Thanks for joining us for another episode! I'm working on a full length documentary on modern policing and informed citizens. Let me know what you would like to see in that video in the comments below. Cheers!
i disagree with half of these video cause it depend on what state you are in . i win a lawsuit cause i was pull out of a care as a passenger and was made to ID . in court the judge told the officer he was wrong cause the stop was for no seat belt and it show i had mine on
@Froggy Master77 You're only entitled to resist in cases where a reasonable person would fear for their lives or against serious bodily harm. You try it and your putting your future into the hands of a jury that will have to make a subjective decision on how you _felt_ . In 99.9% of cases in which the coppers are in error when they detain a person or arrest them, this will not be the case.
Former LEO here. Just here to share a short story. I had arrested a guy (I don’t remember what it was for. The most common arrests were DUI and domestic violence so it was most likely one of those) and he was super chill. Invoked his 5th amendment rights and asked for a lawyer. I wrote up my report saying he was calm and compliant, but the next day one of my superiors confronts me about my report. “How was he compliant if he refused to make a statement and asked for a lawyer?” I felt like I was explaining to a child that he has those rights and that doesn’t change his demeanor. That superior had at least 20+ years in law enforcement and couldn’t understand that.
Just curious, did you ever witness an officer violate someones civil rights or commit a crime? I know some are honorable, i just dont understand how we have bad cops if most cops are men and women with honor . Bad cops couldnt exist without his fellow officers allowing it.
@@chrisflach5911 I don't mean to be unkind, but many police officers have a low IQ. Trying to explain the law to officers who do not know it is an exercise in futility. If you are the person under investigation, you have MORE to lose by talking than anything else you do, with the exception of trying to run away. THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH POLICE AUTHORITY IS BY STAYING SILENT AND ORALLY INVOKING YOUR 5TH AND 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Even if you have a lot of money and can afford great lawyers, they will not be able to help you if you talk. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
U must've been the Last of the Constitutional Abiding Officer to wear the Uniform. Lots changed since u've been gone. Code of Conduct's a thing of the Past. I Salute You, and Thank You for your Service. A Commendation on behalf of ALL who read your Comment I say.
Bad cops suck but there are far more good cops that get killed in the line of duty. It truly breaks my heart every one of them. Dangerous job dealing with the worst in society.
@@archer0079 He won $10,000. Lawyer got his 35% ($3,500). Then he had to reimburse the lawyers for all of the lawyer's expenses ($5,500). He put $1,000 in the bank after all of the trouble. LOL
@@DApostate Hiibel v Nevada only applies in states that have Terry Stops. Even than their must be RAS or PC to do it, but of course cops can make up RAS they want. Terry v Ohio applied to search and seizure not ID. Terry v Ohio was about a pat down, no in the pockets search.
I'm growing increasingly weary of the notion that having ones day in court to fight charges is worthwhile. It's just the next stage of "the show." Police, judges, DA's and politicians are all members of the same clique.
@@stephenbrown6763 every unconstitutional act like lying the cops are allowed to do, along with qualified immunity are judicial mandates. not laws. when the courts give police/government rights the people don't have, they've overstepped their jurisdiction into tyranny. don't expect the auditor of audits to ever say that. he seems to like the judges ever changing opinions to be "laws?".
I got pulled over, and the cop walked straight up to my passenger’s window and asked my mother for her driver’s license. She looked at him with a little confusion and didn’t give him her license right away, so the cop snaps at her “mam, i asked you for your driver’s license.” My mom responded, “I know you did officer, and I’m going to give it to you just as soon as I figure out why I don’t have the steering wheel.
Officers of the law should have to tell you what you are being suspected of doing. Otherwise they could claim that anyone they stop is under suspicion of committing a crime. That's pretty messed up and can allow harassment from an officer to be quite difficult to deal with.
If you are driving and get pulled over you are already guilty of a traffic Crime. The only question is will he give you a break or not. Bottom line is they are going to take the cops word unless there is video proof that you didn't do what he said you did.
Everything goes back to contract law. The people have a contract with the gov to protect them from a number of things her in lies the issue. The concent we give law enforcement through the unwritten contract to protect us is invalid from the get go. Hers why. In contract law there must be a few elements that are met for the contract to be valid. 2 of these are transparency which is violated when they don't tell you what your suspected of. Then there is the meeting of minds which basically means no contract can be valid if both parties have not explicitly agreed to that provision of the contract. When the gov changes law to quote unquote protect officers it no longer has the concent of the people to do so as concent can't be base given if it could a woman would only have to give concent to sex once then would never have a right to resend that concent.
@@davidgordon8102 to an extent yes. Laws have these things called elements. If the proposed law has elements that law must first suit those elements before it's valid. Take for example speeding in Texas is a prima facie offense which has elements attached to it to prove it's validity. This particular law has 4 events that must exist to be enforceable. 1 a duty to follow the law as described 2that that duty was breached. Here's were it gets illegal for them 3 the presence of an injured party and 4 that my breach of duty concretely caused that injury it can't be speculative. We see the same exact elements in things like protective orders. So realistically an officer should know that law has elements if he is gonna be task to enforce it. So either the officer is not qualified to enforce that law because he lacks knowledge of the law , or he is blaintantly ignoreing the elements of the law and therefore not only breaching his oath of office but also acting with out athourity.
I LOVE it when they say you can turn yours off, I am recording too. Yeah, and if shit goes wrong, can you guarantee that it wont be "accidentally" deleted or lost? And can you guarantee that I will be able to get a copy of that video for use against you? No? Ok, I'll keep recording, Thank you.
All I am interested in is AVOIDING COURT!! As a citizen, I should not have to go be inconvenienced with MAKING TIME TO SPEND in court because a cop VIOLATED MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. FOR EXAMPLE; Me: pulled over. Cop: need your lic. and reg. Cop: hang tight for me. Cop: Any drugs or weapons in the car? Me: No. Cop: Any problem with me searching you car? Me: I do not consent to searches. Cop: No? Why are you shaking? You hiding something? Me: No. I'm not shaking. I do have to be to work. Cop: Step out for me. Me: What for? I still don't know why you stopped me. Cop: Well you're shaking. Makes me think you got something to hide so for everybody's safety... I just need to be sure. Me: But officer I don't have anything illegal in my car. Cop: I understand........ -Now, this goes on for 55 min. I get searched, Cop finds nothing, I'm now late for work, and end up with a ticket for failure to use turn signal. And now have to go to court. If its a simple traffic stop, let it be JUST A TRAF. STOP. All the extra waisting of my time is not good for public relations. Things would go so much smoother if Cops were honest about what they do. Which is generate money for the State. But the FACT that Cops CAN LIE..... SPEAKS VOLUMES.
That's correct, when you go to court you are agreeing to be judged by a corporation and you are a man. Did you know when you go to court the judge is not addressing you the man but the statued person with the name like yours, it sounds like yours but doesn't look like yours. here is an example "your name, John Doe, this is how their documents look, JOHN DOE", Now is that how you spell your name, when you get a ticket just put red marker lines through it diagonally and sign it "Your offer to Contract is denied" and send it back as soon as possible within three days and make sure it is post marked.
I remember when I learned an officer does not have to tell you specifically what crime he thinks you committed when he starts questioning you. That made me think a dishonest cop can do all kinds of shit to you and then just let you go without an explanation. Turns out, with everyone complaining these days, I was right. And thats sad.
US Code Section 123.45 states "Passengers must always record Police during a traffic stop. Failure to record may be punishable by having your rights violated"
Often times that is the case, even in states where they do not have the right to demand a passenger identify them self, they will still often ask them just to see if they will. I have also experienced this personally, I always decline and it has never been an issue.
@@mikescampfire1676 actually that probably hurts. don't just uncritically believe the narrative pushed by the mainstream media and activist groups that have ideological and identity agendas to push. The statistics are very clear, if you break down by numbers per capita, and adjust to take into account the number of police interactions of any given group (some groups are just more likely to live in areas with high crïme rates which means they are much more likely to have police interactions), whïte people are far more likely to be falsely arrested or shøt on any given interaction then any other group except Indïans...the ones from Indïa that is.
Alex Magnus seriously? I believe it, there is a lot of hate towards the whites because there used to be slaves so we apparently need to be sorry for shit we had nothing to do with. With everything going on now-day’s, it does make more sense for white hate, esp when eyes are on how the blacks are treated. The stupid politics and media just won’t let the ignorant stay out of the spotlight. It fuels hate and divides our nation into color & ideology. There is a reason we are not ruled by the masses, a majority of people are sheep who don’t think for themselves.
@@ronmcmartin4513 its the law. 7 out of 12 people need to agree to win a civil case. ACLU has a list of lawyers that work pro bono (free of charge) across 50 states and puerto rico. The biggest hinderance is your time available to contact lawyers to form a case with them.
@@Michael-st9ky--The ACLU takes 6000 pro bono cases per year. But for the most part it must be to further one of their pet causes, and part of a Woke class of defendants. They certainly didn't defend Rittenhouse. Good luck getting pro bono. --"ACLU lobbies for policy positions that have been established by its board of directors. Current positions of the ACLU include opposing the death penalty; supporting same-sex marriage and the right of LGBT people to adopt; supporting reproductive rights such as birth control and abortion rights; eliminating discrimination against women, minorities, and LGBT people; de-carceration in the United States; supporting the rights of prisoners and opposing torture; and upholding the separation of church and state by opposing government preference for religion over non-religion or for particular faiths over others."
ALWAYS RECORD THE POLICE! The best way to stay safe when approached by a cop is to record from beginning to end! You don’t need their permission and even if they tell you to stop recording, continue to record! You have a constitutional right to record them while they are conducting their duties.
