Thanks for stopping by! Be sure to show your support if you enjoyed the video! Second channel: th-cam.com/channels/lTjur-9cx8Bb4MW8r0K6xw.html Twitter: twitter.com/AuditTheAudit
I live In RHODE ISLAND i have been pulled over 5 times never i mean never has my passengers been asked whom 5hey are or asked for ID this was definitely race implied for sure
You've taught me incredible knowledge about law enforcement and my rights and just last week you saved me from being yanked out of my car and searched because an officer smelt marijuana and although I haven't smoked marijuana for 4 years it truly upset me because they thought I would operate a vehicle with my children in it "while under the influence". I can't thank you enough I will always be a subscriber and I'm about to become a patreon if there's anything I can do for you feel free to let me know
WoW! One heck of an assertion. These officers exceeded reasonable boundaries for consensual conversation by wrongly asserting that their 'orders' had to be obeyed and were consistent with case law. These officers should be required by their superiors, either LEO or civilian, to take courses that cover the civil rights of civilians. Minimally, their behavior should never exceed LEO behavior permitted in accord with Terry v Ohio. Absent articulable suspicion that the individual an LEO wants to converse with has committed or is committing or is about to commit a crime, LEOs should not demand ID, nor should they detain more than very temporarily, nor should they EVER go hands on. Misrepresenting reasons for detainment or wrongly demanding ID should be actionable, and result in punishment of the offending LEO. Minimally, loss of pay would seem appropriate.
That cop, and a lot of others too, needs to learn the difference between surrendering your rights and entering into a contract that gives limited consent to the State during traffic stops.
I think they realy thought they were in the right. As all of this realy looks like competition between all the participants, who of them looks cooler and more professional on camera... It's off course allways shit when they guys who are more powerfull are also wrong. I think this example shows, that records of policework , even if it doens't avoid all problems , aids all people envolved. It gives reasonable citizens a feeling of security of not beeing treated wrong (or shot for no reason) and it saves policemen from possible wrong accusations. Plus it makes documenting what happened, when asked, way easier for the Police as they could simply look it up. Plus I think if more unmutable and allways recording bodycams find more wide spread in the police it will also keep people with a bad mindset away from joyning the police. I'm German , so we have republican law as most of the non-anglo world. That makes it pretty easy for the police to adhere to the law, yet they also do go to "lawschool" the same way as a lawyer does they just don't get modules like family law to study...so it's just 3 years of study and training to become a policemen. I Imagine how much a US or any Anglo-Sphere policemen has to learn before they start working. I mean how long does it take until they not only know all the laws but also all the caselaw related to their work? From that perspective, it's probably a bit difficult to allways remember every case from the past so and so hundred years. That might make it pretty hard to behave correctly.
The problem is that cops can legally lie to you, which is utter BS. Now if we lie to them we could face criminal charges. Quite the double standard here isn't it?
The problem is that cops lying to citizens to get them to waive their rights is a crime under USC 18.13.241 and 242, among others, but the legal system is so corrupt that criminal cops like these aren't prosecuted. Look at the Stamford prison experiment. Cops we have today are the natural result of giving immense power with no accountability.
I say this all the time, never immediately tell an officer you’re recording via dashcam right away. Let them dig themselves in the deepest hole possible before you tell them they’re on video. Telling them you’re recording right away they’re immediately gonna somewhat tighten up even if they say they don’t care about being recorded
@@extractedentertainment8213 While I understand your reasoning for not revealing that a recording is being made, I think a person needs to judge the situation they find themself. If they believe the incident might escalate to an unlawful detainment or worse, revealing they are recording might de-escalate a situation that is heading toward a bad outcome. Cheers.
In some circumstances you can not use a recording in court unless both parties consent. If you don't tell the cop first, then you can't say they consented. So, always tell them first if you want to make sure you can use the recording in court.
I agree with you to a point but there is no other profession that is as violent, dangerous, and impactful to both parties. I also must say that in 2018 there were more than 6 million police interactions. In the same year only 20k were reported as wrongful. Out of that 20k, (a VERY small number compared) only 5% were reported valid. Bad cops are VASTLY outnumbered by the good police
@@justaguywithcommonsense4875 you don’t get it . He can get out the car all day long if ordered but this is a traffic stop. He is not endangering anyone. They turned their focus to him and he does not have to ID himself regardless
It makes me so mad when cops say stuff like “oh where did you go to law school” or “are you a lawyer? You know the law?” It’s insane that they think regular citizens should be ignorant of the laws and their rights and just do whatever they say without question. Edit: tell them “I didn’t know that was illegal” and they’ll say “ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse.”
I just say I went to high school n graduated with the common knowledge of the law in the area I reside Pissed off a cop with that n he put my warning as a ticket but gave me the warning ticket n never told me I went to court n got 10k because I payed more for insurance for almost a year n wasn’t aware I had points He fucked up because there’s no receipt ever printed of it n put it in the system like I payed n plead guilty I’m still in that case but even my lawyer says this is a clean stretch based on all the info I have n the dashcam of him saying it’s a warning not a ticket The PD claimed they couldn’t retrieve the bodycam footage since it’s a year ago But luckily I did n kept my mouth shut cuz Ik It’s better to catch them in the act Clear audio n view with time stamp
A decent demeanor doesn't make an F turn into a C. 4th amendment rights violations seemingly still deserve an F regardless of their demeanor. A tyrant with a really good demeanor is still a tyrant.
@@mranerobic3795 They manipulated the law by asking him to exit the vehicle. Him exiting the vehicle and standing wouldn’t make him more identifiable, it’s just intimidation.
SCOTUS has ruled that cops need not know or understand the laws they are hired to enforce which is crazy to me how are they gonna enforce laws that the don't know and understand but hay they are also not obligated to render aid or protect civilians from imminent harm but civilians can be charged with gross indifference if we see someone in distress and don't stop and render aid
Here’s the thing, an F is supposed to be the worst grade so it kind of deflates the impact of an F when you give it to some one who could have been far worse
Wow, I truly admire this man's knowledge of his rights, and his execution of them. He explains very well his points - like, why he shouldn't get out of the car. So proud he didn't get out. I Love that he's right at every turn. 😂 "I'll give up my rights for my friend - so he's not late"
I always laugh when officers tell motorists to step out of their car for the officers safety, but if you step out on your own, the officer will tell you to step back in your car for their safety.
It's because they think whatever thought pops in to their head at that moment is the law. It cracks me up how emotional they get when you don't immediately comply with every single order they give. Like they are somehow infallible because they wear that uniform. I was actually considering becoming a police officer when I got out if the Marines but then I realized I'd hate almost everyone I'd have to work with because of their superiority complexes.
@@fritzworley6316 I was a Correction Officer for 25yrs and never wanted to be a Police officer. I actually never like Police Officers but I wanted to be in law enforcement to avoid Police Abuse. For the most part it works. I was only falsely arrested by NYPD one time. Over the years I have been racially profiled countless times but usually when I inform them I'm a CPL holder and see my retired ID they calm down. I try to follow the MANY commands they give but I never remove my hands from my steering wheel until I clear it with the officer. Many Officers when dealing with the public should be fired. They forget that they are PUBLIC SERVANTS and not a Military force.
@@glennw7118 I get racial profiling to a degree. Crime statistics show that out. BUT, i don't think anyone should be targeted because of their race. I used to drive safe but older vehicles and they would target me for driving an older vehicle. I understand if they had more caution with someone who fits the profile of person more likely to commit crime, but to target someone on their race, religion, vehicle they drive is wickedness. I agree many should be fired.
I always find it ironic that police need only 6 months of training to uphold the law, yet it takes on average 8 years to practice law as an attorney. This would be a great topic of discussion for ATA
You do know that to become a police officer you have to have a college degree and if you want to get promoted to higher than just an officer you need to have studied criminal law as well. That 6 months is only the academy after you have already been to college
I have long suspected the sincere intentions of this channel, so the grade C for caps does not surprise me, I can also say that I thought he would get a B- (they could have shot this guy and got a D)... They would get an F if they shot both guys
@@sguerilla6142 Audit hands out more F's to cops than he does to civilians so your argument is pretty weak and pathetic. If they would have escelated the situation then it would have been an F and they could have since he didn't step out the vehicle. People like you are really very slow and have no independent thought lol
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for ordinary citizens, but courts have held that it IS an excuse for police officers. Just another weapon in a cop's arsenal, enabling abuse of authority and trampling of rights.
@@-HeyLyd- What rights???? I still haven't heard anyone say what rights were infringed upon by asking a question. You guys are such beta male cry babies lmao
Cop: "we don't ask people for IDs or to get out of the car just for the heck of it" Also cop: "we need your ID and step out of the car just for the heck of it"
“you can’t go around stopping everyone and asking for ID like Nazi Germany” 😂 I love this cause he’s right. Fascist regimes thrive on excessive policing and violating privacy, and police in the US need to understand that their behavior can be compared to Nazi’s and come dangerously close to fascism when they refuse to question their own understanding of the law. Introspection is a vital quality for police officers to have.
@@mortensenvick5711 Asking for the ID of the driver is normal and makes sense to be required by law, but requiring the passengers show ID is not. Police don’t (or at least shouldn’t) go demanding ID from every pedestrian on the sidewalk unless there is probable cause, the same way they can’t demand ID from passengers of vehicles.
There is sadly many things in American culture that is directly done as it is in authoritarian regimes. And its hammered into kids right from the start. Just start with the pledge of allegiance. No other civilized nation or free nation has something like that. The Nazis did. North Korea have, Modern Iran has. The soviet Union had it, and now Russia to with Z and other things. And from that point it expand. And the US have and do many things that the "rest" of the free and civilized world does not understand or could accept living under. Prison system used as money buckets, and forced labor for big companies like Amazon and Mcd, getting almost free forced labor. Messy law system. and massive corruption. on such a level that things that are massively corruptive is not even seen as corruption like how companies spend billions working politicians and lobby/pay them to work for them instead of the nation. Again like many Authoritarian states.
The line has already been crossed and people are starting to notice, when the next line is crossed officer safety will be an issue because they abuse us soo much we the people have to stand up. They create their own problems
The cops extending the stop is prolonging the contact, yet the contact is supposedly the cops reason for being "concerned for their safety". Write a ticket and let them go, end of "safety concern". The cops certainly weren't acting like they were concerned for their safety. It's clearly all about getting a "hunch" and wanting to go fishing for warrants.
Had they pulled him out, they probably would've patted him down, found his wallet and taken his ID. Have seen that before -- though I'm not sure how that can be legal.
Removing the passenger for not giving ID is different than the officer safety issues upheld by the court. This is clearly retaliation for not complying with the illegal demand.
Of course it is. But the laws are purposely made so vague that's not illegal. Even if the passenger challenges it, and get off, the damage has still been done.
@@mranerobic3795 No, it's probably illegal. However, the way qualified immunity works, if this exact scenario hasn't occured before, then apparently the police couldn't have known it was illegal and they can't be held liable.
@@KamikazeSOF2 You're missing the point. It wouldn't matter if they did. Who's going to police the police? Its like setting speed limit that has no penalty if you exceed it. Okay, it illegal. Now what? Do you call the police on the police?
@@mranerobic3795 I didn't miss the point. My comment was pretty sarcastic. I get how it didn't really come through in text form. We're basically saying the same thing. It doesn't really matter whether or not it's illegal when nothing is going to happen.
