Bear in mind that the facts presented in my videos are not indicative of my personal opinion, and I do not always agree with the outcome, people, or judgements of any interaction. My videos should not be construed as legal advice, they are merely a presentation of facts as I understand them. That said, enjoy the video!
Please consider auditing this police interaction: ua-cam.com/video/CcRgCVM1JPk/v-deo.html I am interested in the significant differences between an arrest warrant and a bench warrant, and whether either allow police entry into a private residence, and why/why not.
I found the answer which you did not explain. "Officers must confine these kinds of frisks to the suspect’s outer clothing-they can’t go rummaging through your pockets. If, however, the officer feels something like a weapon during the frisk, he or she can reach into your clothing and retrieve it. Even if the object isn’t a weapon, a court will consider it to have been lawfully discovered if it reasonably appeared to be a one. In fact, an officer who feels something during a Terry frisk that obviously isn’t a weapon, but is obviously contraband, can seize it."
Cars are NOT "stolen" from their own lot! Another good officer "borrowed" it and forgot to bring it back on time. He needed to make a quick run the Starbucks to get a Latte and deliver it to the judge on the golf course! Five demerits for each day late. lol!
Look how they spend their time. They had half a dozen cops attacking an innocent person who wasn't doing anything wrong when there are real crimes going on.
So they’re bad cops if they get cars stolen from the parking lot and they’re also bad cops for questioning some idiot who appears to be casing the parking lot. I think maybe you don’t think so good.
@@oldcountryman2795 No, they are bad Cops for enforcing their will instead of the Law. Maybe you missed the idea that the ass-hole cops are throwing around BS to violate this guy's rights to do what he is doing. Instead of thinking about other's thoughts...try thinking some for yourself.
@@steelcastle5616 Dude. You need to calm down. Obviously you’ve been arrested and it wasn’t pleasant. I get that. I don’t like hornets around my house, but I also know better than to poke their nest with a stick. Your “rights” only extend so far. Harassing the police at the police station is stupid.
@@oldcountryman2795 No...never been arrested. What I'm talking about are Cops who make up shit in order to impose their will regardless of the law (what law were they breaking by filming or taking pictures?). If you remove your nose out of Law Enforcement's rear end, you could see that. There's a reason why Cops fought so hard against body cams and departments are paying out record sums in lawsuits (and it ain't because people can trust Cops to enforce the Law).
The judge is the worst of the bunch. The number one job of a judge should be to protect the citizen from government, not the other way around. The whole system now works together to protect themselves and exert power over citizens.
> The number one job of a judge should be to protect the citizen from government, not the other way around Where is this coming from? The judge must be unbiased in either direction. Considering that the police is supposed to enforce the law, the judge certainly is not supposed to prevent that.
the citizens should work as a unified force! Judges like this one, should be pressured to step down, or voted out, in favor of a judge that is FOR the people!
@thunderbird002 Is your daddy your mothers brother? No one trusts cops, not even cops, you stupid inbred hillbilly. Now go out to the shed and help uncle daddy with the moonshine.
Detective: (8:50) *"You've yet to give me any logical reasoning other than you'd like to challenge authority today"* The detective nailed this dead-on. Citizens should not be detained under the threat of arrest for "challenging authority".
He wasn't detained for challenging authority per se. As the judge pointed out, he was detained for abnormal behavior that reeked of scoping the place out, which is incidentally the exact same thing Terry and his friends were doing. His refusal to identify himself or provide explanation compounded the suspiciousness, in part again to being abnormal. Suspicious is by its very nature abnormal behavior. And while abnormal behavior isn't in and of itself illegal, neither were Terry and his friends doing anything illegal. They were just scoping out a store. But that sort of odd intelligence gathering is most commonly associated with either investigators or criminals, so it's easy to make a case that it's grounds for a stop to dispel doubt (which, as the judge pointed out, this guy didn't do). If you want this sort of behavior to not be treated as grounds for a Terry Stop, you have to not make it not criminally suspicious. You have to make it something where "scoping the place out" isn't a strong association with the behavior. i.e.: you have to make it more commonplace. Although I'm not sure that would accomplish much? So auditors make filming police cars common enough that officers no longer stop people doing it. All that does is create *1* thing that officers will no longer stop people (really just auditors, because no one else does this) for.
Police: It is suspicious to be taking pictures of unmarked cars and license plates....also police: we can run any license plate in view of the public without reasonable suspicion
@@justinbillingsley6958 not really cause if it is viewable from public it is fair game to be recorded. Where it crosses the line is if they are going out of their way to take pictures into private areas like inside your home
@@justinbillingsley6958, writes _"What’s kind of ironic is if this man was outside your work taking pictures of your car, you wouldn’t be patting him on the back."_ You're right, I'd be ignoring him.
@@justinbillingsley6958No actually not true. And if for some reason someone was recording outside my place of business and I called the police. The police would show up and say there’s nothing we can do because he’s just recording in public. And the while in the public you have a low expectation of privacy
One officer word against 1 citizen an the judge would take the officer,s world but 3 officer,s lies against 1 citizen an the citizen an he would not have a chance against 5he devil himself.
Or so they "claimed".. Don't forget the courts have given LEOs the right to "lie" "trick" even "threaten" in order to get cooperation and or a confession from a suspect....
@@rocketman697 it happens in Ohio. I've heard of multiple thefts from police station and evidence lockers over the years. Sometimes by friends or family of officers! Just a few years back a whole family was murdered execution style and then a few weeks after the county sheriff's daughter was pulled over driving one of the victims vehicles multiple cities over.
This is the lasting effect of Republican presidents, the judge who dismissed it was a Reagan appointee. Can't wait for the next 40 years of Trump appointees to take an asparagus smelling piss all over our civil liberties.
@@Crowd_Surfer5.0 I never claimed it was exclusively 1 sided, however its not 50/50 by a longshot. So lets not have delusions that it is. You will find most of these SCOTUS cases and federal court rulings that Audit the Audit cites that I think we would agree we find absurd, you will find for the most part the rulings are that of a majority of Republican appointed judges, you'll find a lot of them in particular Thurgood Marshall, being the sole dissenter.... and usually right, morally at least.