Most odd-numbered federal circuit courts have approved recording police, but (thankfully) the Supreme Court has not yet taken up the matter. I said thankfully because the right-wing in a 5-4 decision will probably say it's 'in the interest of police safety" to ban recording them. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Many years ago, while living in Illinois, I pulled into my driveway after getting supplies to work on my flooring and basebord. It was late, just before 11pm when I arrived home on a nice clear day. After parking in my driveway, opening my garage door and making a couple out of four trips from the rear of the van to the garage to unloade supplies, I noticed an officer pulling up to my mailbox about 60 feet away with his lights flashing. I took a few steps back down my driveway toward the officer to ask if he needed any help. Using foul language, the officer ordered me to get into my car, of which the doors had been locked, although the back hatch was open where I was unloading supplies. I had been home almost 10 minutes so I innocently asked why should I get into my car, I had been home for some time. He shouted that I don't seem to know how to follow a lawful police order. I sat in my car and the officer approched. He informed me that he was going to issue me a ticket for speeding. Again, I innocently asked, "What do you mean, speeding in my driveway?" The officer became irate and escallate the situation. I remained calm and waited more than 30 minutes in my car without any ticket. When the officer came to the car, without a ticket, I told him I thought I might have the flu and was feeling really sick to my stomach. I asked him if he could write me the ticket soon, or come into my home with me and write the ticket while I rest on the couch. He said no and went back to his car. By this time I felt like I was about to pass out. When the officer returned, again in another 30 minutes, finally presenting me with a ticket, I asked to go in so I may rest. He said okay. I calmly went to the back of my van, shut the rear door and walked into my already open garage and walk to the door. Then the officer started yelling at me to halt. My wife heard the commotion and opened the door to hear the officer tell me, in front of my kids, that I was being placed under arrest for resisting arrest. Now this was an outright lie. It turns out later that the officer also lied in his police report, staing he lost me on a rainy day but found me in my driveway 10 minutes later. In fact it was a clear night and the officer lost whoever he was chasing and saw me in my driveway. But I was at the loosing end. I hired an attorney and took his advice to plea guilty to a lesser nonsense charge that could not be considered a felony, such as resisting arrest. Years later I filed for an expungement and had the incident wiped from my record. Years after that I got my concealed carry license, trained by another officer, a seargent. That seargent knew about the other officer and stated that he was a horrible person with issues. In fact he lost his job because he came to work drunk. My point with this story is that when an officer fabricates his own truth, stating he had reasonable suspicion or probable cause, when there is no such reason, how do we protect ourselves then? While some people state that for every hundred cops, you run across one bad one, I beg to differ. Many cops get into the position because they value the power of being in control. Iwould say that many are sociopaths or at least narcisistic. I feel sorry for all the poor people that get stuck in this situation and cannot defend themselves. I believe a bad cop is one that doesn't adhere to the law and feels all rules don't apply equally to him or her. I think more likely, this applies to as many as 50% of them. I have seen cops turn on their lights to get around traffic in an itersection, then turn off the lights as they get through the traffic. I have seen cops driving 90-100 mph on a highway,passing cars, without using emergency lights, just to pull off the highway and pull into doughnut shop or resturant. And lastly I saw cops question and search my autistic son as he walked out the door of a resturant where he ate with me and my wife. He was standing on the sidewalk between the restaurant and our car. Upon questioning the cop, he stated my son was looking into and trying to open car doors in the parking lot, when he had not even set foot in the parking lot. It was totally untrue. In fact I asked the officers if they had witnessed my son doing this and they said no, but they had witnesses. Again this was untrue. When I spoke with the seargent, he argued for his officers instead of appologizing. I told him my son was autistic and its not right to go up and grab him and start searching him. He told me they were justified because he was suspected of commiting a crime. My son is nice, compulsive and harmless. My son does not like to be touched,but is a very calm person,(unlike many other autistic people). I asked the seargent if his officers understand how to properly deal with autistic people. He said of course - but he stated that my son did not look autistic. Obviously many cops don't even know how to do their job properly. As it turns out where I live, there is resonable suspicion if someone calls the police reporting what they think or believe, even if its wrong. I believe the people in the business next door were paranoid of the kids that usually hang out in the parking lot, make up stories and call the police. This time they emotionally harmed my son, but I have no proof. And I believe the officers probably knew the people that call often and carried this way too far. Some day an innocent person will get shot because of their stupidity.
You should always file a complaint when a police officer does something they shouldn't have. If the department gives you a hard time when you try, go up to the next level, the mayors office or whatever agency the police answer to.
About 90% of all my police interactions have been where a cop lied about a law or several laws or just made up a law on the spot, used intimidation or scare tactics such as arrest for no reason, or has used all the above in the same interaction. Talking to cops seems more and more like a confrontation than a conversation; being as how I’m well versed in the law and never break the law almost all interactions have been very bizarre; I’ll give a few examples. 1. A cop tailgates me for going 5 below the speed limit for 2 miles after pulling me over he says it’s suspicious 2. I’m eating pizza at a gas station pump while they’re still open around 9:30 pm they got a call about a suspicious vehicle 3. My cars axle ripped out and my car was immobilized at a Walmart parking lot at 2:00 pm and cops pull up and want my iD 4. I flash a car that passes me for their brights being on they make a U turn tailgate me so I pull into a gasstation and it’s a cop asking why I brighted him. There’s many more situations like this where no law has been broken or there’s not even a hint of “suspicious behavior” all these interactions have been with different police but one thing is very common they all seem personally attacked when you don’t give them your iD, I’m very convinced most cops are egotistical maniacs with the sole purpose of just running peoples iD’s and they always have to win
This bothers me _soooo_ much! Law enforcement is operating under the assumption that we are all guilty until proven innocent. That isn't the direction our founding fathers intended this country to travel in. If they showed up today they would be _appalled_ at the condition of this country.
It makes perfect sense, if the goal is an utter police state. The Bill of Rights becomes a set of instructions which tells tyrants EXACTLY how to violate people.
I wish someone could explain to me how a person who DOESN'T know the law, can enforce the law. It's like letting a cook perform your heart surgery! ~Made by a UA-cam viewer commenting on an audit. "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." - Thomas Jefferson "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." - John Adams
As a human we have the rights we give ourselves we dont need a government to know how to act decently we just need them to keep people acting decently but as has been shown in america they riot about anything and destroy everything it's so pathetic
@@fishingking1346 yeah nevermind them constantly overstepping their authority, we should be nice to them because they get paid to do it. The public view of cops wouldn't be so poor if they weren't assholes.
Shortly after I passed my driving test (UK) I got a call from a friend to pick another friend up outside a bar as he was trashed. Drunkest he's ever been. I put my trainers on and jumped in the car and picked him up. We were driving back through to his house when I got pulled over for having a brake light out. Now, he was out cold on my front seat, half eaten kebab in hand, having a quiet snore and when the officer was done, he looked in and asked if he was ok, I said yes he's just super drunk and I'm taking him home, officer asked if I'd been drinking, I said no and took a breathalyser which was clean, and when I got back in the car the officer leaned into the window to give me my notice about the brake light. Right at that point, my friend woke up and waved his hand and said "These are not the droids you are looking for" before falling back asleep to which the officer stood upright and said "Move along" like a stormtrooper I told my friend about this once he'd sobered up and he was mortified. Anyways, this story is pretty irrelevant to the seriousness of the video, but I thought I'd share because I thought it was funny. Have a good day.
I would follow all of his recommendations to be polite, comply, hold it for the court room, etc., but if the officer is found to be wrong, I would get my justice on my own terms.
You can't fight this in court in most states a police officer can legally make you give ID without probable cause even on your front yard. It has been backed by the US Supreme Court see case law Hiibel v Nevada and Terry v. Ohio. Hiibel v Nevada.
@ChiliContestWinner the facts of the case in Terry v Ohio are less consequential then to how the court ruled. The court ruled that probable cause wasn't necessary even if that was not a part of the facts of the case. In New York City the ACLU sued because of random ID and frisk searches. The lower courts upheld the case and the US Supreme Court refused to see their case citing a lack of merit.
@ChiliContestWinner No court interprets that ruling that way including the Supreme Court when it went up for review. The New York case which cited the case searched and ID'd people at random and they're still doing it. The ACLU made the same argument you have and they lost. Regardless of what the wording of the ruling says how the courts have interpreted it applies especially when the highest court has determined that a challenge because a lack of a probable cause is without merit. Also this doesn't change the fast amount of case Hiibel v Nevada overturned. Floyd v. City of New York held that pretty much anybody is suspected of being armed or being wanted.
@Flatulence, The Musical false. if respect is freely given then your respect is no longer worth anything. you can be polite and courteous due to good manners but respect is never given freely, it must always been earned.
You have a GIANT LIKE from me!!! You played a clip of a video I submitted!!! I love that you not only care about about informing us, you also care about your fans!!!!
In Missouri, the state Supreme Court has ruled that in a traffic stop, only the driver is being detained and any passengers are not required to show ID. Unless! They are on probation or parole and the officer asks if they are.
Yep, you already have an arrest record, you probably already have some cell time. And you may have lost your car, your job, your security clearance and firearm license (if you had any of those items)
Baloney. If you exercise your right to remain silent and get an attorney, there will be numerous opportunities for your attorney to advocate your liberty interest. Many convictions would never occur if the defendant just kept silent.
I always just love the argument; don't fight your case in the street, fight it in the courtroom. While there is some Merit to this statement, it's absurd to think that I should just blindly accept getting an arrest record, failing myself out of jail, getting a lawyer, losing days or weeks of work, and fighting my case in the court, versus trying to talk reason to an officer and get him to understand I committed no crime and him arresting me does me great harm. Of course I'm going to make some fight for my case on the street.
"Trying to talk reason 2 an officer "? Great definition of "oxymoron"! I'm GLAD 2say, it sounds like you haven't had any (or very few)interaction(s) with police! TRY & keep it that way!
My passengers were searched when I was stopped. I called them out and the cop said "how do we know they don't have drugs on them?" I said "it's not pertinent to the stop." I don't know, but I assume they all willingly consented to the search, but the fact that the officers asked in the first place really bothered me, because they didn't know they could refuse a search.
@@anime_cyko doesn't have to be. How about instead of having that stupid defeatist attitude, start looking into videoing your interactions. Makes it more difficult for them to get away and lie, and plus, you can always post it to social media. The more eyeballs on it, the more people become aware. The more that are aware, you are better able to get the action required to change that. And also, know your rights. By the way, those with defeatist attitudes, will tend to lose more often. Food for thought.
@samuel moore I've learned that it's best to use multiple spaces between each word when typing , but my IQ is also 63 . But yeah , It's best to just let the police have access to anything they want if you've done nothing wrong . That is the smart thing to do .
The auditor fails to mention "Stop and ID" laws. It seems to me that if you are NOT in a stop and ID state you are much better off when not identifying (you still much ID and have a license if driving or if cops need it for clerical puposes such as if you've been arrested). If you are in a Stop and ID state I'd imagine the cop mearly needs Reasonable Articulable Suspicion ... which is often just about anything.
Although I liked this one a lot, I think I liked the ones where you actually, “audited the audit”, more. If you do this one, it would be nice to give out specific advice about traffic stops, police tactics during stops, and how you can avoid pitfalls. Examples: 1. If they ask for your address, you may not want to answer. They are just fishing for another possible thing to charge you with if your stated address is different than the one on your license. 2. If you are talking to a police officer through an inch crack in a window, and another officer tries to talk to you from the other side, either don’t answer or close the first window before opening the second. If both windows are open, you create a cross-draft that the police can then use to say they “smelled” something in your car. Etc. Other topics I’d like to see you address are things like, “do you have to exit your car if they ask you” (so far as I know, you do). Do you have to put the camera down for “officer safety” if you’ve been asked to exit the vehicle. Do you have to take a field sobriety test, or breathilizer (so far as I know, you don’t....but, there may be consequences in not complying). In any event, I love your videos. Thank you so much for doing these. I feel like I’m getting a lot better information out of these than watching random auditors and seeing what they do or don’t get away with.
So all police activity is illegal? So is them arresting a pedo for kiddy fiddling illegal. Not defending all the cunt cops out there, but not all police activity is illegal
Doesn't exist. We've already seen the news articles where the force releases a statement like, "We conducted our own investigation and found that the officers involved did nothing wrong." 🤦🏻♂️
It's a shame we have to distrust the good officers because of so many ego driven bad cops...call out the bad ones but give recognition to the good ones just as much...and if they ask you out , you must do so
@@JackDarcy1 your 100% spot on and I often say those officers who see it and don't stop or report it are just as guilty..no questions about it...best wishes...P.S. that being said...IF they tell you exit the vehicle...you MUST do so...Supreme Court decided....by being stupid YOU give them the opportunity to do what they love most...resort to violence ...and in they case they more often then not can justify it...stay safe...roll up windows..lock doors and get out
Here's the kicker in dui and passanger may be intoxicated. If they ask you to exit the vehicle you are leaving private property where you are secure and entering public space where they then can then charge you with public intoxication. In that situation you should respectfully decline their request and be honest as to why and ask for a supervisor, let them know you're gonna stay in the car until sober or call a ride to come get you. In Texas the only time you are compelled to ID as a passanger is if you're under arrest. I believe it is TPC 38.02 just remember there is a difference in detained and under arrest.