Right? I mean the dude could have a record a mile long, but how does that impact their safety? RI has just decided that they can check everyone they lawfully come across for warrants. That's it.
The cop actually said in the very beginning and right after the passenger refused to get out "when you get in a car you give up your rights ". Unbelievable.
Pathetic examples of law enforcement. They should be ashamed of themselves for making their department look bad. They wear their ignorance like a badge of honor.
Fortunately my brother realized this when he was a young man. Cop followed him down his (long) driveway because the cop knew, but had no evidence, that my brother was speeding. Proceeded to literally beg my brother to tell him that he had been speeding, even promised several times that he wouldn't get a ticket or anything "just for my own peace of mind" type manipulation and he never budged. Cuz he knew if he did he would get a ticket. If he told the full truth, he'd have gone to jail. (100+ in a 65) He maintained that he reached the speed limit rapidly and then traveled the speed limit. Smart man (for once, lol)
It's not a lie to tell someone they are not under arrest and the step out of the car, only to instantly tell them they are under arrest the second they step out. THey didn't lie there, you were not under arrest, the second you became under arrest is the second they told you and starter putting cuffs on. Regardless even if you ARE under arrest you still need to get out of the car when ordered. The course are very clear that getting people into and out of cars on a traffic stop is something cops have to right to lawfully order. Not getting out of the car when under arrest isn't going to unarrest you, it is going to get you injured.
The most messed up part though is that courts have upheld that if a cop says you are under arrest and they messed up you, you still were not under arrest BUT if they say you are under arrest and resist then you were under arrest.
I cannot believe the effing cop actually said, out loud, that “You give up your rights when you are in a car”. That scumbag needs to be fired immediately; he has NO business having a badge and a gun.
@@redgringrumboldt8983 Depends on the state, but in order to have a driver license you agree to give up certain rights while driving. You can not get a drivers license without agreeing to give up certain rights. But again, this only applies if you are driving a vehicle, not if you are simply inside a vehicle as a passenger.
IMO, a blatant misunderstanding of the law deserves a much lower grade than a C, regardless of how the officers behave. I believe law enforcement officers have a professional obligation to know and understand the laws they're tasked to enforce, as well as know and understand the limits of how they're enforcing those laws.
100% agree, if I have the choice between a) nasty/hostile cops who know and follow the law or b) nice cops that blatantly violate my rights, I’ll take “a” day long
In Canada, thankfully, we can definitely refuse to provide our identification to police if we are merely a passenger in a vehicle, or if they stop us on the street, unless they are investigating a crime that has either occurred, or they are detaining us, Sherrey
Interesting that when the passenger wouldn't hand over his ID, the cops claimed that he needed to exit the vehicle for "officer safety" and kept pressing that point, but as soon as he gave them his drivers license, their concerns about officer safety disappeared. I've heard other cops actually verbalize the nonsensical claim that refusing to ID made them fear for their safety. Apparently, they feel safer when a taxpayer surrenders his rights and engages in Obedience To Authority (if unfamiliar, please research the term).
7:00 - Yeah, the SCOTUS ruled that a cop can order passengers from the vehicle IF they think it's a matter of safety. BUT, it's clear that he was ordering the passenger out of the car simply for refusing to provide ID.
But at around the 10 minute mark, the guy in the seat states the citation has already been written. At this point the police are in violation for extending the stop
@@knerduno5942 - Yeah, that too! Why I hate cops. They're more worried about controlling other people, FREE people, that they just can't obey the law themselves.
@@justaguywithcommonsense4875 - Yeah, I get that, but when a cop is doing it just to control people or intimidate them or to jerk them around then that's a game changer. The idea is supposed to be for safety. Not to show, "Hey, I'm in charge, and I'm going to start jerking you around to get you to become subservient".
@@robertgantry2118 he wasn’t tho, he wanted him to get out of the car to get away from everything, like he was always waving his hands and arms around cops always want a clear view of your hands and don’t want you to move them too much
They're just hoping to find someone with a warrant or numbers on their license to arrest someone or conduct a search. However they knew this man was in the right and didn't have to do it but they thought wait a minute if hes done nothing wrong then why not give me your licenses. So now they SUSPECT he has a warrant and is now lying and trying to find ways to forcefully and lawfully obtain his licenses as you can see when they started demanding him to step out instead of asking because then the officers would have had the "right" to remove him.
Because most people have no hesitation providing an ID. It’s a gigantic red flag if they refuse as usually they are well aware they have outstanding warrants.
01:15 I've learned one thing from "Audit the Audit" channel and it's that nobody in their videos knows the actual laws. The cops don't and the auditors don't, and the truth is the law is sometimes so convoluted that you can't know how a specific court would rule.
The only thing the “auditor” got wrong was about stepping out of the vehicle. Supreme Court has ruled (wrongly in my opinion) that officers may order anyone out if a vehicle on a traffic stop. He was right that they cannot force you to identify (legally anyway)
These cops flat out misrepresented the law, they said that he has to ID as a passenger, that is a flat out lie. That misrepresentation of the law by police officers should be grounds for immediate termination without question.
@@mranerobic3795 a passenger is not legally required to provide identification during a traffic stop, this is well documented case law. The cop saying otherwise is lying.
@@arh9068 Except when the cop has RAS. Something they can simple make up when they feel like it. Notice that they never have to define the RAS to anyone. Those type of exclusions assume the cops are honorable and fair, and won't abuse their authority. IA stupid assumption, since if that were the case, we wouldn't need to constitutions in the first place. Instead, they simple render the Bill of Rights useless.
@@mranerobic3795 RAS validates detaining an individual for questioning, when detained an individual has no legal obligation to answer any questions a cop may ask nor are they required to provide any identification. The cop saying otherwise is LYING.
When cops have to be held responsible for their actions this will never end.. He had no rights you and your gang just stepped on them now your copsplaining.
Exactly he bluntly said the reason which is unlawful like the man said you can’t just go up to people to people and ask them for ID being in a car is no different. I’m pretty sure if he wouldn’t have given his ID they would have escalated the situation. That’s why so many where there including the white shirts and they don’t even know the law. Sad
@@PenitentEngine just further officer’s abuse of power, so much so that this officer seems to believe once people get in a vehicle, they are at the mercy of the law through the power the officer now holds
Whenever someone demonstrates that they know the law, police "accuse" them of "being a lawyer." Yet we as citizens are required to know and follow literally thousands of laws. Ignorance of the law is no excuse... unless you are a police officer, then not knowing or following laws, or "making up laws", is protected as "qualified immunity" (aka sovereign immunity). If ignorance of the law was a valid excuse for citizens then we could literally commit murder then claim "I didn't know."
Police literally have an incentive to not know the law. Once it is documented that a police officer has training on specific laws, they can then be held responsible and even liable for knowing and not following the law. There are cases where officers opted for termination for not complying with mandatory training orders following an incident. They then do the uniform shuffle over to a neighboring city.
I like how EVERY law and statute covered here was written with loop holes that officers use to violate and after thousands of violations the courts refuse rule on said violations so things can be clear cut.
When a cop asks “where did you get your law degree?” My response is you don’t have to be a chef to know how to cook and you don’t have to be a lawyer to know the law.
Hey ATA. I think you missed something on this one. Rodriguez v United States ruled that cops cannot extend a stop beyond the mission of the stop. At 9:12, the passenger states that the driver had already received the ticket. That being the case, the original mission was over, and ordering the passenger out of the car would have been an unlawful seizure. In fact, I believe Landeros relied on Rodriguez.
“Joe Attorney”, did he really insult him for *practicing* his rights when it’s perfectly legal and fine to do so, especially during an interaction with a PO. You would think the people that enforce the laws would be happy that people are practicing them.
If "ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it", then logically, the burden is on me, the private citizen, to know the law BETTER than a cop knows it.
They don't like when citizens know the law because then they cannot violate citizens rights without the citizen knowing... They also get shown how stupid they are for NOT knowing the law.
That's where you're wrong buddy. The law isn't enforced so that everyone gets to be happy, it's enforced to sustain the violence of the state and keep the citizenry as slaves subservient to the state.
Sad but true you have no rights with police. Unless they chose to give you those rights. They have more guns then you have with backup seconds away. Only the military can every tell cops what to do because they have tanks.
The Court has all but said that. They've gone so far as to say that an RV is primarily a vehicle rather than a home. So even if you're living in a mobile home/camper, they can enter it w/o a warrant, order you out, etc. Our houses and apartments are the last place where we can feel remotely safe. However, all the cops have to do is say is "We got a call" or are doing a "wellness check" and they can kick down your door w/o a warrant. They'll lie under oath about having probable cause, and the idiot judge would most likely go along with it.
A “C” is WAY to generous in my opinion, especially considering some of the other things they said, for example “you lose your rights while in a motor vehicle”!
I totally appreciate this man not being from this country but wanting to fight for his freedom and rights that this country is supposed to protect. Keep fighting the good fight brother you’re not alone. And you are 100% correct in stating if you don’t use them you’ll lose them.
Right on. Gentleman is not even from the US and he knows more than this Officers does. Nice job Officer!!!! Great way to make US LEO's look intelligent.
He’s still a Citizen and has every right . Does it matter if he was born or no? He’s been living in Us for 31 years for sure he’s going to fight for his rights
C is very generous. It was good to see there was no ego driven escalation or hostility as is often the case. But, being so wrong about the law, and demonstrating such a lack of understanding of the 4th amendment is very poor, and they did violate the passenger's rights, and admitted to doing so as a matter of course. D at best for me.
while also lying and saying things like "you think you're a lawyer?" "i know the law! (cant present the actual law)" and "you give up your rights when youre in a car". very very bad statements imo.
I've said it before but ATA really needs to take their time with these evaluations. Saying the police in here are at all within good practice is dangerous to police and the public. If we want to fight back against the constant lying by police we at least need to say the lying is bad...
Giving the officers a “C” is generous. Violating the rights of two individuals along with their oath is a heinous act against the the most basic of their job functions.
You do not give up your rights when you're in a vehicle. You have the right to travel. If they're this concerned with who might be a passenger in a car when they stop it, then they shouldn't initiate the traffic stop.
In a court you cannot be compelled to give any information against yourself. But on a roadside a cop can demand ID when his only hope in getting it is to match you to a warrant or some other measure of guilt? Legal corruption at it’s finest.
In stark contrast to our supposed jurisprudence, cops operate under the presumption of guilt. Any excuse to get an ID so they can go on a 4th amendment violating fishing expedition. They lie and claim reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime (which they are not required to articulate) to justify detaining and ID. If they run your ID through their database and catch a fish, they can always invent RAS hours later when writing their report to make their illegal stop "legal".
There's a distinction between "May I see your ID, please?" and "I need to see your ID, sir/ma'am." that a lot of people, cops included, don't seem to understand. One is a friendly request, which may be made by anyone to anyone. The other is a lawful order. Some people think that if a cop asks you a question or makes a request, it's a legally binding order of compliance. Some cops like it so much when people think that way that they'll twist their thinking to mean that they have a legal right to order you to do anything, and that belief generally works for them because most people will do whatever authority tells them to.
He did not know his rights the police did not either he thought he had a right to refuse to leave the vehicle we found out he does not but the police did not have the right to extend the stop or demand ID but I still say if you know you have done nothing and your not wanted just corporate and be on your way
Jeanne, I dont think he said he has the right to stay in the vehicle, he just said he would rather remain in the vehicle in front of the camera for his own safety, which was probably a very good call. He was absolutely bang on when he said he didn't have to identify himself. "Just ID yourself if you have nothing to hide".... nope, would you identify yourself to another random stranger on the street? Would you let a cop search your home randomly, just because you have nothing to hide? Mr ambus was correct when he said if you don't use your rights you lose them. If you're going to give up your rights so easily, you might as well not have them.