@@Nekulturny so you are aware that despite citing Republican presidents, the judges that affirmed these decisions were overwhelming Democrat? You can either agree to the charitable interpretation that both sides are at fault equally or you can be written off as a liar because it has overwhelmingly been Democrat Supreme Court appointee's.
I find it amusing that the judge skipped right over the fact that the officer went into his pocket and stole his property. And that's not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. How convenient and was a warrant ever issued to search his phone and his camera ?
“We’ll detain you until we have a reason for what we’re doing.” Seriously? Did anyone else hear that? What is that bullshit? You can’t do something and then justify it after the fact.
7:00 (DETECTIVE) _"We'll just confiscate his camera _*_until we have a reason for what we're doing."_* In other words, we're gonna arrest him now and make up a crime later! 7:40 I can't see how any court could deem the confiscation of his equipment legal, unless he was placed in custody. Sans arrest, there is no reason or excuse for seizure. Another (in addition the Lt searching his pockets) clear Fourth Amendment violation.
@bob taylor "So I hope you're not a Christian, because you are gonna have a huge debt to pay for the sins of you forefathers!" So you think people are responsible for & should be punished for the sins of others?
@bob taylor "No, I didn't say the sins of "others". I specifically said those of you fathers, forefathers, ancestors." There is you and everyone else. If something is done by someone who is not you, then you didn't do it, some OTHER person did it. If someone sins but it is not you who sinned,some OTHER person committed the sin. "And please understand that EVERY generation of your people" YOUR people? You don't know anything about me, so your diatribe is rejected as invalid. "So let's not pretend that it all ended in 1865." No, let's not pretend that people can be guilty of the immoral actions committed by others. "Sir this is scripture. Not merely my empty opinions." And since no one has so far been able to present any evidence for any god,much less the god of the Bible, the fact that the scripture may say that is of no consequence. "Not giving a damn about the countless 10's of millions so called Blacks/Native aboriginal people your kind raped, slaughtered, mutilated & subjugated in the process... " "Not giving a damn about the countless 10's of millions so called Blacks/Native aboriginal people your kind raped, slaughtered, mutilated & subjugated in the process... ' I haven't done any of those things, so I feel no guilt for any of them. And what of the people the Native aboriginal people ( btw I'm 25% first nations) raped, slaughtered, mutilated & subjugated? They were doing this before Europeans appeared in North America. By subjugation do you mean slavery? You like the scriptures,so you should know that the scriptures say slavery is OK. "Now do you actually think a God of justice would allow such a nation/race of beasts to go unpunished forever for committing these abhorrent evils & gross atrocities? " That'd be the same god that allowed the atrocities in the Holocaust. So if that god exists, that god is pretty effing useless. I actually don't believe that any god exists. But if you are referring to the god described in the Bible,what makes you think that god is a god of justice?You can't be basing that claim on what the Bible says about that god.
@bob taylor "Clearly you're low frequency marginally educated 2 dimensional thinker." Clearlyyou have realized you don't have any reasoned arguments to rebut my post,so you have to use ad hominem attacks. " Because when a Nation is responsible, so is it's people. " That could be argued and applied while the atrocities are being committed and if the people of the nation know they are happening. But people born afterwards bear no responsibility for the actions. As an example, how many German citizens do you see today being charged for war crimes because of what the Nazis did during the war? "So no, you don't get to be part of an evil nation, benefit from it's Crimes against Humanity, then say "I'm an individual", simpleton!" So no, you don't get to point at atrocities committed generations ago & tell people alive today that they are guilty of those atrocities and not expect too be laughed at, simpleton! "Because the Most High God of the Bible says ...." Don't give a f*ck what the Bible claims a god said. You need to prove a god exists before any claims you make about the god can be taken seriously. " And even if you don't believe in the Bible, that's a universal law, Karma etc... " More unproven claims. And even if I believed in karma, I would not believe my karma is affected by people who lived and died generations before I was born. Try again,using logic & reason instead of claims and wishful thinking.
Moral of the story: always be prepared to be detained and searched, stay alive, and have enough money set aside to file a suit way after the fact. That’s best case scenario justice today.
TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO BEGIN SHOOTING THESE TERRORISTS! EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES NEVER EXISTED THIS WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION, AND IGNORANCE OF THE LAW THESE TRAITORS FOF IGNORANCE OF LAW. THEY OPENLY VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS, THEY SHOULD BE SHOT AS DOMESTIC ENEMIES! FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE MASTERS, AND DAMN SURE NOT TERRORISTS WITH AN AGENDA!
Repeal qualified immunity, and establish steep statutory fines for breaches of duty. Illegal detainment: $10,000 illegal search: $50,000 illegal seizure (for the purpose of this, it's anything that's taken without a warrant, cars transported to impound lots having less protections): $100,000 (per piece of property taken, in this case, phone, camera, the lens, and memory card, yes I am being that pedantic when I say PIECE of property), would be $400,000) police could steal a penny under "Civil Asset Forfeiture" and be subject to pay out 100k in statutory damages illegal arrest: $1,000,000. Oh, and kidnapping charges. In a case like this if these rules applied, Mr. Robins would be owed a minimum of $450,000. And BTW, these are only STATUATORY, if the wronged individual wants to pursue further compensatory and punitive damages they are free to do so.
This is crazy "suspicious activity" has become he glanced at me and when I looked at him he turned his head. He wasn't wearing socks, his shirt didn't match his pants. The police have turned "suspicious activity" into a catchall phrase!
Loitering is being somewhere without a purpose he obviously has a purpose.he Is there documenting how our employees violate our constitutionally protected rights.
Loitering is a magic word for police, has nothing to do with the actual laws on the subject. Loitering is a prime tool for police to control people by playing "catch and release."