?? If you're in a vehicle that is on public property, you are in public regardless of whether or not you're in your vehicle. There's a big difference between being drunk in your car in your driveway and being drunk in your car on a public road.
So basically you always have to show ID. If a cop doesn't have to tell you what crime he's suspecting, then he can suspect you of any crime and ask for ID.
@@imminty6621 Who is to say he doesn't have reasonable suspicion if he doesn't have to tell you the crime he suspects you of committing. That part takes out the whole argument. He could have suspicion of any of the million laws that are out there.
@@blkacdevl2517 Has to be able to be articulated and believed to be reasonable by the average person. Technically, they can just say they suspect you but if it doesn't hold up in court then the whole case can be thrown out.
@@imminty6621 incorrect. Police can arrest you without ever telling you what you are being arrested for. You will be told by the Magistrate upon arraignment.
@@amnesiahaze6470 it's like the rules in some places where cops can commit a crime in uniform but cannot be questioned or be required to make a statement for 48hrs. They are given rights no citizen has and through absurd loopholes like you've pointed out to deny us our most basic rights
It sucks but They are compelled to articulate it only on the charge against you or in court - not to you at the time of the incident - though most often policy requires they do articulate it to you if it doesn't jeopardise investigations.
@@dapodix That's a reform I could get behind. If the individual asks, and there exists no imminent threat to life or limb, the officer should be required to articulate the suspected crime, or allow them to leave.
Point of interest 1: in many places (Canada in general) no one has the obligation to carry gov't issued ID unless they are involved in a licensable activity. Point of interest 2: a legal name is a benefit of the gov't, no one can force you to accept a benefit minus consent. We're entitled to be recognized by the name (as per statute, Ontario Change of Name Act § 2.1) ; we are not obligated to use it. "One can go by any name one chooses, so long as fraud is not the intent." Point of interest 3: legally speaking, the term "identify", can mean "to make identical" Point of interest 4: you are not a benefit of the gov't. Are you the ID? Are you the name? Point of interest 5: "A name is a note of the thing, not the thing itself."
WARNING: FAILURE TO ADHERE TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RULES WHEN TARGETED BY ENFORCERS EXEMPTS THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND IS PUNISHABLE BY IMMEDIATE EXECUTION -- Always be polite Do not interfere Do not resist Do not run Remain silent When government is the master of the people rather than their servant, this is the inevitable warning label for the society. A government that creates these rules, either all at once or over generations of time, is not the representative republic authorized by the US Constitution. If it were, then that would just show how flawed the document is. Either way, this government does not serve to secure the people's rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This government is ripe for being dismantled, overthrown, etc... proclamations that it is not within the rights (or duties) of the people to abolish this government when it fails to effectively secure their rights to life, liberty (do what you wish without harming anyone) and pursuit of happiness are invalid, inoperable, false, phony, counterfeit, etc., even if they appear as "law." Enforcement of such fraud is an act of war against the people. This government is renegade and it is the enemy of the people. It has been hijacked from the people and has separated itself from the people to dominate, oppress and rule over the people with commands, violence and threats. The power the collective body of cowards wield over the slave classes (common people; peasants) is derived from giving a special class of slaves fictitious special privileges and high pay for harming others (even for special reward on occasion) and instilling an overwhelming sense of fear among the general population in order to coerce compliance with their immoral, unethical and/or unjust commands. The real solution to society's problems, to everyone's problems, is fuckin obvious but everyone wants to just stay in denial. If government considers itself justified for killing the people for disobedience or disrespect, then the people damn well are justified in killing government for being government. That's just simple, sound logic. Tyranny is unacceptable, the people need to collectively stop accepting it once and for all.
one would think the 'gubment would have a set of COMMON RULES for ALL officers to follow so there are no discrepancies.......o wait, they do but many officers LOVE pimping their WILL instead of the LAW
READ THIS. Only part you dont understand about waiting to fight in court...is.. once you've been run through the system it doesn't matter if you're found not guilty. You are still on a backround check forever, as an "offense". Which hurts your reputation with promotions etc. And ultimately hurts your family. You need the right to keep the officer from running it through the system unlawfully. Re-read this.
Thank you. It’s hard sometimes what the law really is, due to hearing so many opinions. That’s why I would like to thank Audit the Audit for giving honest and easy to understand advice. I learn something valuable every time I watch one of their videos. I have subscribed, and subject you do also. It could possibly save your life one day.
Great Video! I have wondered about passenger rights. I need to learn more about the BS charges that might be thrown at me during an audit: loitering, trespass, disorderly conduct, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, etc. I live in King County Washington. Checked my local USPS today, they don't have poster 7 but had another bulletin that clearly stated my right to film.
non police citizen safety used to be a black and white issue, now there are some grey areas too... (possibly the most confusing sentence in the english language)
@@Engreakhai it's like an insurance company that claims to protect the paying customers (as a group), while also claiming to have no responsibility to any paying customer individually.... It's a scam.
As a passenger, what does it matter if I've been drinking? That's the entire reason to have a DD. If I'm not operating the vehicle, have not committed a Crime, have no RAS one has been committed, you don't have any need to know who I am.
In some states, per Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada United States Supreme Court 542 U.S. 177 (2004), Stop and ID statutes require you to ID yourself, if there is "reasonable articulable suspicion". However they can't require ID, as not everyone has ID.
I have always remembered what my father taught me, to be calm, polite to a fault with the popo at any stop or interaction and “tell it to THE JUDGE” at the appropriate time.
where I am they HAVE TO TELL YOU UPON APPROACHING THE VEHICLE what "crime" they are suspecting you of before they are allowed to ask passengers for ID. if they do not then it is an ILLEGAL detention. same as the "investigatory detention" line they try to use. it has to be based on an actual CRIME and they HAVE TO TELL YOU WHAT CRIME< ON THE SPOT!!!
I very greatly appreciate the careful effort here to identify the truth with regard to passengers being ID'd. I'd suggest referencing the "Stop and ID" laws of each state. The "bloody handed" passenger may be in a state where the reasonable suspicion raises the obligation to identify, but in some states no such obligation exists until actually being charged and booked. In any ordinary traffic stop where no unusual suspicion against a passenger exists, just as if one were simply walking down the sidewalk, We The People are not required to possess or present identification.
An even better question to ask an officer requesting id from a passenger is, “what crime does the officer see him or her committing” putting the onus of the request totally on the officer. They may say they’re “investigating” during the stop but their investigation is dependent on what they observe and unless they see the passenger commit some infraction, the passenger does not have to identify themselves or even converse with the police.
My friend and I once got stopped in the middle of no where in CA. I was the passenger and my friend was the driver. In the middle of the back and forth between my friend and the an officer, I asked the officer straight up if I'm free to leave. He said yes, I got out and started walking. My friend picked me up a while later after he gave up arguing and gave them his ID. It was a good walk.
@@mattyb8046 computers can drive better than humans, im not talking about the self driving that is currently flawed. I am talking about a few years down the road when you never see crashes (which are almost always human error). Use some critical thinking
I think they're coming out with some new legislation is called breathing while alive and you can get incarcerated for having common sense and logic and knowing your rights! Cops hate it when you know your rights!
@@6dmiller if you make it that far because a lot of the times they'll give you these charges or these tickets so whatever is that they know won't stick and then they just won't show up for court so they get dropped but you'll still have the arrests and everything on your record or the tickets or whatever
7:00 cop was wrong. Identifying yourself does not mean presenting a photo ID. It just means you tell them your name, and you are not legally allowed to lie. The driver has to present a drivers license so the officer knows he has a drivers license.
You are also not legally compelled to tell them anything UNLESS you're already under arrest. In that case the follow is required by law: name, address, and DOB. That's it. After that, remain silent
@@krane15 In some states you can be forced to identify yourself if you are being detained and not arrested. But I dont know if you have to give them any more info than that. Its probably a good idea to check your states laws and be sure.
While you state that a traffic stop is a seizure under the 4th Amendment, the courts have ruled that it is not an "unreasonable" seizure as per the text of the 4th. One thing that is also not considered is that a traffic stop is still considered a reasonable seizure even if no citation was issued or arrest made, so in virtually every case a traffic stop is not a violation of the 4th Amendment. Now if the officer stopped you with the clear and sole intent NOT to perform his policing duties (say, he wanted to ask you about the weather or talk about some non-law enforcement subject) then the stop could be considered improper, but provided it can be justified within the scope of the officer's duties then it is perfectly acceptable.
@TREX LEX Just because you don't know how to plan, handle money, or how to identify leaders during elections doesn't mean the US is bad. It's still by far the richest and most prosperous country in human history.
@@janchovanec8624 That really depends on your definition of prosperity. I am sure a lot of people living in the rust belt would like to challenge that notion. And don't even start with the "they should have handeled their money better " bullshit, thats a weak excuse for the wealthy to justify their lack of social responsibility towards the society that made them wealthy.
I have a DUI back four years ago I was on a party with my friends so we go to sleep around 2on the morning but the neighbors a cross at street wake me up at 6 on the morning to move my truck and I said yes so I move my truck around the block and I got coughed by a police and I told him I was drinking even the neighbor told him I just move my truck bcs she can’t get out of her drive way and he doesn’t want to listen and I still paying for something I take care of my actions but doesn’t make me fear wath the police are doing here on Texas
The thing I can never understand is how so many regular people can memorise numerous laws and know what their rights are and yet cops don't bother to learn the laws they are supposed to enforce.
so scotus saying that you have the right to resist an unlawful arrest may be legal, it may also be very stupid if not at times fatal. thanks for the advice scotus.
@@KarlH1980 Narrow... Im pretty sure you cant narrow it. It says what it says. If a cop just pulls up and tries to force you into the car for no reason that is unlawful and one may resist to the point of taking the officers life to prevent the crime from taking place. They also said you can do the same to protect someone else as well.
@@he-manmasteroftheuniverse2501 Well here is the thing. You resist a cop and try to make an argument in court, the burden of proof is on you. You will have to demonstrate that you, were behaving in a reasonable manner and that you had a fear of death or serious injury when you chose to not comply with the coppers. You say "for no reason". In reality what that means is no reason that you are aware of. You can't know what the copper knows or doesn't know. The only cases that I know of in which that defense was successfully used were both cases in which a male copper was unreasonably trying to get women to do things that were just odd. In both cases there was physical evidence and the coppers own testimony that put the noose around the coppers neck. In both of those cases, the females injured the coppers. Now I have seen cases in which coppers improperly detained or arrested a person, the person resisted and the judge dismissed that charge. Relying on that is a crap shoot at best. Unless you have a articulable reason to believe that the cops intends to unlawfully harm you, you better just comply and argue about it in court.
@@KarlH1980 lol when an armed person wearing a costume that has proven to give them special super hero powers starts man handling you, is elevating his tone, is acting like he owns you, there is reason to be concerned for your life. There is no way to determine the level of violence things are going to once people decide to let lose. If he thinks he can do that and get away with it there is no reason to believe he is restrained by any sense of decency let alone law. Compound that with case after case of police misconduct, this is one place that list it, newsmaven.io/pinacnews/ , there really is no reason to not believe when they stop you that it may be your last day on earth. They hire low IQ people, fact.. They are required to have very little training, fact. They dont know our rights, fact. There is a hiring quota and with that a push to rush them through, fact. So we have emotional, people, with poor training, put on the job to deal with the public, who are resorting to threats and violence, and you think people shouldnt be in fear of their lives? I think its a reasonable given!