@@jeannepritchard2543 He absolutely has the right to refuse. And the only way that could legally force him from the vehicle is if the car was being impounded or he was being detained or arrested all of which require reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime.
it's like giving somebody a 10 in a gymnastics competition. You generally avoid doing it too easily because it leaves no room for when someone takes it to the next level.
_"You're obligated, when you're in a motor vehicle, to present you're ID."_ Cops just can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that people aren't even required to _HAVE_ ID as a passenger in a car. And if you don't _have_ one, how can you _present_ it? _"I don't have the law book on me..."_ Don't you have a copy in your car? Isn't the computer in your car connected to the internet? How about your cell phone? Can't you look it up? _"...I know the law..."_ If you _know_ the law, then you'd be able to recite the statute number, and even the text, by memory. You don't even know basic laws of the United States (such as those mentioned in the Constitution), let alone those of your state.
I'd like for the trainers and people responsible for passing these cadets to explain why so many officers vets and rookies alike don't know extremely common and simple laws like the rights of citizens to not have to present papers for no gd reason.
No doubt they do know the laws, they deliberately twist the truth to back their interpretation. They're either ignorant & liars either way they should quite frankly be fired. If a train driver breaks a serious rule thru ignorance & then lies they'd lose their job. A bus driver breaking laws of the road would lose their job. A shop assistant who routinely did similar would be fired probably for gross misconduct. Why are cops protected? One question so you know the law or not if yes then you're a liar if not then gross misconduct & get the boot
From the way I see how these cops reacted and acted, they knew exactly what they were doing, they had nothing to drag this guy out of the car for and used their "Subtle" intimidation in numbers, legally lie about their made up laws and case law to "Coerce" this citizen standing up for his rights to voluntarily give them the information their butt hurt ego couldn't accept he wasn't giving them...........Beyond the scope of the stop.
Because their time in the academy is spent on firearms, hand to hand physical altercations and generally how to develop an “us vs them” mentality, and gearing up for battle everyday. Not much time left for learning the Constitution.
Too much is put on firearms and tactical training and not enough training on laws. If they want more training than basics received in academy they have to do it on their own time and sometimes own dime. Look at this way, they are human. As a human when you get home from work after a 12 or more hour shift are you going to study material about work knowing you have 2 or three more 12 hour shift coming up? Are you going to sit in a classroom on your day off learning about your job? The blame needs to fall on the departments in some situations for training too much for worst case scenarios and not enough on everyday encounters. If you fail qualification at a range you will be placed on desk duty and possibly released if you eventually don’t pass. If you fail in unarmed tactics? If you fail in a refresher course if you even have any on the laws? It’s a failure of the system that needs to be fixed.
@@elmer8107 well thats disappointing because they can't shoot worth a shit either. Half of them are scared of their own shadows and the others are gung-ho like their rambo. Its ridiculously embarrassing to say the least.
And what makes you think he wasn't born here..because of an accent 🤔..he clearly stated he's from Providence and it's clear his first language is Spanish and second English..still doesn't mean he's not from here.." The Corporation of The United States "
I really want someone to film this type of stop where they say all passengers need to show ID and have a dog with tags on and have them ask the cops if they would like to check if the dog has a record at the pound or remove them and handcuff for officer safety. That would go viral so quickly.
It is absurd that in 2022, we still do not have 100% clarity across every state on such a simple legal concept as whether or not a passenger in a traffic stop is required to provide ID or not. It should be cut & dry…and consistent across every state.
Should be but here in lies the problem... States having the right to have their own laws makes traveling a nuisance for things this simple. Some things should be a federal standard that supercede state level enforcement, but they're not which is why so many things are extremely annoying and a nuisance.
@@jackburton2680 Furthermore the justice system _wants_ to muddy the waters as much as possible. Thanks to Heien v. North Carolina cops do not have to know the law and can use ignorance of it as an excuse to detain you. So better for them to play dumb so they can get away with violating your rights.
@@jackburton2680 It more of a manipulation the a clear violation. All they need do is say the magic words "for my safety" and they get a free pass to supplant the constitution.
@@edwindigital4598 The Bill of Rights is a federal standard. But they're only as good as the state's willingness to defend them. In this state, its the cops that are defended. Even thought the Bill of Rights are specifically intended to prevent this very abuse of authority.
"What do you think we're gonna beat you up?" Actually, yeah. Exactly that. There's 4 officers with guns and tazers surrounding the unarmed passenger. Would be a big leap to justify officer safety.
Wasn't it interesting that as soon as the passenger refused to ID, the police immediately tried to coerce him by forcing him out of the car "for officer safety", but as soon as he handed them his ID, their officer safety concerns disappeared? Apparently, cops become afraid if a citizen knows and exercises his rights. I've actually heard police make the nonsensical claim that lack of ID (Obedience To Authority, please look it up if unfamiliar) makes them fear for their safety.
I love how this guy knows his rights the same thing happened to me I was the passenger in a traffic stop the Michigan State police asked for my name and ID I said to him " I respectfully decline " and he respected me and my comment and left it at that . No ticket to my girlfriend let her off with a warning then I said to him "have a nice day and stay safe" . Point is stay calm know your rights and always record always
Cops in my area are immediately aware of who 'sounds' like they might be successful in court, and they don't hassle us. But given the number of times I've been around someone who is not informed, educated or well-spoken, and cops have tried to find things to charge them; I'd say cops employ that strategy everywhere. It's incredibly subtle questioning, but within 2 sentences, they can pick out who the easy targets are.
This is one of the main things that has always pissed me off. If u r a passenger, and its a mere traffic stop(as oppossed to a group of people who just robbed a bank or something) u DO NOT have to show your ID.
How do lying cops go home and look their loved ones in the eye when they are so dishonest. Feel sad for their family if they can lie that easily you wouldn't be able to trust one word out of their mouths.
@@ThePhantomLion Its not the cops per se, rather, the judges. Sure the cops start the ball rolling, but they would be a lot less inclined to break the laws if judges refused to continuously side their way. The fact that they all too often do, simply means that the system is rigged, and that the judicial branch has lost its way. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent this very sort of government intrusion into our private lives, and to mitigate the abuse of power by law enforcement. When judges override those provision, they basically nullify those rights. History has shown us time and time again, that power corrupts, yet we still give cops virtually universal control over us. Every judge should carefully consider his task and ask the question, "was there a clear an present need for the actions of the cop in the performance of his duty," before making his ruling. Otherwise, he shows his bias, and becomes part of the systemic problem with government, rather than its solution.
Simple, they are absolutely convinced they are the good guy and they decide who the bad guy is. For too long, elite society has blindly supported them with this "back the blue" nonsense. But things are changing with the advent of social media and cams, and that's why many cops are retiring early in my county. Must suck to be accountable after hundreds of years of unchecked authority and admiration.
Why can’t US cops easily cite the specific laws, and if they don’t know, look it up on their phone? Every cop in the Netherlands can easily lookup any law on his smartphone, and do most things using police apps. What kind of options do USA cops have for this?
They can check online too but they are encouraged not to by their bosses coz it may hinder their number one objective........to ticket, cite and arrest you for anything and everything they can. The more ignorant you are to your rights, they are trained to exploit that to their advantage including lying to you. They US cops are simply the worst. If you do know your rights they can punish you by detaining you for a long time, making excuses to search your property and even writting bogus tickets to make sure you waste your time with unnecessary court visits for their dismisal which they can legaly skip and the further your have to travel the better. It's a sick system.
To many people think all they need to do is read an excerpt and they now understand the law. The US is a common law system, which means laws can apply differently in different situations for different reasons. This is why law school takes three years (minimum) plus a rigorous exam (the Bar), and why law is called a "practice". Its a complicated field and expecting lay citizens or even police to have a mastery of it is unreasonable. Often police departments have a simple policy the officers are expected to enact. If that policy is illegal or unconstitutional in some way, that is a question for the courts, not some ad hoc roadside discussion.
@@tomm487 I agree. When I see the difference USA cops act versus cops here in the Netherlands it seems they don’t care for the citizens they should be serving. There ego’s and production of tickets is more important than that. Here in the Netherlands cops (in general) are not there to write tickets, but to keep the peace, fight crime and educate people. Cops often give warnings without giving tickets. I once had a broken tail light, and I couldn’t fix it on the road. (I did have a replacement light, but I couldn’t easily get to the spot) The cop gave me his email address and asked me to mail a picture of the light being fixed within 5 days. This way I could prevent a ticket. I have had many more encounters with cops like this, and they often give you a way out. They also don’t start with a giant ego, and are really professional and friendly. Even when you argue with them, they don’t go ballistic and remain calm. And because they need to have a four year education they do know the laws really well. I so hope the USA will one day reform on so many fronts, that it can match the rest of the OECD countries in terms of civilized society.
I’ve been passenger to my husband being cited for speeding and the officer never even acknowledged my existence. I kept my hands on my lap and said nothing. Probably the only time I’m glad to be totally ignored. 😂😂😂
@@1Rasta_man Never in my life did I want to harbor negative emotions. I just retired from a 36 year career as a doctor. But watching LOTS of cop auditors during the pandemic has produced it in me. Tulsa cops recently ridiculed, harassed a 70 year old woman mental patient having an episode. Kicked down the door, smashed her face. And the cops KNEW she was having a bipolar episode. Sick
The guys in costumes should've got an "F"! They coerced the passenger into giving ID under false color of law. He should sue them back to the Stone Age.
The cops did nothing wrong however the passenger did, under Pennsylvania v mimms if a police officer orders you out of a car you have to get out of the car
@@justaguywithcommonsense4875 does that mean we should overlook the fact they lied about him giving his id? They didn't enforce the one part they could've, because they knew they were wrong and lying about his id.
Great channel. Im so impressed by people who learn their rights and have courage to stand up for their rights an a very intimidating situation. Just important to know they law and details of the law in every state.
Cop: Look up obstruction. Guy: So that's going to say passengers wave their constitutional rights? Cop: Oh no, that's our catch-all trump card if we really want to arrest someone but they just haven't broken any laws.
Look at how they don’t care about him stepping out of the vehicle once he gives them ID. That’s all they cared about. They didn’t ask him to get out because of their safety. They did it because they wanted to ID him. Edit: can’t believe they got a C. The whole video was police violating a citizens rights.
They should get an F because they don’t know how to do their job, lied multiple times to those they serve, and VIOLATED RIGHTS of an innocent man. Fixed it for you
Well this is a blatant pro police TH-cam page. Audit the Audit admits the police lied but still get a passing grade. This is why I always give them a thumbs down. They need to learn that the citizens have a voice and should not be squashed.
@@jamesf791 did you say he say is pro police page 😂 here literally just judges anything off the altercation. From what is legal and is not legal most of the videos cops don’t get pass F’s.
@@Percyy if you have to go back more then 3 videos you already showed you are pro police as you show you are really reaching to defend people who break the law. Why do you defend bad actions like cops?
The officer was so quick to say, "So you're a lawyer?", but in actuality the passenger WAS the correct one!! The police officer was the one who didn't have a firm grip on the law and violated this man's rights!