@thunderbird002 last time I checked this was America and you don't have to state your reason for being anywhere in public. Innocent until proven guilty, if I'm not mistaken. Although the judge ruled against him so this state is obviously government by the government for the government. Not by the people for the people. Although all charges were dropped.
thunderbird002 totally agree with you on this one! The cop started by legally asking this dude what he was doing. Ol boy should of just answered the question. Second point, there is no law against taking pics in a public place but when you start taking pics of police and unmarked cars well thats a bit suspicious IMO. In the same way that if you are in your home and peek out the window and see some dude taking pics of your house and cars. I’m sure the police are the first people anyone would call in that situation. I agree that there are some bad cops and some not so smart ones too but bro, don’t poke the hornets nest cuz you’re just going to get stung.
You know what I learn everyday watching these videos? That everyday we the people have less and less rights, and Courts find more and more excuses to erode them.
That’s what I told officer when I was stopped and four more cars of cops came by and officer said I looked nervous. I said of course I’m nervous I’m standing on side of road surrounded by people with guns. Worse than being mugged
@@michaelszczys8316 When they all gather round and surround you, politely ask that you be kept out of their daisy chain. I'm sure at least one will know what you mean and feel uncomfortable, usually the latent homosexual one who goes two towns away to get his jollies.
In this case, since they were acting with reasonable suspicion, that means they have reason to believe that he was doing something illegal, however, they will need to seize property and look over the evidence to see if they have a reason to arrest, and they may detain until they have a reason (I think up to three days). However, if they review the evidence and find nothing illegal, they will make a copy and log everything under the suspicion report (something they mentioned); this is done so they have a record of these events and what they found so they may put all the info together in the future, if needed, to figure out if anything illegal is being planned or has been conducted (an example can be from the video where a cop saw many people looking into a store, each of those are suspicious but not illegal, but gave them enough grounds to conduct a search and discover that a crime was going to be committed). So, "Until we have a reason" is actually not as nefarious as you think it is, in this case. Granted, there are times when that is said for when they plan on making stuff up. So, practice some scrutiny in both directions when judging a person's intent based on a limited set of words.
I was also very surprised his lawyer didn’t pursue a better legal defense for searching his pockets. Being searched for being suspicious and while being detained, is an illegal search. Wow ! He lost on all three counts...very surprised.
His silence left too much room for the officers to come up w something that would stick. He should have just said “im doing a 1st amendment protected activity” and anything else he could have stated he knew his rights and is doing nothing wrong and just stayed silent from there. Court would have went very different imo but he can appeal to a higher court. Legal activity can be interpreted as suspicious bc suspicious behavior is objective and left to police judgement be that good or bad...often bad like this.
@@plinyelder8156 The USA, land of the free, unless of course you're being wrongfully arrested, in which case you have zero rights to resist, unlike mine and many other countries.
@bob taylor said:"All of this is FACT & well documented historically. And with the advent of handheld tech, we see it every damnef day... But we BLACKS are just crying VICTIM... Remember?" REDACTED
@bob taylor I actually don't want to spend the time on this debate with you. Not that you aren't worth it, I don't mean to denigrate you, I simply don't wish to put in the time to find the research, link sites, etc. I regret my initial post and will redact it if I can. You may consider this your victory and need not respond.
Exactly. Because in other videos I've seen cops get a plate numbers, even standing right behind the car and writing it down.....yet that doesn't get labelled as "suspicious." How convenient.
@@coaldoubt2879 If you are dumb enough to expose yourself or your children in front of an open window. You should be arrested for indecent exposure and child indecency.
i've noticed in these videos that whenever a cop can't answer a question their response is to ask the citizen 'what's wrong with you?' or some other attack to deflect that the officer can't provide a legal response for their own action/question.
That cop dug deep into his pocket, took out his phone, looked at it to see if it had any evidence on it, put it back, and pretended like he did nothing.
police who are able to articulate to a judge they had reasonable suspicion of a crime CAN detain you for investigation. I dont think this situation qualifies though.
When they tried to tie this to the car thefts (if they really existed) he should have asked, "If I were going to steal your cars would I be standing here in broad daylight?" Here is the issue: The cops are scared. They know there is a tide going across this country where the people are fed up. And they are scare if the rubber band ever goes snap.
Like a door -to-door salesman getting their foot in the door. Suspicious is the foot in the door to seeing if they can find something to get the door all the way open to arrest.
Only reason i give auditor a B. He gave up his ID. The Judge gets an F and so does the county. Is anyone surprised that a lower case judge sided with the officers. Noooooope!
@@vadr1651 Full of political hacks of both parties. Did you see the vids of Republican Senators being dumbfounded by some of Trump's judicial nominees? If you want a Federal Judgeship apparently all you need to do is donate to the President s campaign. Some had never practiced law.
The Constitutional Convention thought a lot about bad judges since most of them were trained lawyers in a time when anyone (well male and white) could be appointed or elected as judges. That's why they came up with the multilayered court system, it keeps the hacks in check. John Adams, when he wrote the Massachusetts Constitution, put in a provision where anyone, convicted of a felony outside of Boston, had the right to a retrial in a Boston Court of the same level. He figured that the then voluntary bar association of trained lawyers would make sure that the Boston judges were competent. Last I heard this is still in the constitution. Mostly used in DUI cases where the convicted hire a State Legislators, sitting on the subcommittee that sets judges pay, to represent them. Oddly they usually win.
Stopped while driving, used to hand over my license. Now, because I have to reach down to my back pocket, I would not do that until he gets his supervisor there too. The cop might flip out as I reach down and shoot me. I used to trust cops, but not any longer. They do not have any real training. They need real training and continuous training till the day they retire!!!
What if he was taking pictures to log how the cars were made so that he may be able to aid in someone making replicas of those cars to fool the public? Cameras can be used to cause harm.
Even if the auditor had stated his purpose was to exercise his first amendment right, I believe the judge would have still found some convoluted wording to deny his claim. It appears many of these lower court judges are just pandering to the local police! Freedom? Justice? Rights? Yea!, maybe if you have the connections or the money to pursue the higher courts. There is certainly a double standard of justice in this country. I wish these auditors could find a way to expose more of the prosecutors, public defenders, and judges in the system who obviously favor the police. Court rooms NEED to be opened to more scrutiny and transparency.