@@KarlH1980 What is happening in society between cops and citizens is no different than how it went down in the Stanford study. Both are becoming sadistic, but at least in the Stanford study they could leave the KNOWN study at any time. Its going to get a lot worse!
Very informative ! Thank you, cleared up some questions. One remains. In Ohio you are required to ID only if you are suspected of crime, as in many states. But it also makes you ID if you have been a witness to a crime. If my friend gets pulled over for speeding, am I now a witness to a crime (speeding) and must ID?
"Remain silent don't answer questions because they can be used against you in court or during the stop" The problem is, not talking and answering questions both gives the officers suspicion and I've seen both be used against them. ▪︎ If you don't answer "you are hiding something" ▪︎ if you answer "it's questions that incriminate you or give them information that can contradict with what the officer believes is true"
The pic you showed of a cop dragging a person by the arms was an incident where that officer went on an ego trip and tazed the young man until he had permanent brain damage.
@@michellerobinson1318 the young man referenced above was the son of a pig. The family got a huge pay out because the dad had connections. I'm sure the dad did equally foul sheet.
You stated [9:03] you must produce ID if an officer tells you he's has reasonable suspicion, what if you don't have ID on you? Can you just remain silent ??
The State of Delaware vs Prouse explains it clearly, that we don't lose our right of privacy when leaving your house onto a public sidewalk nor do we lose that right when going from a sidewalk into a vehicle as a passenger.
8:52 that is completely wrong. If an officer advises you that they do have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime, you do not have to give you ID. The officer advising you that he has it, means nothing. The officer actually having it, is when you have to give up your ID. If you know that you did not commit a crime, an officer just saying he has reasonable suspicion, means nothing. With that being said, if you are going to refuse to show ID after the officer says he has reasonable suspicion, you better be right
Alex H that’s only true in states that are not (stop and identify) states. So you have to present your ID if the officer states he has reasonable suspicion. I would advise you ask “what crime am i suspected of committing?”. The officer does not have to disclose that information unfortunately, however, generally the officer will articulate the suspicious behavior and not the crime they suspect you of committing or about to commit have committed. If what was articulated by the officer is not a crime, then you do not have to provide identification or any personal information regardless of if they classify the encounter as a detainment. Reason being it would be an illegal detainment. It’s only an illegal detainment, if you have not committed a crime, or if your initial actions that caused the officers reasonable suspicion is not a crime and your perfectly within your rights of doing said action that caused reasonable suspicion.
Loose Moose i read it. I tried to understand it as best that i could. I think i was more so conflicted by your statement “the cops saying they have reasonable suspicion is not grounds to produce an ID, them actually having it is grounds to ask for identification.” I’m saying regardless of if they have it or say they have it, you do not have to produce a ID if the reasonable suspicions is not an actual crime. I don’t see where i went wrong at. I’ll give an example. As far as i know there is no law as to how many gas cans you can fill with fuel. So if I’m filling up 25 gas cans with fuel, and a cop sees this, that could be actual reasons for suspicion of arson. Does that mean the cops get to ID me because of that? I could have a very reasonable reason as to why I’ve filled all of those gas cans. Does that mean i should have to share that information or any personal identification information with the cops?
@@earlbrewer1959 There is an old saying: Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. The same is true for suspicion since it lies in the imagination of the beholder. What seems reasonable for one may not be for another. Mere suspicion for anything is not a crime and you need not share your information with a police officer because he has an unfounded suspicion based on no violation of a law. Ask him to state the law and of course, there isn't one. He is out of line and you can ignore him. The wisest course is to ask for the law and say no more. Continue with filling the cans. He may not like it and will do whatever he decides. Then you can count your money on the way to the bank.
I was arrested a few years ago, the police took me off of my property and said i was drunk (i was). I was held for 2 days, then the court said i did not break a law, after the hearing i was held for an additional day. Do you think i would have a shot in a civil case against the arresting officer or city?
@8:54 I DISAGREE You say "An officer can WITHHOLD Articulable suspicion" If they dont articulate the suspicion how can anyone claim it was articulable? Likewise if you are arrested they articulate the crime for which you are being arrested. they don't say "you are under arrest for a crime which I am not articulating but am capable of articulating " do they?
That dancing cowboy 😂😂😂 that’s my favorite Reno 911 clip. “Wow, you’re really good at dancing” “Nah, nope. I’m just drunk.” *points at each other* “Ahhhh, you got me!”
I was in a car accident once...the driver of the other car hit me but he was both cool and calm. His passenger on the other hand was pissed, lashed out at me and his buddy had to tell him to back off. But, after the police took names of all of us, they came back and arrested the passenger...he was pissed because he had an outstanding warrant and knew he would be going to jail.
I remember I was pulled over because the “ license plates light” wasn’t bright enough. ( which the light was working perfectly fine by the way) this happen at 2am when my friend and I were going to Taco Bell. When he pulled me over, he asking for my friends SSN!? Like wtf!? He was just sitting in the passenger seat and did nothing at all.
Thanks for joining us for another episode! I'm working on a full length documentary on modern policing and informed citizens. Let me know what you would like to see in that video in the comments below. Cheers!
Public records requests.
ua-cam.com/video/xWsz05pwGiU/v-deo.html
i disagree with half of these video cause it depend on what state you are in . i win a lawsuit cause i was pull out of a care as a passenger and was made to ID . in court the judge told the officer he was wrong cause the stop was for no seat belt and it show i had mine on
@Froggy Master77 You're only entitled to resist in cases where a reasonable person would fear for their lives or against serious bodily harm. You try it and your putting your future into the hands of a jury that will have to make a subjective decision on how you _felt_ . In 99.9% of cases in which the coppers are in error when they detain a person or arrest them, this will not be the case.
@Audit the Audit: Not a video along your theme but I think it was very well done. I'll be sending a link to this for some time to come when needed.
Former LEO here. Just here to share a short story.
I had arrested a guy (I don’t remember what it was for. The most common arrests were DUI and domestic violence so it was most likely one of those) and he was super chill. Invoked his 5th amendment rights and asked for a lawyer. I wrote up my report saying he was calm and compliant, but the next day one of my superiors confronts me about my report. “How was he compliant if he refused to make a statement and asked for a lawyer?” I felt like I was explaining to a child that he has those rights and that doesn’t change his demeanor. That superior had at least 20+ years in law enforcement and couldn’t understand that.
Just curious, did you ever witness an officer violate someones civil rights or commit a crime?
I know some are honorable, i just dont understand how we have bad cops if most cops are men and women with honor . Bad cops couldnt exist without his fellow officers allowing it.
@@chrisflach5911 I don't mean to be unkind, but many police officers have a low IQ. Trying to explain the law to officers who do not know it is an exercise in futility.
If you are the person under investigation, you have MORE to lose by talking than anything else you do, with the exception of trying to run away.
THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH POLICE AUTHORITY IS BY STAYING SILENT AND ORALLY INVOKING YOUR 5TH AND 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Even if you have a lot of money and can afford great lawyers, they will not be able to help you if you talk.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
U must've been the Last of the Constitutional Abiding Officer to wear the Uniform. Lots changed since u've been gone. Code of Conduct's a thing of the Past. I Salute You, and Thank You for your Service. A Commendation on behalf of ALL who read your Comment I say.
The reason is that the majority of cops are to stupid to know the laws
Bad cops suck but there are far more good cops that get killed in the line of duty. It truly breaks my heart every one of them. Dangerous job dealing with the worst in society.
In general no. I took a arrest for no ID as a passenger, beat the charges and sued to win a 5 figure settlement.
What was the case so I can look it up.
@@archer0079 He won $10,000. Lawyer got his 35% ($3,500). Then he had to reimburse the lawyers for all of the lawyer's expenses ($5,500). He put $1,000 in the bank after all of the trouble. LOL
Depends on what state you live in the US Supreme Court allows forced ID without probable cause per Hiibel v Nevada and Terry v. Ohio.
@@DApostate Hiibel v Nevada only applies in states that have Terry Stops. Even than their must be RAS or PC to do it, but of course cops can make up RAS they want. Terry v Ohio applied to search and seizure not ID. Terry v Ohio was about a pat down, no in the pockets search.
@@ShawnDRuth State that have Terry Stops. What does that mean? Are we talking about? Have some examples of both?
I honestly find it a bit disturbing that the recommend way to deal with police sounds close to how you should deal with a psycho who has you hostage
Often it's the same thing
Exactly
Because it is the same thing.
America is being held hostage by psychos otherwise known as "bankers" since 1933
lol what a great point
I'm growing increasingly weary of the notion that having ones day in court to fight charges is worthwhile. It's just the next stage of "the show." Police, judges, DA's and politicians are all members of the same clique.
Yep
Unless it's based on racial discrimination, I wouldn't bother.
Cops are allowed to lie. So when you end up in court how is it the cop is usually believed when they are encouraged to lie as part of their job?
On point brotha!
@@stephenbrown6763 every unconstitutional act like lying the cops are allowed to do, along with qualified immunity are judicial mandates. not laws. when the courts give police/government rights the people don't have, they've overstepped their jurisdiction into tyranny. don't expect the auditor of audits to ever say that. he seems to like the judges ever changing opinions to be "laws?".
I got pulled over, and the cop walked straight up to my passenger’s window and asked my mother for her driver’s license. She looked at him with a little confusion and didn’t give him her license right away, so the cop snaps at her “mam, i asked you for your driver’s license.” My mom responded, “I know you did officer, and I’m going to give it to you just as soon as I figure out why I don’t have the steering wheel.
😆very good
The cop must have been from Europe on a cop exchange program 🤣🤣😅
@@rancisgamer UK or Ireland are the only left side road drivers in europe
😂😂😂 hilarious
@@Damo2690 Cyprus and Malta also
Officers of the law should have to tell you what you are being suspected of doing. Otherwise they could claim that anyone they stop is under suspicion of committing a crime. That's pretty messed up and can allow harassment from an officer to be quite difficult to deal with.
If you are driving and get pulled over you are already guilty of a traffic Crime. The only question is will he give you a break or not. Bottom line is they are going to take the cops word unless there is video proof that you didn't do what he said you did.
Everything goes back to contract law. The people have a contract with the gov to protect them from a number of things her in lies the issue. The concent we give law enforcement through the unwritten contract to protect us is invalid from the get go. Hers why. In contract law there must be a few elements that are met for the contract to be valid. 2 of these are transparency which is violated when they don't tell you what your suspected of. Then there is the meeting of minds which basically means no contract can be valid if both parties have not explicitly agreed to that provision of the contract. When the gov changes law to quote unquote protect officers it no longer has the concent of the people to do so as concent can't be base given if it could a woman would only have to give concent to sex once then would never have a right to resend that concent.
@@davidgordon8102 to an extent yes. Laws have these things called elements. If the proposed law has elements that law must first suit those elements before it's valid. Take for example speeding in Texas is a prima facie offense which has elements attached to it to prove it's validity. This particular law has 4 events that must exist to be enforceable. 1 a duty to follow the law as described 2that that duty was breached. Here's were it gets illegal for them 3 the presence of an injured party and 4 that my breach of duty concretely caused that injury it can't be speculative. We see the same exact elements in things like protective orders. So realistically an officer should know that law has elements if he is gonna be task to enforce it. So either the officer is not qualified to enforce that law because he lacks knowledge of the law , or he is blaintantly ignoreing the elements of the law and therefore not only breaching his oath of office but also acting with out athourity.