I wouldn't be able to stay calm after that, whilst they're in the midst of breaking the 4th amendment saying "we didn't say you committed any crime," and being snarky smartasses about the passenger being the one aware of the law.
These “officers” are WILLFULLY ignorant of these laws. They know that they can continue violating the rights of citizens and only the most egregious of encounters will ever become a threat to their malpractice of the law.
@@justaguywithcommonsense4875 they literally lied about everything concerning id. The passenger is not required to give id during a traffic stop. Did you even watch the clip?
Police are allowed (encouraged?) to lie to us. They must have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime to detain or ID, but they aren't required to articulate it, so they can claim RAS to make a stop "legal", go on a 4th amendment violating presumption-of-guilt fishing expedition, and if they find you have a warrant or you're a felon, they can make up RAS hours later when writing their report. They need to admit they know they are violating your rights to invalidate their qualified immunity, and many do!
@@johnbenson923 John Benson, that's the way MOST STATES ARE! However in Rhode Island the law is different. They have the right to make passengers exit the car. I had to look that one up. There are only a couple of States that have that law where they can pull you out.
So since he was legally SUPPOSED to step out of the car to avoid an obstruction charge, could he still recuse to show his id if he stepped out the car when the cops asked?
I’ll give the cops a “D”, only because they didn’t drag the passenger out of the car. They are “misquoting” the law, also known as lying through their teeth.
"Ignorance of the law is not an excuse" for the average citizen, *so how can ignorance of the law POSSIBLY be an excuse for a (supposedly) trained cop???*
Sad thing is I'm sure they really and truly believe they where in the right they where prolly talking bout how they really went easy on that trouble maker and so this was a total waist of time for that poor guy
It's sad when a police officer can not know the law he's "enforcing", lie, harass, intimidate, coerce and violate a citizen's rights, but because he didn't assault someone or shoot them he gets a passing grade. We have such low expectations for law enforcement.
A “c” for trying to force passengers to give up ID. That’s should be an F. I guess if somebody robs a bank but they speak nicely to the teller you’d give them a “C”
Wait, why isn’t there a definitive answer to this question? It seems very clear to me that a passenger of a private car shouldn't be compelled to give up their rights to unreasonable search and seisure if they have committed no crime. Simply sitting quietly in a car while an officer cites or investigates the driver (who does give up certain rights in order to operate a vehicle on a public roadway) or refusing to identity themselves when asked is not a crime. I wish someone would take these officers to court and see this matter all the way through to the SCOTUS in order to set precedent.
At the beginning of the video the officer said not to worry about the traffic stop. That immediately ended the reason for the stop. Anything after that sounds like an illegal detainment.
You made me realize my rights were violated when I was in college and the importance of knowing my rights. That was 21 years ago and I have since serviced this country but I appreciate you and all your content sir tyvm.
man i wish i knew about this channel and watched it 3 years ago, it could have saved me hours and money, as one time me and a friend of mine were waiting in a park parking lot to hear back on a friend if we were going to pick her up for a party or if she had a ride, in the time of waiting a cop pulled up behind us and told us that he needed to see our IDs as the spot where we were was a frequent stop for drug exchanges so without giving it a second thought we complied which led to a discovery for a warrant for my arrest which was just a book and release in 3 hours of holding now in knowing terry stop laws in utah i didnt need to follow that order and could have just went about our night.
The brilliant irony: these cops were most likely fishing for reasons pertaining to citizenship, only to be schooled on constitutional rights by an articulate bilingual.
Well then if this interaction would be an F then how would you grade an officer who didn't understand the law AND unnecessarily escalated AND used unnecessary force? H-? Audit the Audit is obviously using the grading scale used for students. 🙄
@@NS-hs6lt There is something below F. there is the; ''take the kid out back and shoot him cause his brain is an embarrasment to nature'' The lowest grade you can get in school is expulsion, not F.
@@NS-hs6lt "The student scale" is 0 to 100, and everything from 0 to 60 is an F. Both a 0 complete-failure and a 59 almost-pass, are Fs. This guy deserves an F. " 🙄"
@@_alia Not all places use the 0-100 scale last I checked. Some places do indeed still issue letter grades afaik. And no, I actually agree with ATA here. A C is warranted, I could see an argument for a D. But an F? Come on.
These laws in those states needs to be changed! If I have committed no crime then the "GESTAPO" police should NEVER be allowed to subject me to ANY type of questioning, or demands.
Thanks for stopping by! Be sure to show your support if you enjoyed the video!
Second channel: th-cam.com/channels/lTjur-9cx8Bb4MW8r0K6xw.html
Twitter: twitter.com/AuditTheAudit
thanks for always keeping me entertained at work! always looking out for your new vids !
You're compromised now... How can they get a C for lying and violating an Americans rights... You're compromised
I live In RHODE ISLAND i have been pulled over 5 times never i mean never has my passengers been asked whom 5hey are or asked for ID this was definitely race implied for sure
You've taught me incredible knowledge about law enforcement and my rights and just last week you saved me from being yanked out of my car and searched because an officer smelt marijuana and although I haven't smoked marijuana for 4 years it truly upset me because they thought I would operate a vehicle with my children in it "while under the influence". I can't thank you enough I will always be a subscriber and I'm about to become a patreon if there's anything I can do for you feel free to let me know
A “C”? They knowingly and willingly violated his rights! A “F” would’ve been more appropriate.
“You give up your rights when you’re in the car.”
Well that certainly is news.
They genuinely believe their lies...
I chuckled at that part
And one of many lies these cops are telling. They manipulating the vagueness of the legal system to
And this is why I walk or ride a horse
WoW! One heck of an assertion. These officers exceeded reasonable boundaries for consensual conversation by wrongly asserting that their 'orders' had to be obeyed and were consistent with case law. These officers should be required by their superiors, either LEO or civilian, to take courses that cover the civil rights of civilians. Minimally, their behavior should never exceed LEO behavior permitted in accord with Terry v Ohio. Absent articulable suspicion that the individual an LEO wants to converse with has committed or is committing or is about to commit a crime, LEOs should not demand ID, nor should they detain more than very temporarily, nor should they EVER go hands on. Misrepresenting reasons for detainment or wrongly demanding ID should be actionable, and result in punishment of the offending LEO. Minimally, loss of pay would seem appropriate.
“You lose your rights when you start driving” this cop is beyond a joke. Should be fired immediately
Literally a joke lmao because the guy wasn't even driving.. he was a passenger 💀
That cop, and a lot of others too, needs to learn the difference between surrendering your rights and entering into a contract that gives limited consent to the State during traffic stops.
Criminal
Oppressive
P😼
He got a promotion and pay raise. Any officer who willfully ignores your rights and proceeds into police state. Well they're just a gem 😒
If refusing to get out of the car is arguably considered obstructing the officer, why isn't failing to hand over his ID also considered that?
Cops saying, "we wouldn't lie to you" is the biggest lie I've ever heard.
I think they realy thought they were in the right. As all of this realy looks like competition between all the participants, who of them looks cooler and more professional on camera...
It's off course allways shit when they guys who are more powerfull are also wrong.
I think this example shows, that records of policework , even if it doens't avoid all problems , aids all people envolved. It gives reasonable citizens a feeling of security of not beeing treated wrong (or shot for no reason) and it saves policemen from possible wrong accusations. Plus it makes documenting what happened, when asked, way easier for the Police as they could simply look it up.
Plus I think if more unmutable and allways recording bodycams find more wide spread in the police it will also keep people with a bad mindset away from joyning the police.
I'm German , so we have republican law as most of the non-anglo world. That makes it pretty easy for the police to adhere to the law, yet they also do go to "lawschool" the same way as a lawyer does they just don't get modules like family law to study...so it's just 3 years of study and training to become a policemen.
I Imagine how much a US or any Anglo-Sphere policemen has to learn before they start working. I mean how long does it take until they not only know all the laws but also all the caselaw related to their work? From that perspective, it's probably a bit difficult to allways remember every case from the past so and so hundred years. That might make it pretty hard to behave correctly.
Straight up manipulative behavior
Lying is part of the job description!
People should stop carrying ID unless driving. Phones have enough ID in them.
Cops are not heros, they are predators on society
Passenger: I have rights
Cops: “You give up your rights when you’re in a car”
Literally had to say something about that too, like bruh, what the fuck do you mean?
Wild 😂
I hope these cops realize that their own families can be treated this way.
I think he means that as a driver you do have to produce a valid license in a lot of states without reasonable suspicion
@@wptny3339 the driver is irrelevant here since we’re talking about the passenger.
The problem is that cops can legally lie to you, which is utter BS. Now if we lie to them we could face criminal charges. Quite the double standard here isn't it?
Congress lie all the time but we cant lie to them.
Cops can deploy tear gas completely legally but if you throw back the same one they throw at you then it's a crime. Double the double standards
Legal Lies…. That’s crazy.
@@Trollmaster08 how do you suppose “we” would even lie to congress? That’s silly.
The problem is that cops lying to citizens to get them to waive their rights is a crime under USC 18.13.241 and 242, among others, but the legal system is so corrupt that criminal cops like these aren't prosecuted.
Look at the Stamford prison experiment. Cops we have today are the natural result of giving immense power with no accountability.
"When you have rights, either you use them or you lose them."
You are correct good sir. Thank you for recording this.
This is very true
TRUE: but it shouldn't be like walking through a mine field to use your rights. ( your americian system looks like it was made by canaanites )
True. It’s just a shame that you have to choose between your life and your rights.
100% this was bs in every country
Also would hate to have elbows like a juice monkey....looks painful
I say this all the time, never immediately tell an officer you’re recording via dashcam right away. Let them dig themselves in the deepest hole possible before you tell them they’re on video. Telling them you’re recording right away they’re immediately gonna somewhat tighten up even if they say they don’t care about being recorded
I agree
Don’t tell them at all and reveal it during the discovery phase of court proceedings.
A good poker player never shows his hand.
well not everyone wanna deal with them or being detained etc
@@extractedentertainment8213 While I understand your reasoning for not revealing that a recording is being made, I think a person needs to judge the situation they find themself. If they believe the incident might escalate to an unlawful detainment or worse, revealing they are recording might de-escalate a situation that is heading toward a bad outcome. Cheers.
In some circumstances you can not use a recording in court unless both parties consent. If you don't tell the cop first, then you can't say they consented. So, always tell them first if you want to make sure you can use the recording in court.
There is no other profession that tolerates such utter incompetence and ignorance of the basic knowledge of the job.
Cashiers are held to higher standards than police with weapons
I agree with you to a point but there is no other profession that is as violent, dangerous, and impactful to both parties. I also must say that in 2018 there were more than 6 million police interactions. In the same year only 20k were reported as wrongful. Out of that 20k, (a VERY small number compared) only 5% were reported valid.
Bad cops are VASTLY outnumbered by the good police
Meh my jobs more dangerous @RyanGrim-n-stuff
@@FreshBarn ahh, yes, marriage. I 100% agree, my job as a husband is vastly more dangerous, lol.😂
This video proves that officers use "step out of the car" as an intimidation tactic and not for officer safety.
No they don’t, they just wanted him to get out of the car
@@justaguywithcommonsense4875 give up your user name
@@justaguywithcommonsense4875 you don’t get it . He can get out the car all day long if ordered but this is a traffic stop. He is not endangering anyone. They turned their focus to him and he does not have to ID himself regardless
@@ga301 You fell for bootlicker lip-service.