20 years? ago the Boston Globe Spotlight Team looked into judges. Many only worked a couple of hours a day with full pay and benefits. Many were overturned an incredible number of times. I think I remember that quite a few had 4 martini lunches. A couple were prone to falling asleep during felony trials. Yup, lifetime appointments are a great idea.
I'm kind of glad he lost. What was the big deal of just explaining that he's a photographer and wanted to take pictures? Sometimes people act like dicks just for the sake of it.
@@JSM270 because he wasn't required to by law. The problem kind of goes like this: "Sir, can you tell me what you are doing, because you look suspicious to me?" "Do I legally have to?" "No sir" "Then thankyou, I won't." "But that then makes me more suspicious that you are committing a crime." "What crime?" "Well I don't know yet, that's why I'm asking you questions." "Do I legally haven't to answer them?" "No sir." "Then I choose not to answer them." "Ok, well in that case I will detain you because I believe you may be about to commit a crime, more so since you won't offer me any explanation of what you are doing." So there's a choice. Give up your rights willingly (possibly incriminating yourself in the process) or be detained for standing for them.
@@philwalker1167 It seems to me that at least one of the cops had the right idea. "Conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism" would be a legitimate cause for stopping that photographer. The officer even mentioned that he was worried that the photographer might be casing the area for later. They just didn't articulate that very well.
@@philwalker1167 There's what ought to be, and there's what is. What is in this case is the judge saying failure to provide any explanation beyond the obvious gave the officers reasonable suspicion, and if you think about it objectively asking him to provide an explanation of his activities is reasonable. Armed with that knowledge, just say, "I'm exercising my first amendment rights" and they'll have less semantic wiggle room to do what this judge did. It's about countering their moves to put them into a checkmate state where they either have to blatantly lie to the world, or change their ways and admit their wrongdoings. It's either that or violence at the end of the day, and I think I can safely assume that nobody wants violence. The cops just need to act like adults and learn a little bit of law and this could be solved overnight. As it is now, it's like hiring a referee that doesn't even know the rules of the game.
@@skankhunt9497 You're braindead AtA explained the reasoning behind the judge's response. If he talked about illegal search in his pockets in the lawsuit, he probably would have won.
@@skankhunt9497 I know judges are corrupt, but this one was justified by the law which AtA explained. I know some judges are tyrants, but this one did the right thing.
moral of the story: when asked "I'm a journalist gathering content for a story" Apparently you need to physically say you are doing a constitutionally protected activity for it to be one. sigh.
DUDE! I was just thinking about that line pacing around my living room while the video was playing before I scrolled down! Did you get that line from those videos posted by a UA-cam user whom I can't remember how who had a high-pitched studderish voice? I remember him! He was super smart! Lol the De Ja Vu is getting to me.
"On October 22, 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an amicus brief in defense of an independent photojournalist suing the city of Des Moines, Iowa after he was detained for recording police officers outside of a police station. Filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the amicus brief asks that the appeals judges reverse a prior ruling that dismissed Robbins’ lawsuit."
If you sue or get arrested for exercising a Right: never expect any justice at lower courts. 99% of the time they will rubber stamp in favor of the cops no matter how obvious the violations are.
It’s so dystopian that we’re expected to believe we have all these rights and freedoms but surrender them at a whim because an uneducated, power tripping, bully wants to violate them. Oh! And if you are an educated citizen who knows that you’re being done wrong? Doesn’t matter. Or else you’ll go to jail, or die. “Fight it in court” is the classical rebuttal to that and it makes me even more sick! Why should I have to file a lawsuit so that it can come out of the taxpayers pocket and the cop gets off scott free? It’s one of America’s biggest flaws (The police system) and I will argue it until I die.
Yup, and there would be a bunch of ppl online and on TV saying you got what you deserved. And most likely the cops woulda been left off the hook. "land of the free" my azz
No need for him to look in the mirror more like he has rights which might be annoying but that's not breaking the law. For example they accuse him of loitering so in essence they're all loitering in this incident.
@@ishitunot5152 bro I think you misunderstood the comment he was talking about the cop was the one that mistreated him so many times and made him act that way , in short it was about the cop not the guy looking in the mirror
UPDATE: As posted from the original video... "Update: The Federal Appeals Court just ruled against these bullies regarding the charges of false arrest and illegal seizure of his camera and cell phone. He now has a slam dunk case on these two charges. The City of Des Moines is probably going to be paying settlement in this case. LOUSY, power drunk cops like these raise your property taxes."
5 років тому+49
90% of all police confiscated property ends up in the officers’ garages.
"I have no ill will or nefarious purposes against anyone. I am exercising my legal First Amendment rights." Next time, we can all learn how to circumvent these intimidating tactics. Support Auditor's legal fund.
Yes. When we make contact or are forced to interact with any law enforcement officer (God I hate this terminology), we by law default cannot lie (as opposed to their SCOTUS given permission to lie basically any time they wish). Thus, the cop should assume that what we are saying is true. Of course, I am talking about the circumstances that surround cases like this - not the cases where there is not a speculative form of so called reasonable suspicion. Courts will almost always side with the cops where there are not clear boundaries established in order to shield their protectors from potential liabilities. This case also typifies the conflict between the Constitution (Common Law) and Corporate Law that sadly has the upper hand these days. We must remember that police, although they swear to protect and uphold the Constitution, are all 1) Officers of Corporation that is independently free from Constitutional law (sort of lime Federal Reserve), 2) Officers of the Court which in almost all but one are private corporations as well. At least that is my understanding of how things work these days. People like this guy needlessly push the limits of their behaviour and they do provoke cops into a sworm like response. You might not be causing any harm to a wasp nest either by being in their immediate vicinity. However, if you you start agitating them, they will inevitably respond, right or wrong. The idea of testing limits of freedom should be based on situations that we ourselves do not initiate with the sole purpose of testing those limits but when they occur by our own normal activity. When we trigger encounters like this with the idea to do just that (to draw a negative attention of the wasp hive), the results might not be what we would anticipate. We should educate ourselves about the law and lawful limits of our freedom - because those limits do exist. But to engage in provocations to find out where those limits are, is, in my opinion, not a smart or intelligent option to make. If I find myself in the situation where I without any intention start looking suspicious, then testing the limits of our constitutionally protected freedoms is very appropriate course to take simply because we did not actively sought a conflict. This man (and many others on You Tube do actively test their power to balance on the edge of a cliff yet they are not even trained to walk up to the cliff itself, let alone perform the balancing act.