One more to add to a police stop---Always record them,,ALWAYS 📷📸📹
I LOVE it when they say you can turn yours off, I am recording too. Yeah, and if shit goes wrong, can you guarantee that it wont be "accidentally" deleted or lost? And can you guarantee that I will be able to get a copy of that video for use against you? No? Ok, I'll keep recording, Thank you.
Yesss always record most cops are liars and make up anything just to arrest you or shoot you
the best advice of all. Record. So true.
Most cops are liars? They all lie.
@@MrEasy1988 yes
All I am interested in is AVOIDING COURT!! As a citizen, I should not have to go be inconvenienced with MAKING TIME TO SPEND in court because a cop VIOLATED MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. FOR EXAMPLE;
Me: pulled over.
Cop: need your lic. and reg.
Cop: hang tight for me.
Cop: Any drugs or weapons in the car?
Me: No.
Cop: Any problem with me searching you car?
Me: I do not consent to searches.
Cop: No? Why are you shaking? You hiding something?
Me: No. I'm not shaking. I do have to be to work.
Cop: Step out for me.
Me: What for? I still don't know why you stopped me.
Cop: Well you're shaking. Makes me think you got something to hide so for everybody's safety... I just need to be sure.
Me: But officer I don't have anything illegal in my car.
Cop: I understand........
-Now, this goes on for 55 min. I get searched, Cop finds nothing, I'm now late for work, and end up with a ticket for failure to use turn signal. And now have to go to court. If its a simple traffic stop, let it be JUST A TRAF. STOP. All the extra waisting of my time is not good for public relations.
Things would go so much smoother if Cops were honest about what they do. Which is generate money for the State. But the FACT that Cops CAN LIE..... SPEAKS VOLUMES.
The process IS the punishment.
But you shouldn’t have to give up your rights and bow to the crown , to avoid jail . Or court.
That's correct, when you go to court you are agreeing to be judged by a corporation and you are a man. Did you know when you go to court the judge is not addressing you the man but the statued person with the name like yours, it sounds like yours but doesn't look like yours. here is an example "your name, John Doe, this is how their documents look, JOHN DOE", Now is that how you spell your name, when you get a ticket just put red marker lines through it diagonally and sign it "Your offer to Contract is denied" and send it back as soon as possible within three days and make sure it is post marked.
That is so true because the courts will allow them to lie if it can turn into a conviction. I call that entrapment.
Huge underrated comment
I remember when I learned an officer does not have to tell you specifically what crime he thinks you committed when he starts questioning you. That made me think a dishonest cop can do all kinds of shit to you and then just let you go without an explanation. Turns out, with everyone complaining these days, I was right. And thats sad.
This is why you say NOTHING. If they take you to jail ... Great, let them later pay for their mi$take....
One's only recourse is to say NOTHING.
US Code Section 123.45 states "Passengers must always record Police during a traffic stop. Failure to record may be punishable by having your rights violated"
LOL, "123.45"!
Hahahahahahahahahaha! Good one.
Title 12 USC Section 345 looks more legit.
LOL THAT WAS FUNNY!😂😁
It happened to me as a passenger but I told the cop to continue his business with the driver and leave me out of it. he did.
Often times that is the case, even in states where they do not have the right to demand a passenger identify them self, they will still often ask them just to see if they will. I have also experienced this personally, I always decline and it has never been an issue.
Trevor Sullivan it probably doesn’t hurt that I’m white. Lol
@@mikescampfire1676 actually that probably hurts. don't just uncritically believe the narrative pushed by the mainstream media and activist groups that have ideological and identity agendas to push. The statistics are very clear, if you break down by numbers per capita, and adjust to take into account the number of police interactions of any given group (some groups are just more likely to live in areas with high crïme rates which means they are much more likely to have police interactions), whïte people are far more likely to be falsely arrested or shøt on any given interaction then any other group except Indïans...the ones from Indïa that is.
@@micfail2 lol
Alex Magnus seriously? I believe it, there is a lot of hate towards the whites because there used to be slaves so we apparently need to be sorry for shit we had nothing to do with. With everything going on now-day’s, it does make more sense for white hate, esp when eyes are on how the blacks are treated.
The stupid politics and media just won’t let the ignorant stay out of the spotlight. It fuels hate and divides our nation into color & ideology. There is a reason we are not ruled by the masses, a majority of people are sheep who don’t think for themselves.
And remaining calm and fighting it in court is expected to work in a system that is completely flawed and stacked against you
lawyers can work pro-bono, and civil cases are based on the preponderance of the evidence making it easier to win.
@@Michael-st9ky--Your utopia must be wonderful? The rest of us live in the Real world!
@@ronmcmartin4513 its the law. 7 out of 12 people need to agree to win a civil case. ACLU has a list of lawyers that work pro bono (free of charge) across 50 states and puerto rico. The biggest hinderance is your time available to contact lawyers to form a case with them.
@@Michael-st9ky--The ACLU takes 6000 pro bono cases per year. But for the most part it must be to further one of their pet causes, and part of a Woke class of defendants. They certainly didn't defend Rittenhouse. Good luck getting pro bono.
--"ACLU lobbies for policy positions that have been established by its board of directors. Current positions of the ACLU include opposing the death penalty; supporting same-sex marriage and the right of LGBT people to adopt; supporting reproductive rights such as birth control and abortion rights; eliminating discrimination against women, minorities, and LGBT people; de-carceration in the United States; supporting the rights of prisoners and opposing torture; and upholding the separation of church and state by opposing government preference for religion over non-religion or for particular faiths over others."
@@ronmcmartin4513 they arent the only organization and there are plenty of independent lawyers willing to work pro bono
ALWAYS RECORD THE POLICE! The best way to stay safe when approached by a cop is to record from beginning to end! You don’t need their permission and even if they tell you to stop recording, continue to record! You have a constitutional right to record them while they are conducting their duties.
Most odd-numbered federal circuit courts have approved recording police, but (thankfully) the Supreme Court has not yet taken up the matter.
I said thankfully because the right-wing in a 5-4 decision will probably say it's 'in the interest of police safety" to ban recording them.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
If they was real dirty they could take your phone and get rid of video but you can always go live so everyone is watching
meh ... unless you have a flawless internet connection I would strongly suggest to don't do that in my neighborhood. They'll just erase and arrest.
@@robertmueller6979 its flawless bro
@@ghostloc2400 lol... that's zed man
The cop has the right to use '' reasonable suspicion '' to demand I.D. ... sounds pretty ambiguous and dangerous to me.
How is showing ID dangerous if your doing nothing illegal though lol
@@jacobferdinand6753 It's not '' dangerous '' it's just an infringement on your right to privacy... the 4th amendment.
Suspicion of what? that's the problem they always forget the rest of the sentence. "of a crime".
@@jacobferdinand6753 ur same person that will let cop look in house just to because they want to
@@jacobferdinand6753 lol you’re white YOUD never understand
Many years ago, while living in Illinois, I pulled into my driveway after getting supplies to work on my flooring and basebord. It was late, just before 11pm when I arrived home on a nice clear day. After parking in my driveway, opening my garage door and making a couple out of four trips from the rear of the van to the garage to unloade supplies, I noticed an officer pulling up to my mailbox about 60 feet away with his lights flashing. I took a few steps back down my driveway toward the officer to ask if he needed any help.
Using foul language, the officer ordered me to get into my car, of which the doors had been locked, although the back hatch was open where I was unloading supplies. I had been home almost 10 minutes so I innocently asked why should I get into my car, I had been home for some time. He shouted that I don't seem to know how to follow a lawful police order. I sat in my car and the officer approched. He informed me that he was going to issue me a ticket for speeding. Again, I innocently asked, "What do you mean, speeding in my driveway?" The officer became irate and escallate the situation. I remained calm and waited more than 30 minutes in my car without any ticket. When the officer came to the car, without a ticket, I told him I thought I might have the flu and was feeling really sick to my stomach. I asked him if he could write me the ticket soon, or come into my home with me and write the ticket while I rest on the couch. He said no and went back to his car. By this time I felt like I was about to pass out. When the officer returned, again in another 30 minutes, finally presenting me with a ticket, I asked to go in so I may rest. He said okay. I calmly went to the back of my van, shut the rear door and walked into my already open garage and walk to the door. Then the officer started yelling at me to halt. My wife heard the commotion and opened the door to hear the officer tell me, in front of my kids, that I was being placed under arrest for resisting arrest. Now this was an outright lie. It turns out later that the officer also lied in his police report, staing he lost me on a rainy day but found me in my driveway 10 minutes later. In fact it was a clear night and the officer lost whoever he was chasing and saw me in my driveway. But I was at the loosing end.
I hired an attorney and took his advice to plea guilty to a lesser nonsense charge that could not be considered a felony, such as resisting arrest. Years later I filed for an expungement and had the incident wiped from my record. Years after that I got my concealed carry license, trained by another officer, a seargent. That seargent knew about the other officer and stated that he was a horrible person with issues. In fact he lost his job because he came to work drunk.
My point with this story is that when an officer fabricates his own truth, stating he had reasonable suspicion or probable cause, when there is no such reason, how do we protect ourselves then? While some people state that for every hundred cops, you run across one bad one, I beg to differ. Many cops get into the position because they value the power of being in control. Iwould say that many are sociopaths or at least narcisistic. I feel sorry for all the poor people that get stuck in this situation and cannot defend themselves. I believe a bad cop is one that doesn't adhere to the law and feels all rules don't apply equally to him or her. I think more likely, this applies to as many as 50% of them. I have seen cops turn on their lights to get around traffic in an itersection, then turn off the lights as they get through the traffic. I have seen cops driving 90-100 mph on a highway,passing cars, without using emergency lights, just to pull off the highway and pull into doughnut shop or resturant.
And lastly I saw cops question and search my autistic son as he walked out the door of a resturant where he ate with me and my wife. He was standing on the sidewalk between the restaurant and our car. Upon questioning the cop, he stated my son was looking into and trying to open car doors in the parking lot, when he had not even set foot in the parking lot. It was totally untrue. In fact I asked the officers if they had witnessed my son doing this and they said no, but they had witnesses. Again this was untrue. When I spoke with the seargent, he argued for his officers instead of appologizing. I told him my son was autistic and its not right to go up and grab him and start searching him. He told me they were justified because he was suspected of commiting a crime. My son is nice, compulsive and harmless. My son does not like to be touched,but is a very calm person,(unlike many other autistic people). I asked the seargent if his officers understand how to properly deal with autistic people. He said of course - but he stated that my son did not look autistic. Obviously many cops don't even know how to do their job properly. As it turns out where I live, there is resonable suspicion if someone calls the police reporting what they think or believe, even if its wrong. I believe the people in the business next door were paranoid of the kids that usually hang out in the parking lot, make up stories and call the police. This time they emotionally harmed my son, but I have no proof. And I believe the officers probably knew the people that call often and carried this way too far. Some day an innocent person will get shot because of their stupidity.
they become cops for 1 of 2 reasons any more the first is they was bullied in school and the second was they was the bully
And now, a few innocent people have been shot by police thinking wrongly
You should always file a complaint when a police officer does something they shouldn't have. If the department gives you a hard time when you try, go up to the next level, the mayors office or whatever agency the police answer to.