@@justaguywithcommonsense4875 I rarely dislike comments but when I do I let the person know.
It makes me so mad when cops say stuff like “oh where did you go to law school” or “are you a lawyer? You know the law?” It’s insane that they think regular citizens should be ignorant of the laws and their rights and just do whatever they say without question.
Edit: tell them “I didn’t know that was illegal” and they’ll say “ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse.”
I just say I went to high school n graduated with the common knowledge of the law in the area I reside
Pissed off a cop with that n he put my warning as a ticket but gave me the warning ticket n never told me
I went to court n got 10k because I payed more for insurance for almost a year n wasn’t aware I had points
He fucked up because there’s no receipt ever printed of it n put it in the system like I payed n plead guilty
I’m still in that case but even my lawyer says this is a clean stretch based on all the info I have n the dashcam of him saying it’s a warning not a ticket
The PD claimed they couldn’t retrieve the bodycam footage since it’s a year ago
But luckily I did n kept my mouth shut cuz Ik It’s better to catch them in the act
Clear audio n view with time stamp
This especially pertinent given the general legal argument that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
just respond: same law school as you. Because they don't go to law school
@@Chspas lmao I love this
Easy answer.
Cop: "Are you a lawyer?"
Citizen: "Are you?"
That cop actually said “you give up your rights when you are in a car.” Wow scary stuff. End qualified immunity now.
Shouldn't that be Qualified IMPUNITY?
Amen
Too late. Too out of control already..
It worked.
Qualified immunity should be reduced significantly, everywhere. Colorado is a start.
They literally admitted they just wanted to know who he was, and also admitted they do it to everyone.
2:13 "YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS WHEN YOU ARE IN THE CAR" somebody please fire this cop
lmfao what a tool
That will get him promoted. This is their training
Fr that was beyond insane 😂
Probably heard the accent and assumed he was ignorant of his rights.
Exactly why he and his helpers deserve no better than a D.
Millions of Americans everyday not realizing they give up their rights every single day. Who knew 😢
A decent demeanor doesn't make an F turn into a C. 4th amendment rights violations seemingly still deserve an F regardless of their demeanor. A tyrant with a really good demeanor is still a tyrant.
The cops are being graded on their ability to follow the law, not manipulate it.
@@mranerobic3795 They manipulated the law by asking him to exit the vehicle. Him exiting the vehicle and standing wouldn’t make him more identifiable, it’s just intimidation.
@@mranerobic3795 F
Wait until this guy learns that the cops did nothing wrong and they got an A+ in my books
@@justaguywithcommonsense4875 well that doesn't surprise me, you always have liked grading dudes. Especially their nether regions. xD
Since when does coercing and negligence get a C grade? If an officer doesn’t know the law, it should be an automatic F. Just my opinion.
😆
Agree. Power monger jerks. Grades of F, for them.
SCOTUS has ruled that cops need not know or understand the laws they are hired to enforce which is crazy to me how are they gonna enforce laws that the don't know and understand but hay they are also not obligated to render aid or protect civilians from imminent harm but civilians can be charged with gross indifference if we see someone in distress and don't stop and render aid
Here’s the thing, an F is supposed to be the worst grade so it kind of deflates the impact of an F when you give it to some one who could have been far worse
Audit the Audit is pretty pro-cop on the whole. They are super super generous with a bunch of police.
Wow, I truly admire this man's knowledge of his rights, and his execution of them. He explains very well his points - like, why he shouldn't get out of the car. So proud he didn't get out. I Love that he's right at every turn. 😂 "I'll give up my rights for my friend - so he's not late"
I always laugh when officers tell motorists to step out of their car for the officers safety, but if you step out on your own, the officer will tell you to step back in your car for their safety.
It's because they think whatever thought pops in to their head at that moment is the law. It cracks me up how emotional they get when you don't immediately comply with every single order they give. Like they are somehow infallible because they wear that uniform. I was actually considering becoming a police officer when I got out if the Marines but then I realized I'd hate almost everyone I'd have to work with because of their superiority complexes.
@@fritzworley6316 I was a Correction Officer for 25yrs and never wanted to be a Police officer. I actually never like Police Officers but I wanted to be in law enforcement to avoid Police Abuse. For the most part it works. I was only falsely arrested by NYPD one time. Over the years I have been racially profiled countless times but usually when I inform them I'm a CPL holder and see my retired ID they calm down. I try to follow the MANY commands they give but I never remove my hands from my steering wheel until I clear it with the officer. Many Officers when dealing with the public should be fired. They forget that they are PUBLIC SERVANTS and not a Military force.
Oh yeah..coz its only their lives matter
Plus being inside the car, surrounded by its crash structure, is far safer than standing on the side of the road.
@@glennw7118 I get racial profiling to a degree. Crime statistics show that out. BUT, i don't think anyone should be targeted because of their race. I used to drive safe but older vehicles and they would target me for driving an older vehicle. I understand if they had more caution with someone who fits the profile of person more likely to commit crime, but to target someone on their race, religion, vehicle they drive is wickedness. I agree many should be fired.
I get so sick of these cops demanding ID and telling lies to get it. Absolutely criminal behavior.
Very very WISE observation
Just watching videos like this makes me angry.
They love ID like crackheads love crack.
Only if you are driving
Why is it such an issue?
I always find it ironic that police need only 6 months of training to uphold the law, yet it takes on average 8 years to practice law as an attorney. This would be a great topic of discussion for ATA
but they are sooo fast to say "i know the law! are you a lawyer?"
Even worse....It takes two years to be a cosmetologist. Yeah...two years to be a frick'n barber.
@@48mastadon it's to keep new people out and the current people in
You do know that to become a police officer you have to have a college degree and if you want to get promoted to higher than just an officer you need to have studied criminal law as well.
That 6 months is only the academy after you have already been to college
@@lordvika2526 no one wants to be a cop nowadays and they will accept someone who just came out fresh out the academy
I am getting so tired of seeing cops lie! Even worse that they continue lying after the passenger let them know that he knows that they are lying!
The officers get an F for misinterpretation/lying about the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse especially by a sworn officer of the law.
I have long suspected the sincere intentions of this channel, so the grade C for caps does not surprise me, I can also say that I thought he would get a B- (they could have shot this guy and got a D)...
They would get an F if they shot both guys
@@sguerilla6142 Audit hands out more F's to cops than he does to civilians so your argument is pretty weak and pathetic. If they would have escelated the situation then it would have been an F and they could have since he didn't step out the vehicle. People like you are really very slow and have no independent thought lol
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for ordinary citizens, but courts have held that it IS an excuse for police officers. Just another weapon in a cop's arsenal, enabling abuse of authority and trampling of rights.
@@-HeyLyd- What rights???? I still haven't heard anyone say what rights were infringed upon by asking a question. You guys are such beta male cry babies lmao
Ignorance of the law SHOULD NOT be an excuse for an officer. It’s no excuse for a citizen.
Cop: "we don't ask people for IDs or to get out of the car just for the heck of it"
Also cop: "we need your ID and step out of the car just for the heck of it"
“you can’t go around stopping everyone and asking for ID like Nazi Germany” 😂 I love this cause he’s right. Fascist regimes thrive on excessive policing and violating privacy, and police in the US need to understand that their behavior can be compared to Nazi’s and come dangerously close to fascism when they refuse to question their own understanding of the law. Introspection is a vital quality for police officers to have.
lol, this is literally normal in Europe traffic stops
@@mortensenvick5711 Asking for the ID of the driver is normal and makes sense to be required by law, but requiring the passengers show ID is not.
Police don’t (or at least shouldn’t) go demanding ID from every pedestrian on the sidewalk unless there is probable cause, the same way they can’t demand ID from passengers of vehicles.
There is sadly many things in American culture that is directly done as it is in authoritarian regimes.
And its hammered into kids right from the start.
Just start with the pledge of allegiance. No other civilized nation or free nation has something like that. The Nazis did. North Korea have, Modern Iran has. The soviet Union had it, and now Russia to with Z and other things.
And from that point it expand. And the US have and do many things that the "rest" of the free and civilized world does not understand or could accept living under.
Prison system used as money buckets, and forced labor for big companies like Amazon and Mcd, getting almost free forced labor.
Messy law system. and massive corruption. on such a level that things that are massively corruptive is not even seen as corruption like how companies spend billions working politicians and lobby/pay them to work for them instead of the nation. Again like many Authoritarian states.
The line has already been crossed and people are starting to notice, when the next line is crossed officer safety will be an issue because they abuse us soo much we the people have to stand up. They create their own problems
@@mortensenvick5711 Europe is 30 countries. You sure even half of them have laws forcing passengers to identify themselves?
This man is my hero! I would hope everyone who finds themselves in a similar situation will do the same
The “step out of the car” was 100% not for safety, it was so they could illegally search his person under the pretext of “for my safety and yours…”
"The beatings are for your own protection!"
That's exactly what they were up to. It's the first thing that popped into my head when they kept persisting.
The cops extending the stop is prolonging the contact, yet the contact is supposedly the cops reason for being "concerned for their safety". Write a ticket and let them go, end of "safety concern". The cops certainly weren't acting like they were concerned for their safety. It's clearly all about getting a "hunch" and wanting to go fishing for warrants.
Had they pulled him out, they probably would've patted him down, found his wallet and taken his ID. Have seen that before -- though I'm not sure how that can be legal.
Yup. He'll step out of the car and they'll wanna search him now "for their safety".
Removing the passenger for not giving ID is different than the officer safety issues upheld by the court. This is clearly retaliation for not complying with the illegal demand.
Of course it is. But the laws are purposely made so vague that's not illegal. Even if the passenger challenges it, and get off, the damage has still been done.
@@mranerobic3795 No, it's probably illegal.
However, the way qualified immunity works, if this exact scenario hasn't occured before, then apparently the police couldn't have known it was illegal and they can't be held liable.
@@KamikazeSOF2 You're missing the point. It wouldn't matter if they did. Who's going to police the police? Its like setting speed limit that has no penalty if you exceed it. Okay, it illegal. Now what? Do you call the police on the police?
@@mranerobic3795 I didn't miss the point. My comment was pretty sarcastic. I get how it didn't really come through in text form.
We're basically saying the same thing. It doesn't really matter whether or not it's illegal when nothing is going to happen.
Right? I mean the dude could have a record a mile long, but how does that impact their safety? RI has just decided that they can check everyone they lawfully come across for warrants. That's it.
The cop actually said in the very beginning and right after the passenger refused to get out "when you get in a car you give up your rights ". Unbelievable.
we let Scotus manipulate us, by their! purchased compliance , to the oligarchy of wealth and world absolute power.
🤡
Pathetic examples of law enforcement. They should be ashamed of themselves for making their department look bad. They wear their ignorance like a badge of honor.
That's what the badge is for.
Remember, cops are allowed to lie to you, so if they say you aren't being arrested, it's still very possible you are going to get arrested.
Fortunately my brother realized this when he was a young man. Cop followed him down his (long) driveway because the cop knew, but had no evidence, that my brother was speeding. Proceeded to literally beg my brother to tell him that he had been speeding, even promised several times that he wouldn't get a ticket or anything "just for my own peace of mind" type manipulation and he never budged. Cuz he knew if he did he would get a ticket. If he told the full truth, he'd have gone to jail. (100+ in a 65) He maintained that he reached the speed limit rapidly and then traveled the speed limit. Smart man (for once, lol)
They almost always do that when arresting you.