@@mitsanut5869 Your last paragraph was the crux of the matter. It is intrepid non-instigating auditors who test the furthest boundaries of We the People's Constitutional rights, as interpreted by SCOTUS and Circuit Courts. It can get a bit messy at times, but constant education about our Bill of Rights (our school systems are negligent) to the public and public officials is critical, step by step. ABE: Always Be Educating should be the credo of 1A auditors. Our progeny will thank them.
@@lesliesylvan I think that testing those limits could be done in some wiser way. As you could observe, the man's case at the Court, in the way it was presented by him or by his attorney, was weak where it should be strong and bound for failure simply because he did not in any way asserted his rights in proper manner when the situation occurred, resulting in only one possible way - dismissal of his lawsuit. What I am trying to say here is that yes, fight for freedom, for your God given rights and against oppression....but be smart about it. It is NOT smart to have only some knowledge in law. You must be equipped with very specific knowledge when you decide to undertake this kind of mission. These people go there precisely because they want to stir conflict with cops; but more often than not, they are intellectually ill equipped to push these limits like they do. Law is a very complex subject. And using one wrong word or not using a correct word when it would throw the case on it's head, may cause you to end up in prison. Very slippery slope.... Needless to say, this man probably thinks of himself as a truth warrior. I look at him and others like on the fools they mostly are. It's like going into a boxing match without any training, technical knowledge or studying your opponent, all the while thinking that your one punch will do the job. I call this foolish
@@mitsanut5869 Agreed. When going to court for the purpose of setting new precedents is best done selectively, based on a surer ticket of success. This one, sadly is not and might actually turn the clock back for this vital movement. People like Dave Warden of News Now Houston and others having greater legal and experiential background (there are a few others and growing, thank goodness) are best to move forward. A major difficulty is the great expense, plus a paucity of good legal minds and trial attorney skill sets to take on 1A cases; few will risk doing it on a contingency basis. And not great for going before judges who "don't get it." One can already see great improvements when comparing older 1A videos with those of today. Many auditor revisits are like nigh and day. Officers now explain the legalities to security guards and public officials are not leaping out of there seats to hide in fear of a camera. Of course. many still do, and bad cops are still ubiquitous, but all in all, it moves toward the light of the Constitution. As I said before, it will get messy before things begin to smooth out. Cops are understandably confused and conflate instigating auditors with non manipulating ones. When the public and cops finally begin to catch on and simply ignore fly on the wall audits, the bad auditors will slowly disappear due to lack of click bait and $$$. The good auditors will be out of a job, pretty much. That's my optimist's view. Auditors main purpose, imo, is to educate. ABE: Always Be Educating. They should give talks about the nuances of the Bill of Rights and especially video recording. The kids will eat it up, since their worlds revolve around the cell phone~
@@lesliesylvan I understand the idea behind all of this, but as you correctly said, it must be done in smart way, i.e. people must pick their battles. I think that's one of the most essential ingredients that must be taken into the account. We are dealing with nuances of law, the language that it contains and one bad move might actually result in landmark decision that will be even more detrimental and damaging to people's rights. Cops were given too much power without any qualifying lawful authority and, as I said earlier, Courts, who are essentially their puppeteers, will not give up their collective oppressive power that easily. The stakes for them are too great, their money machine needs to feed itself their very comfortable, mostly without any worries, lives generously at the expense of people it enslaves. People with bad morals are usually much more persistent in their actions and work harder not to get exposed by those on the right side of the honor. Pick your battles, be smart while doing your work, and study law diligently. Reciting Constitutional Amendments is simply not enough, all of this is much more complex issue. The law waters have been muddied throughout last 100 years to such degree that simple things are simple no more, and the system does not easily give up it's powers it has usurped from the people on incremental basis like an invisible parasite that grew into uncontrolable monster.
They asked that for a reason they thought they were Being investigated and wanted to identify him so they’d have heads up on what exactly they need to cover up which this video reveals a lot about them
When this happens to one of our first amendment Auditors maybe it would be a good idea for our Second Amendment auditors to be close by and approach when this s*** happens
I agree. In the future, there should be more order when conducting these audits....they should be more tactical, where, there should be a first amendment auditor accompanied by a second amendment auditor and should work in sync
State and local laws are done for a reason. NH doesn't need hurricane laws, florida doesn't need snow laws. There is many laws based on locations and needs. Town laws are based on needs of the community. In NH they have an all encompassing rule that state laws trump town laws unless the law specificys you can make other laws. This is to ensure some universal rules, such as road rules. Towns can't make a law that you drive on the left side of the road when state law says right. But an executive order recently on masks ends with it doesn't supersede town orders nor stop towns from passing stricter rules.
@@adamplummer2190 I understand what they are for, but you are equating “rules” or mandates, to actual laws. The weather also has absolutely zero bearing when it comes to most laws. People should not be able to cross some imaginary, arbitrary border, and the laws be so vastly different, they can go to jail for something legal next door. That is ridiculous. My original statement, “varying degrees of interpretation” should not be a thing at all, especially when it comes to how law enforcement treats citizens.
As I have always said We are the Divided States of America.. Now after this Election they have proven me correct. The government consistently over reaches and extortss the citizens... Then they wonder why we are heading in the direction of a civil war.....
There are over 3000 federal laws just in Title 18 alone. If you count all the rules and regulations of the various agencies that are subject to criminal enforcement the number rises to over 300,000. That is just Federal law. Every year legislatures keep writing and passing more laws but when was the last time you remember any laws being removed? We seriously need a law code rewrite.
United States. Each state is its own. Basically becoming a state is a treat where the state will follow federal law, but each state maintains independence.
I pray this ends up in front of a higher court. These cops clearly violated his rights and stated he was not breaking any laws. They were retaliating and need to be held accountable. Looks like the entire police force was out there. Welcome to to growing police state we live in.