@@Zachtheripper2 wdym and now? This has been happening for decades
About 90% of all my police interactions have been where a cop lied about a law or several laws or just made up a law on the spot, used intimidation or scare tactics such as arrest for no reason, or has used all the above in the same interaction. Talking to cops seems more and more like a confrontation than a conversation; being as how I’m well versed in the law and never break the law almost all interactions have been very bizarre; I’ll give a few examples. 1. A cop tailgates me for going 5 below the speed limit for 2 miles after pulling me over he says it’s suspicious 2. I’m eating pizza at a gas station pump while they’re still open around 9:30 pm they got a call about a suspicious vehicle 3. My cars axle ripped out and my car was immobilized at a Walmart parking lot at 2:00 pm and cops pull up and want my iD 4. I flash a car that passes me for their brights being on they make a U turn tailgate me so I pull into a gasstation and it’s a cop asking why I brighted him. There’s many more situations like this where no law has been broken or there’s not even a hint of “suspicious behavior” all these interactions have been with different police but one thing is very common they all seem personally attacked when you don’t give them your iD, I’m very convinced most cops are egotistical maniacs with the sole purpose of just running peoples iD’s and they always have to win
This bothers me _soooo_ much! Law enforcement is operating under the assumption that we are all guilty until proven innocent. That isn't the direction our founding fathers intended this country to travel in. If they showed up today they would be _appalled_ at the condition of this country.
They burning in fire and they founded nothing
Basically, you have very few rights because they have a way around pretty much anything... which makes absolutely zero sense.
It makes perfect sense, if the goal is an utter police state. The Bill of Rights becomes a set of instructions which tells tyrants EXACTLY how to violate people.
I wish someone could explain to me how a person who DOESN'T know the law, can enforce the law. It's like letting a cook perform your heart surgery! ~Made by a UA-cam viewer commenting on an audit.
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." - Thomas Jefferson
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln
"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." - John Adams
It makes perfect sense if youve read Animal Farm
Yup!!!!!!!!
As a human we have the rights we give ourselves we dont need a government to know how to act decently we just need them to keep people acting decently but as has been shown in america they riot about anything and destroy everything it's so pathetic
I have no legal obligation to even own/possess a physical ID card if I am not the driver.
That family guy scene though 😂😂😂
Exactly!!!!!
Shadow Suave that’s really how it is sometimes lol/all the time.
Shadow Suave 😂😂😂😂
So much closer to the truth than the popo would want you to know
So true!
This was helpful on so many levels. I cant count the number of times ive been told its unlawful to refuse to identify myself when i was the passenger.
That's the point where I put my hands together and tell them "OK, arrest me, I'll deal with your dumb ass in court... twice".
Cop comes to the drivers window and says, " do you know why I stopped you?" , the reply," because you got all D's in high school?".
Cop: "do you know why I stopped you?"
Me: "because you have no friends?"
Never admit anything.
Do you know why I stopped you?
- Yes.
Which is?
- That's classified.
@@fishingking1346 yeah nevermind them constantly overstepping their authority, we should be nice to them because they get paid to do it. The public view of cops wouldn't be so poor if they weren't assholes.
The correct answer is: "Sorry. Can't help you. Would you like me to call a doctor to check into your poor short-term memory loss?"
Nothing you say will be used to *HELP YOU* in a court of law
Shortly after I passed my driving test (UK) I got a call from a friend to pick another friend up outside a bar as he was trashed. Drunkest he's ever been. I put my trainers on and jumped in the car and picked him up. We were driving back through to his house when I got pulled over for having a brake light out. Now, he was out cold on my front seat, half eaten kebab in hand, having a quiet snore and when the officer was done, he looked in and asked if he was ok, I said yes he's just super drunk and I'm taking him home, officer asked if I'd been drinking, I said no and took a breathalyser which was clean, and when I got back in the car the officer leaned into the window to give me my notice about the brake light. Right at that point, my friend woke up and waved his hand and said "These are not the droids you are looking for" before falling back asleep to which the officer stood upright and said "Move along" like a stormtrooper
I told my friend about this once he'd sobered up and he was mortified. Anyways, this story is pretty irrelevant to the seriousness of the video, but I thought I'd share because I thought it was funny.
Have a good day.
I didn't know it was illegal for passengers to be intoxicated. Wasn't that the reason for the "Designated Driver" program?
TheHound - The video and its content aren’t important to those who go to Cop Block U. It’s the same with those who say cops can do no wrong.
Once a passenger is out of the vehicle it is public intox and will becfined atleast a hundred dolllars
It called anyway a city, county, or state can bilk money of the taxpayers
Missed everything you said when the cowboy was dancing.
He passed his sobriety test btw.
the cowboy dancing was a scene from reno 911 after he finished his dance he admitted he was drunk
@@robertmueller6979 This was a scene from Reno 911 after the dance he admitted he was just drunk
Lol
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I would follow all of his recommendations to be polite, comply, hold it for the court room, etc., but if the officer is found to be wrong, I would get my justice on my own terms.
Which simply gets you food, clothing, housing, and medical care on the State for YEARS.
That's still messed up. Cause if you have money sure you can fight it in the court. What about those who can't afford a liar, I mean lawyer?
@ChiliContestWinner LOL
One will be provided for them
You can't fight this in court in most states a police officer can legally make you give ID without probable cause even on your front yard. It has been backed by the US Supreme Court see case law Hiibel v Nevada and Terry v. Ohio. Hiibel v Nevada.
@ChiliContestWinner the facts of the case in Terry v Ohio are less consequential then to how the court ruled. The court ruled that probable cause wasn't necessary even if that was not a part of the facts of the case. In New York City the ACLU sued because of random ID and frisk searches. The lower courts upheld the case and the US Supreme Court refused to see their case citing a lack of merit.
@ChiliContestWinner No court interprets that ruling that way including the Supreme Court when it went up for review. The New York case which cited the case searched and ID'd people at random and they're still doing it. The ACLU made the same argument you have and they lost. Regardless of what the wording of the ruling says how the courts have interpreted it applies especially when the highest court has determined that a challenge because a lack of a probable cause is without merit. Also this doesn't change the fast amount of case Hiibel v Nevada overturned. Floyd v. City of New York held that pretty much anybody is suspected of being armed or being wanted.
As one officer once told me, the law is what ever I say it is.
I was told that as well.
Lol..... My kids and I couldn’t stop laughing when you said “always be polite.” 😅😂🤣
What planet are you from?
Respect is earned, not given.
Your kids are going to have a number of challenges in life. Poor parenting right there.
I agree with tour parenting
@@SuperChad1313 - Ya that’s because you’re a gangsta- lol
And you seem just plain stupid.
@Flatulence, The Musical false. if respect is freely given then your respect is no longer worth anything. you can be polite and courteous due to good manners but respect is never given freely, it must always been earned.
Allow you to fight in court. (Only if you have money)
thats why you keep your mouth shut so your hired lawyer can win and you get some money for you after they get theirs. don't quit your day job dough.
On point since the free attorneys work with the courts!
You have a GIANT LIKE from me!!! You played a clip of a video I submitted!!! I love that you not only care about about informing us, you also care about your fans!!!!
I love that you included footage from Reno 911. That dancing cowboy cracks me up!
Short answer, no. Long answer, hell no.
Watered down constitution..
Cause we keep allowing it
Jefferson said that to stay free we must have a revolution every 80 years.
Also, constitution is a bankin conspiracy, replacin Articles of Confederation. Try to find Articles of Confederation online!
In Missouri, the state Supreme Court has ruled that in a traffic stop, only the driver is being detained and any passengers are not required to show ID. Unless! They are on probation or parole and the officer asks if they are.
The court room is too late the damage is already done at that point.
Yep, you already have an arrest record, you probably already have some cell time. And you may have lost your car, your job, your security clearance and firearm license (if you had any of those items)
@@MonkeyJedi99 I discovered this when my wife was falsely accused of DUI.
And maybe dead already.
Baloney. If you exercise your right to remain silent and get an attorney, there will be numerous opportunities for your attorney to advocate your liberty interest. Many convictions would never occur if the defendant just kept silent.
@@mcaz150 I can see that you have never had any dealings with the court system.
I always just love the argument; don't fight your case in the street, fight it in the courtroom. While there is some Merit to this statement, it's absurd to think that I should just blindly accept getting an arrest record, failing myself out of jail, getting a lawyer, losing days or weeks of work, and fighting my case in the court, versus trying to talk reason to an officer and get him to understand I committed no crime and him arresting me does me great harm. Of course I'm going to make some fight for my case on the street.
"Trying to talk reason 2 an officer "? Great definition of "oxymoron"! I'm GLAD 2say, it sounds like you haven't had any (or very few)interaction(s) with police! TRY & keep it that way!
My passengers were searched when I was stopped. I called them out and the cop said "how do we know they don't have drugs on them?" I said "it's not pertinent to the stop." I don't know, but I assume they all willingly consented to the search, but the fact that the officers asked in the first place really bothered me, because they didn't know they could refuse a search.
If any unjust interaction goes to court, you’ve already lost.
And sadly tryn limit that movement even more using a Plandemic!
That’s life
@@anime_cyko doesn't have to be. How about instead of having that stupid defeatist attitude, start looking into videoing your interactions. Makes it more difficult for them to get away and lie, and plus, you can always post it to social media. The more eyeballs on it, the more people become aware. The more that are aware, you are better able to get the action required to change that. And also, know your rights.
By the way, those with defeatist attitudes, will tend to lose more often. Food for thought.
@@vipermustang42 do we need to hug it out? I got a big warm one ready to go. It’ll cheer you up.
@@anime_cyko not sure why you think being a smartass is going to helpful.
I'm not driving, then I'm not identifying. Take me to jail .I'll go fight it in court .
@samuel moore boot licker
@samuel moore no thanks boot licker, I'll stick with my constitutional rights.
@samuel moore
No thanks. I don't want my name run in their database and I value my privacy.
@samuel moore I've learned that it's best to use multiple spaces between each word when typing , but my IQ is also 63 . But yeah , It's best to just let the police have access to anything they want if you've done nothing wrong . That is the smart thing to do .
The auditor fails to mention "Stop and ID" laws. It seems to me that if you are NOT in a stop and ID state you are much better off when not identifying (you still much ID and have a license if driving or if cops need it for clerical puposes such as if you've been arrested). If you are in a Stop and ID state I'd imagine the cop mearly needs Reasonable Articulable Suspicion ... which is often just about anything.
So we're disempowered if they are "reasonably suspicious"... that's vague.
" freedom of movement " what a joke.
There is no such thing as 'freedom' in america
@@mcshivers6414 Lol k
Not a joke protected under your right to liberty it's your first amendment
If that is what you think, you might consider North Korea.
America is supposed to be the land of the free goldurnit
Although I liked this one a lot, I think I liked the ones where you actually, “audited the audit”, more. If you do this one, it would be nice to give out specific advice about traffic stops, police tactics during stops, and how you can avoid pitfalls.
Examples:
1. If they ask for your address, you may not want to answer. They are just fishing for another possible thing to charge you with if your stated address is different than the one on your license.
2. If you are talking to a police officer through an inch crack in a window, and another officer tries to talk to you from the other side, either don’t answer or close the first window before opening the second. If both windows are open, you create a cross-draft that the police can then use to say they “smelled” something in your car.
Etc.
Other topics I’d like to see you address are things like, “do you have to exit your car if they ask you” (so far as I know, you do).
Do you have to put the camera down for “officer safety” if you’ve been asked to exit the vehicle.
Do you have to take a field sobriety test, or breathilizer (so far as I know, you don’t....but, there may be consequences in not complying).