It's not a lie to tell someone they are not under arrest and the step out of the car, only to instantly tell them they are under arrest the second they step out.
THey didn't lie there, you were not under arrest, the second you became under arrest is the second they told you and starter putting cuffs on.
Regardless even if you ARE under arrest you still need to get out of the car when ordered. The course are very clear that getting people into and out of cars on a traffic stop is something cops have to right to lawfully order. Not getting out of the car when under arrest isn't going to unarrest you, it is going to get you injured.
The most messed up part though is that courts have upheld that if a cop says you are under arrest and they messed up you, you still were not under arrest BUT if they say you are under arrest and resist then you were under arrest.
@Uncle Sammy you could not have watched the video. Also you have no idea what you are talking about. Keeping licking boots.
I cannot believe the effing cop actually said, out loud, that “You give up your rights when you are in a car”. That scumbag needs to be fired immediately; he has NO business having a badge and a gun.
Well, it's true that you give up some of your rights while driving
@@firstwavenegativity6379 yeah but not for getting in a car.
@@firstwavenegativity6379 What rights do you give up when driving?
@@redgringrumboldt8983 Depends on the state, but in order to have a driver license you agree to give up certain rights while driving. You can not get a drivers license without agreeing to give up certain rights. But again, this only applies if you are driving a vehicle, not if you are simply inside a vehicle as a passenger.
@@Oleg-oe1rc I just want to know what rights do people give up to drive. Like, name one.
IMO, a blatant misunderstanding of the law deserves a much lower grade than a C, regardless of how the officers behave. I believe law enforcement officers have a professional obligation to know and understand the laws they're tasked to enforce, as well as know and understand the limits of how they're enforcing those laws.
Arizona judge ruled that being a police officer is not a profession therefore cops are not professionals.
Sadly they are not a profession according to a recent ruling...cops are a government paid gang.
Exactly
They certainly have a moral and ethical obligation to know and understand…just not a legal obligation.
100% agree, if I have the choice between a) nasty/hostile cops who know and follow the law or b) nice cops that blatantly violate my rights, I’ll take “a” day long
In Canada, thankfully, we can definitely refuse to provide our identification to police if we are merely a passenger in a vehicle, or if they stop us on the street, unless they are investigating a crime that has either occurred, or they are detaining us, Sherrey
Same in U.S.
Same in the us, the point of the video is to show the officers flagrantly breaking this law.
"We don't ask you to get out the car for the heck of it."
--We have determined this is a lie
they also say he is not getting out of the car to be issued an arrest, so...why is he being told to get out?
@@HarryOrPoke Their ego/pride.
Interesting that when the passenger wouldn't hand over his ID, the cops claimed that he needed to exit the vehicle for "officer safety" and kept pressing that point, but as soon as he gave them his drivers license, their concerns about officer safety disappeared. I've heard other cops actually verbalize the nonsensical claim that refusing to ID made them fear for their safety. Apparently, they feel safer when a taxpayer surrenders his rights and engages in Obedience To Authority (if unfamiliar, please research the term).
7:00 - Yeah, the SCOTUS ruled that a cop can order passengers from the vehicle IF they think it's a matter of safety. BUT, it's clear that he was ordering the passenger out of the car simply for refusing to provide ID.
But at around the 10 minute mark, the guy in the seat states the citation has already been written. At this point the police are in violation for extending the stop
@@knerduno5942 - Yeah, that too! Why I hate cops. They're more worried about controlling other people, FREE people, that they just can't obey the law themselves.
Pennsylvania v mimms if a police officer orders you out of a car you legally have to get out of the car
@@justaguywithcommonsense4875 - Yeah, I get that, but when a cop is doing it just to control people or intimidate them or to jerk them around then that's a game changer. The idea is supposed to be for safety. Not to show, "Hey, I'm in charge, and I'm going to start jerking you around to get you to become subservient".
@@robertgantry2118 he wasn’t tho, he wanted him to get out of the car to get away from everything, like he was always waving his hands and arms around cops always want a clear view of your hands and don’t want you to move them too much
I still to this day will never understand how providing an ID helps with "officer safety".
They're just hoping to find someone with a warrant or numbers on their license to arrest someone or conduct a search. However they knew this man was in the right and didn't have to do it but they thought wait a minute if hes done nothing wrong then why not give me your licenses. So now they SUSPECT he has a warrant and is now lying and trying to find ways to forcefully and lawfully obtain his licenses as you can see when they started demanding him to step out instead of asking because then the officers would have had the "right" to remove him.
Because if you know they have your name you won't do anything that might require retaliation?
Because most people have no hesitation providing an ID. It’s a gigantic red flag if they refuse as usually they are well aware they have outstanding warrants.
It's just a lie they say, to get what they want. Pigs are trained to manipulate and intimidate citizens
@@tjkelly8718 and convicts like you are trained to feed off society like leeches
01:15 I've learned one thing from "Audit the Audit" channel and it's that nobody in their videos knows the actual laws. The cops don't and the auditors don't, and the truth is the law is sometimes so convoluted that you can't know how a specific court would rule.
The only thing the “auditor” got wrong was about stepping out of the vehicle. Supreme Court has ruled (wrongly in my opinion) that officers may order anyone out if a vehicle on a traffic stop. He was right that they cannot force you to identify (legally anyway)
@@MrRockitt3
Exactly
"When you have Rights, you use them or lose them" Solid Line!!
These cops are Crooked. "You have rights" yet literally lie and take his rights.
Nah they just mouthing off a bunch of crap they think sounds hard or convincing
@@freshswagga100 i think thats just an off base definition of lying in and of itself.
These cops flat out misrepresented the law, they said that he has to ID as a passenger, that is a flat out lie. That misrepresentation of the law by police officers should be grounds for immediate termination without question.
That's not illegal. Nor is him lying.
@@mranerobic3795 a passenger is not legally required to provide identification during a traffic stop, this is well documented case law. The cop saying otherwise is lying.
@@arh9068 Except when the cop has RAS. Something they can simple make up when they feel like it. Notice that they never have to define the RAS to anyone.
Those type of exclusions assume the cops are honorable and fair, and won't abuse their authority. IA stupid assumption, since if that were the case, we wouldn't need to constitutions in the first place. Instead, they simple render the Bill of Rights useless.
@@mranerobic3795 RAS validates detaining an individual for questioning, when detained an individual has no legal obligation to answer any questions a cop may ask nor are they required to provide any identification. The cop saying otherwise is LYING.
When cops have to be held responsible for their actions this will never end.. He had no rights you and your gang just stepped on them now your copsplaining.
"Obviously the reason we do that is to check for warrants..."
Exactly. It's a fishing expedition.
Exactly he bluntly said the reason which is unlawful like the man said you can’t just go up to people to people and ask them for ID being in a car is no different. I’m pretty sure if he wouldn’t have given his ID they would have escalated the situation. That’s why so many where there including the white shirts and they don’t even know the law. Sad
Here's the rule: if I didn't commit a crime, leave me alone.
The fact the passenger was recording also helped to keep that interaction peaceful
Those cops were literally lying about the law to coerce someone into giving up their rights, C is far too generous
That cop literally said “you lose your rights when you get in the car”! Insane.
Right! WTF does that mean?
I heard that too!!!
@@PenitentEngine just further officer’s abuse of power, so much so that this officer seems to believe once people get in a vehicle, they are at the mercy of the law through the power the officer now holds
!!!! Right? We just gonna gloss over that?
Yeah, maybe it sounds better in the original German?
Walking away with is ID constitutes a seizure. A reasonable person would not think they were free to go when an office has their property.
Whenever someone demonstrates that they know the law, police "accuse" them of "being a lawyer." Yet we as citizens are required to know and follow literally thousands of laws. Ignorance of the law is no excuse... unless you are a police officer, then not knowing or following laws, or "making up laws", is protected as "qualified immunity" (aka sovereign immunity). If ignorance of the law was a valid excuse for citizens then we could literally commit murder then claim "I didn't know."
Police literally have an incentive to not know the law. Once it is documented that a police officer has training on specific laws, they can then be held responsible and even liable for knowing and not following the law. There are cases where officers opted for termination for not complying with mandatory training orders following an incident. They then do the uniform shuffle over to a neighboring city.
@@7heRedBaron They should lose any pension they have accumulated when they are fired.
This man is my hero. Mr Ambis is a wonderful man working on behalf of human rights.
*civil rights
"I give up my rights for my friend"
"it has nothing to do with rights"
it has EVERYTHING to do with rights.
I like how EVERY law and statute covered here was written with loop holes that officers use to violate and after thousands of violations the courts refuse rule on said violations so things can be clear cut.
C? They have still violated the right of the victim and have illegally extended a routine traffic stop... that should be an F.
When a cop asks “where did you get your law degree?” My response is you don’t have to be a chef to know how to cook and you don’t have to be a lawyer to know the law.
shoulda asked "where did you get yours?"
I'm not a vet....but I can recognize all sorts of animals.
@@ohsnapsonbro4260 good one … I’m not a proctologist but I know a….. well you know……
And apparently you don't need to know the law to be a police officer.
@@ohsnapsonbro4260 …especially pigs
Hey ATA. I think you missed something on this one. Rodriguez v United States ruled that cops cannot extend a stop beyond the mission of the stop. At 9:12, the passenger states that the driver had already received the ticket. That being the case, the original mission was over, and ordering the passenger out of the car would have been an unlawful seizure. In fact, I believe Landeros relied on Rodriguez.
Nice catch.
I like how he told them he was reaching for his ID. That’s sad he has to do that.
The officer there admitted they only do this to go fishing for warrants on passengers
There's no other reason to need to ID any passenger
“Joe Attorney”, did he really insult him for *practicing* his rights when it’s perfectly legal and fine to do so, especially during an interaction with a PO. You would think the people that enforce the laws would be happy that people are practicing them.
If "ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it", then logically, the burden is on me, the private citizen, to know the law BETTER than a cop knows it.
They don't like when citizens know the law because then they cannot violate citizens rights without the citizen knowing...
They also get shown how stupid they are for NOT knowing the law.
If a cop knew the law, then they would probably be a lawyer, not pigs in the mud.
That's where you're wrong buddy. The law isn't enforced so that everyone gets to be happy, it's enforced to sustain the violence of the state and keep the citizenry as slaves subservient to the state.
I’ve had a cop call me a “street lawyer” because I asked him if he had a warrant to search my vehicle.
"you give up your rights when you're in the car" that is the craziest thing I've ever heard an officer say
Sad but true you have no rights with police. Unless they chose to give you those rights. They have more guns then you have with backup seconds away. Only the military can every tell cops what to do because they have tanks.
The Court has all but said that. They've gone so far as to say that an RV is primarily a vehicle rather than a home. So even if you're living in a mobile home/camper, they can enter it w/o a warrant, order you out, etc. Our houses and apartments are the last place where we can feel remotely safe.
However, all the cops have to do is say is "We got a call" or are doing a "wellness check" and they can kick down your door w/o a warrant. They'll lie under oath about having probable cause, and the idiot judge would most likely go along with it.
Thats an out rite lie and government need to be held accountable for it just as society would be.
Only the oligarchy, the cops and their fellow puppets get “rights.” The “criminal-class” aka me and you and other poor people don’t get that privilege
What constitution was my favorite
A “C” is WAY to generous in my opinion, especially considering some of the other things they said, for example “you lose your rights while in a motor vehicle”!