Seriously, I don't air dry my asshole in the yard because I don't want anyone to see it. Why keep your undercover cars in broad daylight? I also don't believe them when they say they've had cars stolen from that lot, what percentage of criminals think it's a good idea to steal from a police parking lot?
The issue most officers have is they cannot differentiate being merely suspicious on a personal level from Official Suspicion (RAS) as a part of their job.
According to the judge's ruling, defendant basically had to say that he had a 1st amendment right to do what he was doing. I think that's a crock. Sounds like a crooked judge protecting illegal police behavior.. But the 5th amendment way to go is still best.
@@johnrambo5436 this is not the country our Forefathers set up for us anymore! Our Forefathers would not only be ashamed of these "officers" but would have shot them for the tyrannical way they conduct thier business!
@@johnrambo5436 So the man had to tell his rights to the officer ( who should know his rights ). But the other officer felt entitled to touch and frisk the man without consent or telling him what he is about todo.
Lol How about this.... I'm exercising my 1st amendment in hopes that undereducated cops will be dumb enough to violate my civil. I'm hoping I can buy an Island for my retirement. Are you volunteering to help me?
After the first judge dismissed his lawsuit. The city forked over $125k for their officers being officers and enforcing their will and not enforcing laws
Auditing should probably be reserved for the temperament of someone who knows how to control a conversation like my boy down in South Carolina and a few others. This guy is saying things that he's heard watching other videos and doesn't seem to be fully prepared to be an auditor, but I think it's more of a temperament issue than it is knowledge related.
@@zinoklahoma343 yea, and it’s silly when criminals do auditing and end up worse off lol. These guys are not ready for confrontation, yet they still provoke it intensely
7:01 "We can confiscate the camera until we have a reason for what we're doing." Translation: We're going to steal your property- just because we can -and we're going to keep it until we're finished getting our stories straight and making up charges against you. Also, this judge lacks the authority to assert that his opinion of any accused's demeanor, or that his opinion of what anybody should have done or said, outweighs anybody's Constitutional rights.
The judge was overturned by higher court and the case is going back to district court. The officers involved no longer have qualified immunity and the city will most likely settle before it goes to trial. As of January 2021
Investigative detention is only after reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed is being committed or is about to be committed. Statute does not stop at suspicious. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Just my just my humble and uneducated opinion.
I don't think auditors think legal activities can't be suspicious. I think they know it's not suspicion of a crime and the 1st amendment isn't supposed to be suspicious activity.
I would have said, "as a taxpayer, I am concerned police are buying unnecessary cars for personal use and intend to determine if my taxes are properly spent."
I have reported NCIS for doing exactly that. Didn't go anywhere of course. They were using government vehicles as personal vehicles (taking kids to school, shopping, commuting).
Bear in mind that the facts presented in my videos are not indicative of my personal opinion, and I do not always agree with the outcome, people, or judgements of any interaction. My videos should not be construed as legal advice, they are merely a presentation of facts as I understand them. That said, enjoy the video!
I will.....I will enjoy, I very much enjoy watching most of your videos, if not all
Don’t see how anyone can stand listening to your uneducated blabbing . Slap yourself for me
Please consider auditing this police interaction: ua-cam.com/video/CcRgCVM1JPk/v-deo.html
I am interested in the significant differences between an arrest warrant and a bench warrant, and whether either allow police entry into a private residence, and why/why not.
One question. How can they know if you have a pocket pistol or pocket knife, without searching the pockets?
I found the answer which you did not explain.
"Officers must confine these kinds of frisks to the suspect’s outer clothing-they can’t go rummaging through your pockets. If, however, the officer feels something like a weapon during the frisk, he or she can reach into your clothing and retrieve it. Even if the object isn’t a weapon, a court will consider it to have been lawfully discovered if it reasonably appeared to be a one. In fact, an officer who feels something during a Terry frisk that obviously isn’t a weapon, but is obviously contraband, can seize it."
“We’ve had cars stolen out of our police lot!”
That leads me to believe that you aren’t very good cops.
Best comment thus far
Lol a police boat got stolen from a detachment nearby last season..... it was a hilarious crime stoppers posting.
Cars are NOT "stolen" from their own lot! Another good officer "borrowed" it and forgot to bring it back on time. He needed to make a quick run the Starbucks to get a Latte and deliver it to the judge on the golf course! Five demerits for each day late. lol!
@@davesanders9203
Starbucks doesn't want him there.
@@christianbozwell4981
Lol I like them more now haha. Still prolly wont go for coffee though, this black rifle is delicious.
"I can confiscate his camera until we have a reason for what we're doing"
That's an admission of abuse of authority right there.
But the photo-guy didn't sued the Police for that. He should have done that :D
“We’ve had cars stolen out of our police lot”.
When Cops can't keep their own cars safe in their own lot, they aren't much of a department.
Look how they spend their time. They had half a dozen cops attacking an innocent person who wasn't doing anything wrong when there are real crimes going on.
So they’re bad cops if they get cars stolen from the parking lot and they’re also bad cops for questioning some idiot who appears to be casing the parking lot. I think maybe you don’t think so good.
@@oldcountryman2795 No, they are bad Cops for enforcing their will instead of the Law. Maybe you missed the idea that the ass-hole cops are throwing around BS to violate this guy's rights to do what he is doing. Instead of thinking about other's thoughts...try thinking some for yourself.
@@steelcastle5616 Dude. You need to calm down. Obviously you’ve been arrested and it wasn’t pleasant. I get that. I don’t like hornets around my house, but I also know better than to poke their nest with a stick. Your “rights” only extend so far. Harassing the police at the police station is stupid.
@@oldcountryman2795 No...never been arrested. What I'm talking about are Cops who make up shit in order to impose their will regardless of the law (what law were they breaking by filming or taking pictures?). If you remove your nose out of Law Enforcement's rear end, you could see that. There's a reason why Cops fought so hard against body cams and departments are paying out record sums in lawsuits (and it ain't because people can trust Cops to enforce the Law).
I feel like a cop using the phrase "we can just take it and find out a reason why later" is proof that there was no probable cause
The judge is the worst of the bunch. The number one job of a judge should be to protect the citizen from government, not the other way around. The whole system now works together to protect themselves and exert power over citizens.
