment and to not speak without prior consultation with counsel under the 6th Amendment. If not, why not. If so, what rulings were issued. Even without asserting one's Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights, I'm surprised at the notion an obstruction charge could arise from talking too much or not at all beyond providing ID where RAS is demonstrated, and a statutory predicate (stop and ID) is met.
I think you’re on the right track. However, the defense only brought up a prolonged stop, or at least the court only ruled on this one issue. It may be that once the prolonged stop is established, all the evidence will be suppressed, so no need to debate the RS and obstruction charge. Thanks for a great comment and subscription! ~ Anton V.
Establish standard rates for prolonged stops and other events. 500k settle 100k for prolonged or illegal stops, 5 mil for house invasion. Municipal insurance would soon push back on cities.
The officers should be required to carry insurance for such. Some standard rate could be part of their pay, but added cost would be at officer expense. Any attempt to circumvent it should be a felony.
No settling. And all payments to be made IMMEDIATELY.
@@AbNomal621 No, the insurance should simply be made available. Lack of insurance shouldn't remove liability from the officer, and rulings against the officer can't be removed through bankruptcy, but requiring insurance is just a bit much. Just make officers personally liable, and have insurance be available.
@werefrogofassyria6609 Instead of all of that why not start charging the cops with the same penalties that their victim would face that they're trying to pin on them?
The problem is that there is no REAL penalty for the officers. And arresting someone for invoking the fifth should become aggregated kidnapping involving a deadly weapon. If a jury believes the officer did it for the invocation no less than a year in jail and be considered a violent felon.
😮But that's why they said people don't like the police 🤔 wonder why.
Trumptards are the worst.
We really need reform in this country on law enforcement on the local and federal level and a solid stance on and implementation of our constitutional rights and specificity.
The Rodriguez decision shouldn't even come into play here. They had a seizure warrant for the vehicle. They did not pull over the vehicle in motion on a public road. They specifically waited for people to approach the vehicle in order to harass those people. The officers could have gotten a tow truck and seized the vehicle and just been done with it but instead they wanted to use this as an excuse to harass people. So what is the justification for the original detention in the first place? I can understand if the vehicle was in motion or they came upon the vehicle while occupants were inside and there's a valid warrant to seize the vehicle but that's not the case here. They came upon the vehicle and no one was in the vehicle. They did not move to secure the vehicle at any point until they waited around long enough for someone to approach the vehicle. Those people didn't even get into the vehicle before they were seized by the police. So what's the reasonable articulable suspicion to detain these individuals?
I think you are on the right track here, Aaron. Thanks for your comment and subscription! ~ Anton V.
A reason that if charged police officers are placed in general population No bail.
👍👍
So violate their rights to make up for violating someone else's rights? That's like fighting racism with more racism.
@@docsavage8640What right is violated by putting a police officer in general population?
@docsavage8640 racism is a bs term made up to create division.
Officer's safety is the greatest load of crap ever invented
Bruh, that stach is to much, it's so perfect it's like a drawing come to life, that alone got you the scribe.
How big is the settlement? Should start at $500,000.
It wasn’t a civil lawsuit.It was a criminal case.
@@BrooklynBalla $5 million then. Remember, lawyers steal 1/2 of all lawsuits.
Darth Vader would not stand a chance against this mustache it is formidable. Thanks for the videos Anton I really appreciate it
Thanks for the fun comment. Happy thanksgiving! ~ Anton V.
I would question why even a warrant to impound the vehicle would justify a detainment? I would think the appropriate handling of the situation would call for the officers to approach the individuals, explain that they have a warrant. Then ask if they will surrender the keys so the vehicle isn't damaged by having to break in, and also perhaps offer them the opportunity to get personal possessions, and then send them on their way. If they don't choose to cooperate, then that's fine, but they can't get in the vehicle, but otherwise are free to go.
Despite hundreds of auditors displaying constitutional violations on a daily basis, and some ending up costing the state and or county hundreds of thousands of dollars, this behavior appears to show no signs of letting up anytime soon. In fact, there is evidence that police is actually becoming MORE aggressive. Is it that the officers are honestly that uneducated that they think that they can do whatever they want to create and arrest or are they aware and just under the assumption that "Qualified Immunity" is going to give them this impervious blanket of protection?
Assert your right to remain silent as step 1.
Well done sir. Nice tie clip, too. I see what you did there.
Gotta keep up the brand. Cheers from San Diego. Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you for viewership and subscription! ~ Anton V.
What was the probable cause for the arrest?
No PC. But the Court never got there because the stop was prolonged. Great comment and thanks for the viewership! ~ Anton V.
Did you mean, MAY not?
And where is the CONSEQUENCE to the officer for UNLAWFULLY PROLONGING?
This will ONLY END WHEN OFFICERS FACE THOSE CONSEQUENCES
I can’t say that I agree with your logic, but I will defend your right to express it. 👍
most of videos i see about encounters go this way. extending stops.
Question unrelated to this particular case .
I have asked this before o your channel and others with no response.
Customs and border patrol check points that a a hundred or so miles from port of entry how is it legal for them to stop people on the freeway just to check if you are a citizen?
This seams to fall in to the DUI and drug check points!
Look up the term 'Constitution free zone'. Map was put out by the ACLU years ago.
Do I understand correctly that a police officer patted down Mr. Davis twice and missed the Glock (26 I’m guessing) both times before finding it on the third attempt? I’m assuming this was the ‘wallet’ in the front pocket? The over 6 1/2” long, 4 1/4” wide, 1” thick, that weighs more than a pound and a half wallet. Folding Fat Stacks Batman you’d think they would have dropped these charges before they got to court just to avoid the embarrassment of being seen as terrible at their job as well as not trampling all over citizen rights.
Cop's use prosecution by process ....
😂One is not to old too learn new things
Thanks for the viewership! ~ Anton V.
❤
🔥🔥🔥
Yo da man!
LOL, you guys LOL. THIS IS WHAT COPS DO.
Welcome to America. When have they not done any of this stuff.
I guess somebody needs to point this stuff out.
Awesome video. But, explain at a faster pace
Watch at 1.5 speed.
As a lawyer maybe you start showing us the videos of you ripping the cops a new one in court. Talk is not the answer.
No cameras in federal court. But you are welcome to sit at any of my hearings and trials, it’s open court, and the calendar is available on the court’s website. You are also welcome to read any of the decisions, that I’ve been a part of. You can see my recent victories on my website. Thanks for the viewership and subscription! ~ Anton V.
@@LAWSTACHE Well maybe you can tell about all the civil rights cases you have taken to court and adjudicated. We need lawyers who defend the constitution. Tell the how you used the law to get your client money from the police for rights violations
Hehehe two smart brothers, driving a car with a warrant and carrying firearms. Yes they got off, just asking, how long did they do in jail?