In any event, I love your videos. Thank you so much for doing these. I feel like I’m getting a lot better information out of these than watching random auditors and seeing what they do or don’t get away with.
Not Saying mnj
I love the added clips from Family Guy, Reno 911...😂🤣
"Illegal police activity." Why bother with "illegal"? Just "police activity" is close enough.
Yes, same.
So all police activity is illegal? So is them arresting a pedo for kiddy fiddling illegal.
Not defending all the cunt cops out there, but not all police activity is illegal
Doesn't exist. We've already seen the news articles where the force releases a statement like, "We conducted our own investigation and found that the officers involved did nothing wrong." 🤦🏻♂️
Hahaha too funny
Nice touch with the Reno911 drunk driver clip.
Funny shit
Awwww! You! You got me!
It's a shame we have to distrust the good officers because of so many ego driven bad cops...call out the bad ones but give recognition to the good ones just as much...and if they ask you out , you must do so
Crazy. Where are all these ‘good officers’ who back up the ‘bad cops’ when they are violating people rights & lying?
@@JackDarcy1 your 100% spot on and I often say those officers who see it and don't stop or report it are just as guilty..no questions about it...best wishes...P.S. that being said...IF they tell you exit the vehicle...you MUST do so...Supreme Court decided....by being stupid YOU give them the opportunity to do what they love most...resort to violence ...and in they case they more often then not can justify it...stay safe...roll up windows..lock doors and get out
google George Carlin and his take on "rights"
a real eye opener
George Carlin.. straight up classic 🤙
The bit called "the owners" by carlin. A man who just spoke the truth the way he saw it.
Classic, hi tom. Rofl
You're me favowitt bot >_
Okay Tom....
Here's the kicker in dui and passanger may be intoxicated. If they ask you to exit the vehicle you are leaving private property where you are secure and entering public space where they then can then charge you with public intoxication. In that situation you should respectfully decline their request and be honest as to why and ask for a supervisor, let them know you're gonna stay in the car until sober or call a ride to come get you.
In Texas the only time you are compelled to ID as a passanger is if you're under arrest. I believe it is TPC 38.02 just remember there is a difference in detained and under arrest.
?? If you're in a vehicle that is on public property, you are in public regardless of whether or not you're in your vehicle. There's a big difference between being drunk in your car in your driveway and being drunk in your car on a public road.
I now have a wifi dash cam front and rear. The days of fighting lying badged bandits and road pirates in a rigged court system just changed for me.
smartphones and low cost cameras are exposing cops for the corrupt mafia thugs they really are
So basically you always have to show ID. If a cop doesn't have to tell you what crime he's suspecting, then he can suspect you of any crime and ask for ID.
He has to have reasonable suspicion, he can’t just say he suspects you of a crime
@@imminty6621 Who is to say he doesn't have reasonable suspicion if he doesn't have to tell you the crime he suspects you of committing. That part takes out the whole argument. He could have suspicion of any of the million laws that are out there.
@@blkacdevl2517 Has to be able to be articulated and believed to be reasonable by the average person. Technically, they can just say they suspect you but if it doesn't hold up in court then the whole case can be thrown out.
@@imminty6621 incorrect. Police can arrest you without ever telling you what you are being arrested for. You will be told by the Magistrate upon arraignment.
Mike C. No they have to tell you what you are being arrested for
8:48 how do you know they have articulable suspicion if they dont articulate it?
You don't... Nice loophole eh?
@@amnesiahaze6470 it's like the rules in some places where cops can commit a crime in uniform but cannot be questioned or be required to make a statement for 48hrs. They are given rights no citizen has and through absurd loopholes like you've pointed out to deny us our most basic rights
It sucks but They are compelled to articulate it only on the charge against you or in court - not to you at the time of the incident - though most often policy requires they do articulate it to you if it doesn't jeopardise investigations.
@@dapodix That's a reform I could get behind.
If the individual asks, and there exists no imminent threat to life or limb, the officer should be required to articulate the suspected crime, or allow them to leave.
@smith lovy That's the rub isn't it. :)
Point of interest 1: in many places (Canada in general) no one has the obligation to carry gov't issued ID unless they are involved in a licensable activity.
Point of interest 2: a legal name is a benefit of the gov't, no one can force you to accept a benefit minus consent. We're entitled to be recognized by the name (as per statute, Ontario Change of Name Act § 2.1) ; we are not obligated to use it. "One can go by any name one chooses, so long as fraud is not the intent."
Point of interest 3: legally speaking, the term "identify", can mean "to make identical"
Point of interest 4: you are not a benefit of the gov't. Are you the ID? Are you the name?
Point of interest 5: "A name is a note of the thing, not the thing itself."
9:38 love the Reno 911 inclusion. The fact that the quality has been reduced to make it look more like an old dashcam video cracks me up.
I like the fact that you are thorough in your research and reporting of the laws and the history behind those laws.
WARNING: FAILURE TO ADHERE TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RULES WHEN TARGETED BY ENFORCERS EXEMPTS THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND IS PUNISHABLE BY IMMEDIATE EXECUTION --
Always be polite
Do not interfere
Do not resist
Do not run
Remain silent
When government is the master of the people rather than their servant, this is the inevitable warning label for the society. A government that creates these rules, either all at once or over generations of time, is not the representative republic authorized by the US Constitution. If it were, then that would just show how flawed the document is.
Either way, this government does not serve to secure the people's rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This government is ripe for being dismantled, overthrown, etc... proclamations that it is not within the rights (or duties) of the people to abolish this government when it fails to effectively secure their rights to life, liberty (do what you wish without harming anyone) and pursuit of happiness are invalid, inoperable, false, phony, counterfeit, etc., even if they appear as "law." Enforcement of such fraud is an act of war against the people.
This government is renegade and it is the enemy of the people. It has been hijacked from the people and has separated itself from the people to dominate, oppress and rule over the people with commands, violence and threats. The power the collective body of cowards wield over the slave classes (common people; peasants) is derived from giving a special class of slaves fictitious special privileges and high pay for harming others (even for special reward on occasion) and instilling an overwhelming sense of fear among the general population in order to coerce compliance with their immoral, unethical and/or unjust commands.
The real solution to society's problems, to everyone's problems, is fuckin obvious but everyone wants to just stay in denial. If government considers itself justified for killing the people for disobedience or disrespect, then the people damn well are justified in killing government for being government. That's just simple, sound logic.
Tyranny is unacceptable, the people need to collectively stop accepting it once and for all.
one would think the 'gubment would have a set of COMMON RULES for ALL officers to follow so there are no discrepancies.......o wait, they do but many officers LOVE pimping their WILL instead of the LAW
This is good and informative content. Please make more and hopefully the channel grows more and educates citizens and law enforcement alike!
READ THIS. Only part you dont understand about waiting to fight in court...is.. once you've been run through the system it doesn't matter if you're found not guilty. You are still on a backround check forever, as an "offense". Which hurts your reputation with promotions etc. And ultimately hurts your family. You need the right to keep the officer from running it through the system unlawfully. Re-read this.
Thank you. It’s hard sometimes what the law really is, due to hearing so many opinions. That’s why I would like to thank Audit the Audit for giving honest and easy to understand advice. I learn something valuable every time I watch one of their videos. I have subscribed, and subject you do also. It could possibly save your life one day.
Great Video! I have wondered about passenger rights.
I need to learn more about the BS charges that might be thrown at me during an audit: loitering, trespass, disorderly conduct, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, etc. I live in King County Washington. Checked my local USPS today, they don't have poster 7 but had another bulletin that clearly stated my right to film.
*OFFICERS SAFETY IS VERY IMPORTANT BUT THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT THE NON POLICE CITIZENS*
non police citizen safety used to be a black and white issue, now there are some grey areas too... (possibly the most confusing sentence in the english language)
This post is true, I forget the case law, but officers have no responsibility to protect citizens, only the "public good"
@@Engreakhai it's like an insurance company that claims to protect the paying customers (as a group), while also claiming to have no responsibility to any paying customer individually....
It's a scam.
@@Kawlinz good point
The term is guest, a passenger is a paying client.
A lot of times they're not.
"Freedom of movement, a fundamental right"? Less than one year later, Americans have lost this right.
Just say no and fight back attack them using US title 18 code 242 and 241
As a passenger, what does it matter if I've been drinking? That's the entire reason to have a DD. If I'm not operating the vehicle, have not committed a Crime, have no RAS one has been committed, you don't have any need to know who I am.
You are extremely important to the UA-cam legal community
*WHAT "LAW" REQUIRES A PASSENGER TO SHOW ID FOR NO CRIME or TRAFFIC INFRACTION???*
In some states, per Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada
United States Supreme Court 542 U.S. 177 (2004), Stop and ID statutes require you to ID yourself, if there is "reasonable articulable suspicion". However they can't require ID, as not everyone has ID.
@@marchevka22x *NO CRIME or TRAFFIC INFRACTION* for the passenger
No law requires people to drive or get a driver's license
"Always be polite
Do not interfere
Do not resist
Do not run
Remain silent
Ask to leave"
I have always remembered what my father taught me, to be calm, polite to a fault with the popo at any stop or interaction and “tell it to THE JUDGE” at the appropriate time.
And your bad luck,,the Judge is the Cop father in law lmao
An officer can withhold the charge until the case reaches a courtroom? I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.
The DA can add other charges or dismiss them. You learn of all charges at the arraignment.
where I am they HAVE TO TELL YOU UPON APPROACHING THE VEHICLE what "crime" they are suspecting you of before they are allowed to ask passengers for ID. if they do not then it is an ILLEGAL detention.
same as the "investigatory detention" line they try to use. it has to be based on an actual CRIME and they HAVE TO TELL YOU WHAT CRIME< ON THE SPOT!!!
I very greatly appreciate the careful effort here to identify the truth with regard to passengers being ID'd. I'd suggest referencing the "Stop and ID" laws of each state. The "bloody handed" passenger may be in a state where the reasonable suspicion raises the obligation to identify, but in some states no such obligation exists until actually being charged and booked. In any ordinary traffic stop where no unusual suspicion against a passenger exists, just as if one were simply walking down the sidewalk, We The People are not required to possess or present identification.
An even better question to ask an officer requesting id from a passenger is, “what crime does the officer see him or her committing” putting the onus of the request totally on the officer. They may say they’re “investigating” during the stop but their investigation is dependent on what they observe and unless they see the passenger commit some infraction, the passenger does not have to identify themselves or even converse with the police.
That Reno 911 clip gets me every single time!
My friend and I once got stopped in the middle of no where in CA. I was the passenger and my friend was the driver. In the middle of the back and forth between my friend and the an officer, I asked the officer straight up if I'm free to leave. He said yes, I got out and started walking. My friend picked me up a while later after he gave up arguing and gave them his ID. It was a good walk.
what are cops going to pull us over for when weed is legal and cars drive themselves?
Exactly! They’re going to have to find another way to generate revenue for the state. No more speeding tickets, DUI’s, etc.
You are to be still held liable for your vehicles actions and must be able to take control of it. Sorry to blow your high. Stay straight or stay HOME
@@mattyb8046 computers can drive better than humans, im not talking about the self driving that is currently flawed. I am talking about a few years down the road when you never see crashes (which are almost always human error). Use some critical thinking
I think they're coming out with some new legislation is called breathing while alive and you can get incarcerated for having common sense and logic and knowing your rights! Cops hate it when you know your rights!