I agree there is no way an honest judge doesn’t bust those cops for 4th amendment violations!
> The number one job of a judge should be to protect the citizen from government, not the other way around
Where is this coming from? The judge must be unbiased in either direction. Considering that the police is supposed to enforce the law, the judge certainly is not supposed to prevent that.
Well said!
the citizens should work as a unified force! Judges like this one, should be pressured to step down, or voted out, in favor of a judge that is FOR the people!
@thunderbird002 Is your daddy your mothers brother? No one trusts cops, not even cops, you stupid inbred hillbilly. Now go out to the shed and help uncle daddy with the moonshine.
Lawsuit settlement should come out of their pensions. Not from tax money
This. Otherwise, they could care less if they get sued because we, the taxpayers, pay for it.
Agreed! If qualified immunity was abolished, THIS kind of shit would stop:
ua-cam.com/video/nzxZuUryd9s/v-deo.html
You are so right. Hot the nail on the head there buddy.
Unfortunately their pension comes from welfare too...it is from taxes.
@@ryemccoy lol unfortunately, you're right too my friend. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Detective: (8:50) *"You've yet to give me any logical reasoning other than you'd like to challenge authority today"*
The detective nailed this dead-on. Citizens should not be detained under the threat of arrest for "challenging authority".
He wasn't detained for challenging authority per se. As the judge pointed out, he was detained for abnormal behavior that reeked of scoping the place out, which is incidentally the exact same thing Terry and his friends were doing. His refusal to identify himself or provide explanation compounded the suspiciousness, in part again to being abnormal.
Suspicious is by its very nature abnormal behavior. And while abnormal behavior isn't in and of itself illegal, neither were Terry and his friends doing anything illegal. They were just scoping out a store. But that sort of odd intelligence gathering is most commonly associated with either investigators or criminals, so it's easy to make a case that it's grounds for a stop to dispel doubt (which, as the judge pointed out, this guy didn't do). If you want this sort of behavior to not be treated as grounds for a Terry Stop, you have to not make it not criminally suspicious. You have to make it something where "scoping the place out" isn't a strong association with the behavior. i.e.: you have to make it more commonplace. Although I'm not sure that would accomplish much? So auditors make filming police cars common enough that officers no longer stop people doing it. All that does is create *1* thing that officers will no longer stop people (really just auditors, because no one else does this) for.
Police: It is suspicious to be taking pictures of unmarked cars and license plates....also police: we can run any license plate in view of the public without reasonable suspicion
What’s kind of ironic is if this man was outside your work taking pictures of your car, you wouldn’t be patting him on the back.
@@justinbillingsley6958 not really cause if it is viewable from public it is fair game to be recorded. Where it crosses the line is if they are going out of their way to take pictures into private areas like inside your home
@@justinbillingsley6958, writes _"What’s kind of ironic is if this man was outside your work taking pictures of your car, you wouldn’t be patting him on the back."_
You're right, I'd be ignoring him.
@@justinbillingsley6958No actually not true. And if for some reason someone was recording outside my place of business and I called the police. The police would show up and say there’s nothing we can do because he’s just recording in public. And the while in the public you have a low expectation of privacy
I call bullshit because even if he did everything 100% correct they would twist it to there advantage.
You're saying they would twist it to advantage there? What do you mean?
These guys are deliberately baiting and wasting police time just for UA-cam views. They couldn't care less about the constitution
*their advantage
@@mrannunaki6852 no but the cops clearly dont care about the constitution.
One officer word against 1 citizen an the judge would take the officer,s world but 3 officer,s lies against 1 citizen an the citizen an he would not have a chance against 5he devil himself.
I find it hilarious they can not protect their cars from being stolen out of a police parking lot.
Or so they "claimed".. Don't forget the courts have given LEOs the right to "lie" "trick" even "threaten" in order to get cooperation and or a confession from a suspect....
😭😭😭
That was a bold faced lie.... Nobody steals cars from the Police parking lot.
@@rocketman697 it happens in Ohio. I've heard of multiple thefts from police station and evidence lockers over the years. Sometimes by friends or family of officers!
Just a few years back a whole family was murdered execution style and then a few weeks after the county sheriff's daughter was pulled over driving one of the victims vehicles multiple cities over.
@@SirTorcharite So, abuse of authority by the police themselves.... That makes perfect sense.
So... the judge ruled that his rights weren’t violated because Mr Robins was assumed guilty until until he proved his innocence🤔
exactly!!! like wtf?
This is the lasting effect of Republican presidents, the judge who dismissed it was a Reagan appointee. Can't wait for the next 40 years of Trump appointees to take an asparagus smelling piss all over our civil liberties.
BFT Neelix lets not have delusions that judges from both sides of the isle haven’t pissed on our liberties
@@Crowd_Surfer5.0 I never claimed it was exclusively 1 sided, however its not 50/50 by a longshot. So lets not have delusions that it is. You will find most of these SCOTUS cases and federal court rulings that Audit the Audit cites that I think we would agree we find absurd, you will find for the most part the rulings are that of a majority of Republican appointed judges, you'll find a lot of them in particular Thurgood Marshall, being the sole dissenter.... and usually right, morally at least.
@@Nekulturny so you are aware that despite citing Republican presidents, the judges that affirmed these decisions were overwhelming Democrat?
You can either agree to the charitable interpretation that both sides are at fault equally or you can be written off as a liar because it has overwhelmingly been Democrat Supreme Court appointee's.
They told him he was free to go then after he stated "ok, and Im free to stay". Then in retaliation they pursued FURTHER.
No, his dumbass should have left and went to file a complaint. He did that part on his own, the rest of the stop was b.s
@@markheckman2196 wtf. He doesn't have to leave.
@@thedoober6002 if he was trespassed, yes he does, how hard is that to understand.
@@thedoober6002 and apparently you need to learn and comprehend.
@@markheckman2196 he wasn't trespassed. He was standing on a public sidewalk. It's commonly known that if you're free to go, you're free to stay.