I totally appreciate this man not being from this country but wanting to fight for his freedom and rights that this country is supposed to protect. Keep fighting the good fight brother you’re not alone. And you are 100% correct in stating if you don’t use them you’ll lose them.
He is setting a good example for everyone. Proud of this guy
Right on. Gentleman is not even from the US and he knows more than this Officers does. Nice job Officer!!!! Great way to make US LEO's look intelligent.
He’s still a Citizen and has every right . Does it matter if he was born or no? He’s been living in Us for 31 years for sure he’s going to fight for his rights
@@headshot9611 that's exactly what Nathan is saying you spanner.
C is very generous. It was good to see there was no ego driven escalation or hostility as is often the case. But, being so wrong about the law, and demonstrating such a lack of understanding of the 4th amendment is very poor, and they did violate the passenger's rights, and admitted to doing so as a matter of course. D at best for me.
while also lying and saying things like "you think you're a lawyer?" "i know the law! (cant present the actual law)" and "you give up your rights when youre in a car". very very bad statements imo.
F. Any time rights are violated it’s an auto-fail, no matter how nice they do it
I've said it before but ATA really needs to take their time with these evaluations. Saying the police in here are at all within good practice is dangerous to police and the public. If we want to fight back against the constant lying by police we at least need to say the lying is bad...
I think we are seeing a C because so often do cops wrongfully escalate these issues. I think it skews the grading system.
Exactly. Maybe a D minus.
Giving the officers a “C” is generous. Violating the rights of two individuals along with their oath is a heinous act against the the most basic of their job functions.
Rape is heinous. Asking for ID is not.
@@J_PIK
Violating a person's rights is, no matter if it's a demand for ID, or an illegal detainment.
Getting a C for doing everything wrong but being professional about it seems pretty absurd.
C is for Cuck...Obviously here on this channel
Heinous is a very strong word to describe these officers. You might want to reconsider your prioirities
You do not give up your rights when you're in a vehicle. You have the right to travel. If they're this concerned with who might be a passenger in a car when they stop it, then they shouldn't initiate the traffic stop.
In a court you cannot be compelled to give any information against yourself. But on a roadside a cop can demand ID when his only hope in getting it is to match you to a warrant or some other measure of guilt? Legal corruption at it’s finest.
In stark contrast to our supposed jurisprudence, cops operate under the presumption of guilt. Any excuse to get an ID so they can go on a 4th amendment violating fishing expedition. They lie and claim reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime (which they are not required to articulate) to justify detaining and ID. If they run your ID through their database and catch a fish, they can always invent RAS hours later when writing their report to make their illegal stop "legal".
This is what we called if you are non white they can asked your identification in every case.
There's a distinction between "May I see your ID, please?" and "I need to see your ID, sir/ma'am." that a lot of people, cops included, don't seem to understand. One is a friendly request, which may be made by anyone to anyone. The other is a lawful order. Some people think that if a cop asks you a question or makes a request, it's a legally binding order of compliance. Some cops like it so much when people think that way that they'll twist their thinking to mean that they have a legal right to order you to do anything, and that belief generally works for them because most people will do whatever authority tells them to.
This young man absolutely knows what he’s talking about! Props for knowing AND executing your RIGHTS!
He did not know his rights the police did not either he thought he had a right to refuse to leave the vehicle we found out he does not but the police did not have the right to extend the stop or demand ID but I still say if you know you have done nothing and your not wanted just corporate and be on your way
Jeanne, I dont think he said he has the right to stay in the vehicle, he just said he would rather remain in the vehicle in front of the camera for his own safety, which was probably a very good call. He was absolutely bang on when he said he didn't have to identify himself.
"Just ID yourself if you have nothing to hide".... nope, would you identify yourself to another random stranger on the street? Would you let a cop search your home randomly, just because you have nothing to hide?
Mr ambus was correct when he said if you don't use your rights you lose them. If you're going to give up your rights so easily, you might as well not have them.
@@jeannepritchard2543 He absolutely has the right to refuse. And the only way that could legally force him from the vehicle is if the car was being impounded or he was being detained or arrested all of which require reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime.
Violating someone’s rights is an F always! They broke the law it’s an F.
yup, god bless utube channels like this that help us learn the law better.
it's like giving somebody a 10 in a gymnastics competition. You generally avoid doing it too easily because it leaves no room for when someone takes it to the next level.
Bunch of bootlickers who run this channel, they dont care about the people they just state the corrupt laws.
@@scottwickwire-brock4736 😊l
Look at all that damaged ego! Crazy! They lied to him straight to his face!
_"You're obligated, when you're in a motor vehicle, to present you're ID."_
Cops just can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that people aren't even required to _HAVE_ ID as a passenger in a car. And if you don't _have_ one, how can you _present_ it?
_"I don't have the law book on me..."_
Don't you have a copy in your car? Isn't the computer in your car connected to the internet? How about your cell phone? Can't you look it up?
_"...I know the law..."_
If you _know_ the law, then you'd be able to recite the statute number, and even the text, by memory. You don't even know basic laws of the United States (such as those mentioned in the Constitution), let alone those of your state.
Pignorance which chooses to remain so is stupid.
@Taylor Peay you don’t have to have a physical id. It’s only illegal if you refuse to verbally identify yourself
@Taylor Peay Even in stop and identify states it's legal to not possess ID say if you're walking or riding with another drive.
This cop is either poorly-trained OR he's just making shit up out of thin air.
*Which is it?*
@@TheHistorybear pignorance... I like it.. Picasso.
I'd like for the trainers and people responsible for passing these cadets to explain why so many officers vets and rookies alike don't know extremely common and simple laws like the rights of citizens to not have to present papers for no gd reason.
No doubt they do know the laws, they deliberately twist the truth to back their interpretation. They're either ignorant & liars either way they should quite frankly be fired.
If a train driver breaks a serious rule thru ignorance & then lies they'd lose their job.
A bus driver breaking laws of the road would lose their job.
A shop assistant who routinely did similar would be fired probably for gross misconduct.
Why are cops protected? One question so you know the law or not if yes then you're a liar if not then gross misconduct & get the boot
From the way I see how these cops reacted and acted, they knew exactly what they were doing, they had nothing to drag this guy out of the car for and used their "Subtle" intimidation in numbers, legally lie about their made up laws and case law to "Coerce" this citizen standing up for his rights to voluntarily give them the information their butt hurt ego couldn't accept he wasn't giving them...........Beyond the scope of the stop.
Because their time in the academy is spent on firearms, hand to hand physical altercations and generally how to develop an “us vs them” mentality, and gearing up for battle everyday. Not much time left for learning the Constitution.
Too much is put on firearms and tactical training and not enough training on laws.
If they want more training than basics received in academy they have to do it on their own time and sometimes own dime.
Look at this way, they are human. As a human when you get home from work after a 12 or more hour shift are you going to study material about work knowing you have 2 or three more 12 hour shift coming up?
Are you going to sit in a classroom on your day off learning about your job?
The blame needs to fall on the departments in some situations for training too much for worst case scenarios and not enough on everyday encounters.
If you fail qualification at a range you will be placed on desk duty and possibly released if you eventually don’t pass.
If you fail in unarmed tactics?
If you fail in a refresher course if you even have any on the laws?
It’s a failure of the system that needs to be fixed.
@@elmer8107 well thats disappointing because they can't shoot worth a shit either. Half of them are scared of their own shadows and the others are gung-ho like their rambo. Its ridiculously embarrassing to say the least.
It's cool to see this guy came to this country and loves it enough to defend himself with our laws
😂😂u prob not from the us😂
"defend himself with our laws" did you expect him to argue with the officers using the laws of his home country?
"our" laws are his too lmfao
And what makes you think he wasn't born here..because of an accent 🤔..he clearly stated he's from Providence and it's clear his first language is Spanish and second English..still doesn't mean he's not from here.." The Corporation of The United States "
@sock Hilarious🤣,
I would've told him "if anything from the US constitution, You may want to adhere to the 5th amendment and remain silent"😅😅
I really want someone to film this type of stop where they say all passengers need to show ID and have a dog with tags on and have them ask the cops if they would like to check if the dog has a record at the pound or remove them and handcuff for officer safety. That would go viral so quickly.
It is absurd that in 2022, we still do not have 100% clarity across every state on such a simple legal concept as whether or not a passenger in a traffic stop is required to provide ID or not. It should be cut & dry…and consistent across every state.
Should be but here in lies the problem... States having the right to have their own laws makes traveling a nuisance for things this simple. Some things should be a federal standard that supercede state level enforcement, but they're not which is why so many things are extremely annoying and a nuisance.
Who says there's no clarity? These cops know exactly what they're doing. They know the law. They choose to violate it.
@@jackburton2680 Furthermore the justice system _wants_ to muddy the waters as much as possible. Thanks to Heien v. North Carolina cops do not have to know the law and can use ignorance of it as an excuse to detain you. So better for them to play dumb so they can get away with violating your rights.
@@jackburton2680 It more of a manipulation the a clear violation. All they need do is say the magic words "for my safety" and they get a free pass to supplant the constitution.
@@edwindigital4598 The Bill of Rights is a federal standard. But they're only as good as the state's willingness to defend them. In this state, its the cops that are defended. Even thought the Bill of Rights are specifically intended to prevent this very abuse of authority.
"What do you think we're gonna beat you up?"
Actually, yeah. Exactly that. There's 4 officers with guns and tazers surrounding the unarmed passenger. Would be a big leap to justify officer safety.
Wasn't it interesting that as soon as the passenger refused to ID, the police immediately tried to coerce him by forcing him out of the car "for officer safety", but as soon as he handed them his ID, their officer safety concerns disappeared? Apparently, cops become afraid if a citizen knows and exercises his rights. I've actually heard police make the nonsensical claim that lack of ID (Obedience To Authority, please look it up if unfamiliar) makes them fear for their safety.
They were also super insistent on getting him out of the camera's view
Yeah i do
I love how this guy knows his rights the same thing happened to me I was the passenger in a traffic stop the Michigan State police asked for my name and ID I said to him " I respectfully decline " and he respected me and my comment and left it at that . No ticket to my girlfriend let her off with a warning then I said to him "have a nice day and stay safe" . Point is stay calm know your rights and always record always
Are you a POC or no?
Only if all officers were like that.
Cops in my area are immediately aware of who 'sounds' like they might be successful in court, and they don't hassle us. But given the number of times I've been around someone who is not informed, educated or well-spoken, and cops have tried to find things to charge them; I'd say cops employ that strategy everywhere. It's incredibly subtle questioning, but within 2 sentences, they can pick out who the easy targets are.
Careful saying "stay safe", that can be taken as a threat...
@@EshaneDetroitdepends how u say it I tell em to be safe all the time
This is one of the main things that has always pissed me off. If u r a passenger, and its a mere traffic stop(as oppossed to a group of people who just robbed a bank or something) u DO NOT have to show your ID.
How do lying cops go home and look their loved ones in the eye when they are so dishonest. Feel sad for their family if they can lie that easily you wouldn't be able to trust one word out of their mouths.
One word: sociopaths.
To quote the cop "It has nothing to do with rights" These are the words of fascists. They're fascists.
@@ThePhantomLion Its not the cops per se, rather, the judges. Sure the cops start the ball rolling, but they would be a lot less inclined to break the laws if judges refused to continuously side their way. The fact that they all too often do, simply means that the system is rigged, and that the judicial branch has lost its way.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent this very sort of government intrusion into our private lives, and to mitigate the abuse of power by law enforcement. When judges override those provision, they basically nullify those rights. History has shown us time and time again, that power corrupts, yet we still give cops virtually universal control over us.