@@mattyb8046 why even go out in public then
All I heard in the last 5 minutes was 'lick boots or they will kill you'.
Absolutely. Keep your ego sheathed during an encounter because what matters is in court.
@@6dmiller if you make it that far because a lot of the times they'll give you these charges or these tickets so whatever is that they know won't stick and then they just won't show up for court so they get dropped but you'll still have the arrests and everything on your record or the tickets or whatever
well, best case scenarios that go "wrong" seem to lead to lottery number settlements.
just need to invest in dash cams.
7:00 cop was wrong. Identifying yourself does not mean presenting a photo ID. It just means you tell them your name, and you are not legally allowed to lie.
The driver has to present a drivers license so the officer knows he has a drivers license.
You are also not legally compelled to tell them anything UNLESS you're already under arrest. In that case the follow is required by law: name, address, and DOB. That's it. After that, remain silent
@@krane15 In some states you can be forced to identify yourself if you are being detained and not arrested. But I dont know if you have to give them any more info than that. Its probably a good idea to check your states laws and be sure.
Don't trust any of the KROMAGG cops in the USA...always record them..ALWAYS..then shut up.SIMPLE.QED
Gday from Australia CHEERS and keep recording,!!
Three rules for dealing with cops! Shut Up! Shut UP and then shut up some more.
This case has already been moved from federal court to the Burlington,NJ court. Get ready for a settlement.
While you state that a traffic stop is a seizure under the 4th Amendment, the courts have ruled that it is not an "unreasonable" seizure as per the text of the 4th. One thing that is also not considered is that a traffic stop is still considered a reasonable seizure even if no citation was issued or arrest made, so in virtually every case a traffic stop is not a violation of the 4th Amendment. Now if the officer stopped you with the clear and sole intent NOT to perform his policing duties (say, he wanted to ask you about the weather or talk about some non-law enforcement subject) then the stop could be considered improper, but provided it can be justified within the scope of the officer's duties then it is perfectly acceptable.
USA sounds like an intimidating place to live.
@TREX LEX Just because you don't know how to plan, handle money, or how to identify leaders during elections doesn't mean the US is bad.
It's still by far the richest and most prosperous country in human history.
Indeed, but it depends on which State and City you live in.
@@rickd1624 Yeah I agree, its on a down hill slide and has been for a while
@@janchovanec8624 That really depends on your definition of prosperity. I am sure a lot of people living in the rust belt would like to challenge that notion. And don't even start with the "they should have handeled their money better " bullshit, thats a weak excuse for the wealthy to justify their lack of social responsibility towards the society that made them wealthy.
Where my tan and you'll see! 😏
I have a DUI back four years ago I was on a party with my friends so we go to sleep around 2on the morning but the neighbors a cross at street wake me up at 6 on the morning to move my truck and I said yes so I move my truck around the block and I got coughed by a police and I told him I was drinking even the neighbor told him I just move my truck bcs she can’t get out of her drive way and he doesn’t want to listen and I still paying for something
I take care of my actions but doesn’t make me fear wath the police are doing here on Texas
That's fucked up
Nelson Serrano sounds irresponsible to me
The thing I can never understand is how so many regular people can memorise numerous laws and know what their rights are and yet cops don't bother to learn the laws they are supposed to enforce.
so scotus saying that you have the right to resist an unlawful arrest may be legal, it may also be very stupid if not at times fatal. thanks for the advice scotus.
The circumstances in which one may lawfully resist an unlawful arrest are extremely narrow.
@@KarlH1980 Narrow... Im pretty sure you cant narrow it. It says what it says. If a cop just pulls up and tries to force you into the car for no reason that is unlawful and one may resist to the point of taking the officers life to prevent the crime from taking place. They also said you can do the same to protect someone else as well.
@@he-manmasteroftheuniverse2501 Well here is the thing. You resist a cop and try to make an argument in court, the burden of proof is on you. You will have to demonstrate that you, were behaving in a reasonable manner and that you had a fear of death or serious injury when you chose to not comply with the coppers. You say "for no reason". In reality what that means is no reason that you are aware of. You can't know what the copper knows or doesn't know.
The only cases that I know of in which that defense was successfully used were both cases in which a male copper was unreasonably trying to get women to do things that were just odd. In both cases there was physical evidence and the coppers own testimony that put the noose around the coppers neck. In both of those cases, the females injured the coppers.
Now I have seen cases in which coppers improperly detained or arrested a person, the person resisted and the judge dismissed that charge. Relying on that is a crap shoot at best.
Unless you have a articulable reason to believe that the cops intends to unlawfully harm you, you better just comply and argue about it in court.
@@KarlH1980 lol when an armed person wearing a costume that has proven to give them special super hero powers starts man handling you, is elevating his tone, is acting like he owns you, there is reason to be concerned for your life. There is no way to determine the level of violence things are going to once people decide to let lose. If he thinks he can do that and get away with it there is no reason to believe he is restrained by any sense of decency let alone law. Compound that with case after case of police misconduct, this is one place that list it, newsmaven.io/pinacnews/ , there really is no reason to not believe when they stop you that it may be your last day on earth. They hire low IQ people, fact.. They are required to have very little training, fact. They dont know our rights, fact. There is a hiring quota and with that a push to rush them through, fact. So we have emotional, people, with poor training, put on the job to deal with the public, who are resorting to threats and violence, and you think people shouldnt be in fear of their lives? I think its a reasonable given!
@@KarlH1980 What is happening in society between cops and citizens is no different than how it went down in the Stanford study. Both are becoming sadistic, but at least in the Stanford study they could leave the KNOWN study at any time. Its going to get a lot worse!
Very informative ! Thank you, cleared up some questions.
One remains. In Ohio you are required to ID only if you are suspected of crime, as in many states. But it also makes you ID if you have been a witness to a crime. If my friend gets pulled over for speeding, am I now a witness to a crime (speeding) and must ID?
Speeding is an infraction.
@@scottwasome traffic violations are misdemeanor and felony crimes.
"Remain silent don't answer questions because they can be used against you in court or during the stop"
The problem is, not talking and answering questions both gives the officers suspicion and I've seen both be used against them.
▪︎ If you don't answer "you are hiding something"
▪︎ if you answer "it's questions that incriminate you or give them information that can contradict with what the officer believes is true"
The pic you showed of a cop dragging a person by the arms was an incident where that officer went on an ego trip and tazed the young man until he had permanent brain damage.
That video is beyond disturbing, and all the officer got was 4 years in prison.
@@michellerobinson1318 the young man referenced above was the son of a pig. The family got a huge pay out because the dad had connections. I'm sure the dad did equally foul sheet.
@@michellerobinson1318 until God serves his Vengeance and his will be done as it's written so shall it be done 🙏🏽
You stated [9:03] you must produce ID if an officer tells you he's has reasonable suspicion, what if you don't have ID on you? Can you just remain silent ??
You have to have a reasonable and truthful excuse of why you dont have it on you. Usually of you slip up more it ends up in arrest.
@@burninroses1755 being as you aren't required to have an ID with you everywhere you go, that trumps any other "excuses"
No. They will drag your ass to jail immediately if you do not submit
The State of Delaware vs Prouse explains it clearly, that we don't lose our right of privacy when leaving your house onto a public sidewalk nor do we lose that right when going from a sidewalk into a vehicle as a passenger.
8:52 that is completely wrong. If an officer advises you that they do have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime, you do not have to give you ID. The officer advising you that he has it, means nothing. The officer actually having it, is when you have to give up your ID. If you know that you did not commit a crime, an officer just saying he has reasonable suspicion, means nothing. With that being said, if you are going to refuse to show ID after the officer says he has reasonable suspicion, you better be right
Alex H that’s only true in states that are not (stop and identify) states. So you have to present your ID if the officer states he has reasonable suspicion. I would advise you ask “what crime am i suspected of committing?”. The officer does not have to disclose that information unfortunately, however, generally the officer will articulate the suspicious behavior and not the crime they suspect you of committing or about to commit have committed. If what was articulated by the officer is not a crime, then you do not have to provide identification or any personal information regardless of if they classify the encounter as a detainment. Reason being it would be an illegal detainment. It’s only an illegal detainment, if you have not committed a crime, or if your initial actions that caused the officers reasonable suspicion is not a crime and your perfectly within your rights of doing said action that caused reasonable suspicion.
@@earlbrewer1959 Read my post above concerning producing an ID. Some of what you wrote is true and some is false.
Loose Moose i read it. I tried to understand it as best that i could. I think i was more so conflicted by your statement “the cops saying they have reasonable suspicion is not grounds to produce an ID, them actually having it is grounds to ask for identification.” I’m saying regardless of if they have it or say they have it, you do not have to produce a ID if the reasonable suspicions is not an actual crime. I don’t see where i went wrong at. I’ll give an example. As far as i know there is no law as to how many gas cans you can fill with fuel. So if I’m filling up 25 gas cans with fuel, and a cop sees this, that could be actual reasons for suspicion of arson. Does that mean the cops get to ID me because of that? I could have a very reasonable reason as to why I’ve filled all of those gas cans. Does that mean i should have to share that information or any personal identification information with the cops?
@@earlbrewer1959 There is an old saying: Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. The same is true for suspicion since it lies in the imagination of the beholder. What seems reasonable for one may not be for another. Mere suspicion for anything is not a crime and you need not share your information with a police officer because he has an unfounded suspicion based on no violation of a law. Ask him to state the law and of course, there isn't one. He is out of line and you can ignore him. The wisest course is to ask for the law and say no more. Continue with filling the cans. He may not like it and will do whatever he decides. Then you can count your money on the way to the bank.
Loose Moose there you go lol.
I was arrested a few years ago, the police took me off of my property and said i was drunk (i was). I was held for 2 days, then the court said i did not break a law, after the hearing i was held for an additional day. Do you think i would have a shot in a civil case against the arresting officer or city?
modular_kellogs yes
I've heard of police officers having the passenger get out of a vehicle for a sobriety test just to arrest them for public intoxication.
Wow...just when you think you've seen all the crooked cop stunts, there's another such nasty surprise on the horizon, eh?
Short answer: Yes they do.
@8:54 I DISAGREE You say "An officer can WITHHOLD Articulable suspicion" If they dont articulate the suspicion how can anyone claim it was articulable? Likewise if you are arrested they articulate the crime for which you are being arrested. they don't say "you are under arrest for a crime which I am not articulating but am capable of articulating " do they?
That dancing cowboy 😂😂😂 that’s my favorite Reno 911 clip.
“Wow, you’re really good at dancing”
“Nah, nope. I’m just drunk.”
*points at each other*
“Ahhhh, you got me!”
Brendlin vs California say Passengers are not required but can challenge the government for redress.
Once they "ID" you, you are in the system...
You are in the system when you get your driver's license.
@@redgringrumboldt8983 more like when you get your birth certificate or social security number
I was in a car accident once...the driver of the other car hit me but he was both cool and calm. His passenger on the other hand was pissed, lashed out at me and his buddy had to tell him to back off. But, after the police took names of all of us, they came back and arrested the passenger...he was pissed because he had an outstanding warrant and knew he would be going to jail.
I remember I was pulled over because the “ license plates light” wasn’t bright enough. ( which the light was working perfectly fine by the way) this happen at 2am when my friend and I were going to Taco Bell. When he pulled me over, he asking for my friends SSN!? Like wtf!? He was just sitting in the passenger seat and did nothing at all.
A social security card is NOT considered a valid ID. I think this guy may have been try ing to find an "illegal" by asking for an ssn card.