Every judge should carefully consider his task and ask the question, "was there a clear an present need for the actions of the cop in the performance of his duty," before making his ruling. Otherwise, he shows his bias, and becomes part of the systemic problem with government, rather than its solution.
Because their family is complicit in the lie that every officer is a hero.
Simple, they are absolutely convinced they are the good guy and they decide who the bad guy is. For too long, elite society has blindly supported them with this "back the blue" nonsense. But things are changing with the advent of social media and cams, and that's why many cops are retiring early in my county. Must suck to be accountable after hundreds of years of unchecked authority and admiration.
Why can’t US cops easily cite the specific laws, and if they don’t know, look it up on their phone? Every cop in the Netherlands can easily lookup any law on his smartphone, and do most things using police apps. What kind of options do USA cops have for this?
It's a power/ego thing. Most of them have a pocket-sized copy of the code in their car. Also, of course, the internet is an option.
They can check online too but they are encouraged not to by their bosses coz it may hinder their number one objective........to ticket, cite and arrest you for anything and everything they can. The more ignorant you are to your rights, they are trained to exploit that to their advantage including lying to you. They US cops are simply the worst. If you do know your rights they can punish you by detaining you for a long time, making excuses to search your property and even writting bogus tickets to make sure you waste your time with unnecessary court visits for their dismisal which they can legaly skip and the further your have to travel the better. It's a sick system.
To many people think all they need to do is read an excerpt and they now understand the law.
The US is a common law system, which means laws can apply differently in different situations for different reasons. This is why law school takes three years (minimum) plus a rigorous exam (the Bar), and why law is called a "practice". Its a complicated field and expecting lay citizens or even police to have a mastery of it is unreasonable.
Often police departments have a simple policy the officers are expected to enact. If that policy is illegal or unconstitutional in some way, that is a question for the courts, not some ad hoc roadside discussion.
Case law is JUST as important as statues when it comes to US law. In addition, we have 50 states and who know how many local and count laws.
@@tomm487 I agree. When I see the difference USA cops act versus cops here in the Netherlands it seems they don’t care for the citizens they should be serving. There ego’s and production of tickets is more important than that. Here in the Netherlands cops (in general) are not there to write tickets, but to keep the peace, fight crime and educate people. Cops often give warnings without giving tickets. I once had a broken tail light, and I couldn’t fix it on the road. (I did have a replacement light, but I couldn’t easily get to the spot) The cop gave me his email address and asked me to mail a picture of the light being fixed within 5 days. This way I could prevent a ticket.
I have had many more encounters with cops like this, and they often give you a way out. They also don’t start with a giant ego, and are really professional and friendly. Even when you argue with them, they don’t go ballistic and remain calm. And because they need to have a four year education they do know the laws really well. I so hope the USA will one day reform on so many fronts, that it can match the rest of the OECD countries in terms of civilized society.
"when you have rights you either use them or lose them." Good quote from passenger.
Mad respect for u knowing that law and having a camera and sticking to your knowledge.
This man did an amazing job 👏🏾 he only showed ID because of his friend. The cops had egos that was not needed. Jeez smh
He gave up ID like a bitch!
Earning the hatred 24/7/365. HATRED.
I’ve been passenger to my husband being cited for speeding and the officer never even acknowledged my existence. I kept my hands on my lap and said nothing. Probably the only time I’m glad to be totally ignored. 😂😂😂
@@stevejette2329 very very WISE observation
@@1Rasta_man Never in my life did I want to harbor negative emotions.
I just retired from a 36 year career as a doctor. But watching LOTS of cop auditors during the pandemic has produced it in me. Tulsa cops recently ridiculed, harassed a 70 year old woman mental patient having an episode. Kicked down the door, smashed her face.
And the cops KNEW she was having a bipolar episode. Sick
Passenger did a great job with remaining calm during the encounter 👍
The guys in costumes should've got an "F"! They coerced the passenger into giving ID under false color of law. He should sue them back to the Stone Age.
The cops did nothing wrong however the passenger did, under Pennsylvania v mimms if a police officer orders you out of a car you have to get out of the car
@@justaguywithcommonsense4875 does that mean we should overlook the fact they lied about him giving his id? They didn't enforce the one part they could've, because they knew they were wrong and lying about his id.
Rhode Island is still in the stone age. Just sayin.
Great channel. Im so impressed by people who learn their rights and have courage to stand up for their rights an a very intimidating situation. Just important to know they law and details of the law in every state.
Cop: Look up obstruction.
Guy: So that's going to say passengers wave their constitutional rights?
Cop: Oh no, that's our catch-all trump card if we really want to arrest someone but they just haven't broken any laws.
Look at how they don’t care about him stepping out of the vehicle once he gives them ID. That’s all they cared about. They didn’t ask him to get out because of their safety. They did it because they wanted to ID him.
Edit: can’t believe they got a C. The whole video was police violating a citizens rights.
They would have done a pat down (4 officer safety) & found hid ID.
They should get an F because they don’t know how to do their job, lied multiple times to those they serve, and VIOLATED RIGHTS of an innocent man. Fixed it for you
Well this is a blatant pro police TH-cam page. Audit the Audit admits the police lied but still get a passing grade. This is why I always give them a thumbs down. They need to learn that the citizens have a voice and should not be squashed.
@@jamesf791 did you say he say is pro police page 😂 here literally just judges anything off the altercation. From what is legal and is not legal most of the videos cops don’t get pass F’s.
@@Percyy you truly don't watch most of the videos as what you said is not true or🤣. But keep defending him as and keep being pro police.
@@jamesf791 literally 3 out of the last 5 videos cops have F’S but ok 💀
@@Percyy if you have to go back more then 3 videos you already showed you are pro police as you show you are really reaching to defend people who break the law. Why do you defend bad actions like cops?
The officer was so quick to say, "So you're a lawyer?", but in actuality the passenger WAS the correct one!! The police officer was the one who didn't have a firm grip on the law and violated this man's rights!
I wouldn't be able to stay calm after that, whilst they're in the midst of breaking the 4th amendment saying "we didn't say you committed any crime," and being snarky smartasses about the passenger being the one aware of the law.
I love when cops ask "what, are you a lawyer👺"
My response will forever be "I make a better lawyer than you do a cop😂"
It doesn't make any difference if he is or not ..
These “officers” are WILLFULLY ignorant of these laws. They know that they can continue violating the rights of citizens and only the most egregious of encounters will ever become a threat to their malpractice of the law.
Literally the cops did nothing wrong
@@justaguywithcommonsense4875 they literally lied about everything concerning id. The passenger is not required to give id during a traffic stop. Did you even watch the clip?
Police are allowed (encouraged?) to lie to us. They must have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime to detain or ID, but they aren't required to articulate it, so they can claim RAS to make a stop "legal", go on a 4th amendment violating presumption-of-guilt fishing expedition, and if they find you have a warrant or you're a felon, they can make up RAS hours later when writing their report. They need to admit they know they are violating your rights to invalidate their qualified immunity, and many do!
They are not ignorant. They can't allow a non-white citizen control their traffic stop.
@@johnbenson923 John Benson, that's the way MOST STATES ARE!
However in Rhode Island the law is different. They have the right to make passengers exit the car.
I had to look that one up.
There are only a couple of
States that have that law
where they can pull you out.
"for our safety" bro they can just leave and be perfectly safe.
So since he was legally SUPPOSED to step out of the car to avoid an obstruction charge, could he still recuse to show his id if he stepped out the car when the cops asked?
I’ll give the cops a “D”, only because they didn’t drag the passenger out of the car. They are “misquoting” the law, also known as lying through their teeth.
"Ignorance of the law is not an excuse" for the average citizen, *so how can ignorance of the law POSSIBLY be an excuse for a (supposedly) trained cop???*
@@ianbattles7290 because the cops were only created to exploit labor AND make money for the state.. that's it.. that's all.
Sad thing is I'm sure they really and truly believe they where in the right they where prolly talking bout how they really went easy on that trouble maker and so this was a total waist of time for that poor guy
It's sad when a police officer can not know the law he's "enforcing", lie, harass, intimidate, coerce and violate a citizen's rights, but because he didn't assault someone or shoot them he gets a passing grade. We have such low expectations for law enforcement.
A “c” for trying to force passengers to give up ID. That’s should be an F. I guess if somebody robs a bank but they speak nicely to the teller you’d give them a “C”
Pretty sure he'd have to kill an unarmed man to earn an F...a "good" cop would of screamed 'gun' the second he gave any lip
Wait, why isn’t there a definitive answer to this question? It seems very clear to me that a passenger of a private car shouldn't be compelled to give up their rights to unreasonable search and seisure if they have committed no crime. Simply sitting quietly in a car while an officer cites or investigates the driver (who does give up certain rights in order to operate a vehicle on a public roadway) or refusing to identity themselves when asked is not a crime. I wish someone would take these officers to court and see this matter all the way through to the SCOTUS in order to set precedent.
At the beginning of the video the officer said not to worry about the traffic stop. That immediately ended the reason for the stop. Anything after that sounds like an illegal detainment.
You made me realize my rights were violated when I was in college and the importance of knowing my rights. That was 21 years ago and I have since serviced this country but I appreciate you and all your content sir tyvm.
They violated the driver's rights by prolonging the traffic stop!
No shit Sherlock
man i wish i knew about this channel and watched it 3 years ago, it could have saved me hours and money, as one time me and a friend of mine were waiting in a park parking lot to hear back on a friend if we were going to pick her up for a party or if she had a ride, in the time of waiting a cop pulled up behind us and told us that he needed to see our IDs as the spot where we were was a frequent stop for drug exchanges so without giving it a second thought we complied which led to a discovery for a warrant for my arrest which was just a book and release in 3 hours of holding now in knowing terry stop laws in utah i didnt need to follow that order and could have just went about our night.
"You give up your rights when you're in a car" I can't believe what I just heard. Did I hear that right?
The brilliant irony: these cops were most likely fishing for reasons pertaining to citizenship, only to be schooled on constitutional rights by an articulate bilingual.
He’s definitely puerto rican💀 puerto ricans are citizens of the us
@@eamonnprunty too many people dont realise that.
Of course they were. That's how the criminal justice system works.
@@benjie128 Our last president didn't even know that smh.
"blatant misunderstanding of the law" is an automatic F. those leos dont get extra points for being professional that should be expected always.
Well then if this interaction would be an F then how would you grade an officer who didn't understand the law AND unnecessarily escalated AND used unnecessary force? H-? Audit the Audit is obviously using the grading scale used for students. 🙄
@@NS-hs6lt There is something below F. there is the; ''take the kid out back and shoot him cause his brain is an embarrasment to nature''
The lowest grade you can get in school is expulsion, not F.
@@NS-hs6lt "The student scale" is 0 to 100, and everything from 0 to 60 is an F. Both a 0 complete-failure and a 59 almost-pass, are Fs. This guy deserves an F. " 🙄"
@@_alia Not all places use the 0-100 scale last I checked. Some places do indeed still issue letter grades afaik. And no, I actually agree with ATA here. A C is warranted, I could see an argument for a D. But an F? Come on.
These laws in those states needs to be changed! If I have committed no crime then the "GESTAPO" police should NEVER be allowed to subject me to ANY type of questioning, or demands.