What the cops did was bad. We all know that a lot of cops are. But I thank that the worst one of all was the judge....
kooljames4513 greenarowe HERE HERE!!
When cops investigate themselves... they find no wrong doing
@@azukar2k7 and the freemason logde is home to judges and cops.
@@azukar2k7 false. Citation needed
So the judge rulling against you doesnt prove your actions wwrre wrong???
I find it amusing that the judge skipped right over the fact that the officer went into his pocket and stole his property. And that's not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. How convenient and was a warrant ever issued to search his phone and his camera ?
That's why the guy will hopefully appeal.
Strongarmed robbery and treason of the 4th and 5th.....
“We’ve had cars stolen from this lot.”
Then I suggest you get a fence and stop heckling pedestrians.
Cops. We've had vehicles stolen from this lot.
Me. Maybe you should be better cops!
“We’ll detain you until we have a reason for what we’re doing.”
Seriously? Did anyone else hear that? What is that bullshit? You can’t do something and then justify it after the fact.
Even after acknowledging the body cam is rolling. I think some police are not self aware.
@@EGOS42 As if it got them into any real trouble
7:00 (DETECTIVE) _"We'll just confiscate his camera _*_until we have a reason for what we're doing."_*
In other words, we're gonna arrest him now and make up a crime later!
7:40 I can't see how any court could deem the confiscation of his equipment legal, unless he was placed in custody. Sans arrest, there is no reason or excuse for seizure. Another (in addition the Lt searching his pockets) clear Fourth Amendment violation.
Actually, it constitutes theft by unlawful taking. The officers involved need arrested and charged.
@@rayh592
You are correct, if slightly optimistic. No DA will ever charge any COP with that.
Local cops local judge I bet they had a few drinks and a few laughs at the bar that night too
@@xenaguy01 then the DA needs removed from office. That is why we have elections, to purge criminals from office.
“I’ll confiscate the camera until we know he has a reason to be filming”!!!! Holy cow!!!
Judge is wrong! They totally violated his right! Higher court is next.
8th Circuit upholds in part, reverses in part
People don't have rights.
Very surprised at this ruling .
"It's against the law"
"What's illegal about it?"
"Nothing"
Lmfao wtf
bob taylor stfu 💀 this has nothing to do with race but losers like you always make it out like that
@bob taylor Funny how you have to type White and America together in the same sentence to be oddly specific.
@bob taylor "So I hope you're not a Christian, because you are gonna have a huge debt to pay for the sins of you forefathers!"
So you think people are responsible for & should be punished for the sins of others?
@bob taylor "No, I didn't say the sins of "others". I specifically said those of you fathers, forefathers, ancestors."
There is you and everyone else. If something is done by someone who is not you, then you didn't do it, some OTHER person did it.
If someone sins but it is not you who sinned,some OTHER person committed the sin.
"And please understand that EVERY generation of your people"
YOUR people? You don't know anything about me, so your diatribe is rejected as invalid.
"So let's not pretend that it all ended in 1865."
No, let's not pretend that people can be guilty of the immoral actions committed by others.
"Sir this is scripture. Not merely my empty opinions."
And since no one has so far been able to present any evidence for any god,much less the god of the Bible, the fact that the scripture may say that is of no consequence.
"Not giving a damn about the countless 10's of millions so called Blacks/Native aboriginal people your kind raped, slaughtered, mutilated & subjugated in the process... "
"Not giving a damn about the countless 10's of millions so called Blacks/Native aboriginal people your kind raped, slaughtered, mutilated & subjugated in the process... '
I haven't done any of those things, so I feel no guilt for any of them.
And what of the people the Native aboriginal people ( btw I'm 25% first nations) raped, slaughtered, mutilated & subjugated? They were doing this before Europeans appeared in North America.
By subjugation do you mean slavery? You like the scriptures,so you should know that the scriptures say slavery is OK.
"Now do you actually think a God of justice would allow such a nation/race of beasts to go unpunished forever for committing these abhorrent evils & gross atrocities? "
That'd be the same god that allowed the atrocities in the Holocaust. So if that god exists, that god is pretty effing useless.
I actually don't believe that any god exists. But if you are referring to the god described in the Bible,what makes you think that god is a god of justice?You can't be basing that claim on what the Bible says about that god.
@bob taylor "Clearly you're low frequency marginally educated 2 dimensional thinker."
Clearlyyou have realized you don't have any reasoned arguments to rebut my post,so you have to use ad hominem attacks.
" Because when a Nation is responsible, so is it's people. "
That could be argued and applied while the atrocities are being committed and if the people of the nation know they are happening. But people born afterwards bear no responsibility for the actions. As an example, how many German citizens do you see today being charged for war crimes because of what the Nazis did during the war?
"So no, you don't get to be part of an evil nation, benefit from it's Crimes against Humanity, then say "I'm an individual", simpleton!"
So no, you don't get to point at atrocities committed generations ago & tell people alive today that they are guilty of those atrocities and not expect too be laughed at, simpleton!
"Because the Most High God of the Bible says ...."
Don't give a f*ck what the Bible claims a god said. You need to prove a god exists before any claims you make about the god can be taken seriously.
" And even if you don't believe in the Bible, that's a universal law, Karma etc... "
More unproven claims. And even if I believed in karma, I would not believe my karma is affected by people who lived and died generations before I was born. Try again,using logic & reason instead of claims and wishful thinking.
Moral of the story: always be prepared to be detained and searched, stay alive, and have enough money set aside to file a suit way after the fact. That’s best case scenario justice today.
"...confiscate the camera until we have a reason for what we're doing." 7:00
That pretty much encapsulates it right there.
Soo we're going to take your stuff until we can create some charges
sounds like alot of cops out there, just creating whatever they need to do whatever they want.
TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO BEGIN SHOOTING THESE TERRORISTS!
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES NEVER EXISTED THIS WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION, AND IGNORANCE OF THE LAW THESE TRAITORS FOF IGNORANCE OF LAW.
THEY OPENLY VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS, THEY SHOULD BE SHOT AS DOMESTIC ENEMIES!
FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE MASTERS, AND DAMN SURE NOT TERRORISTS WITH AN AGENDA!
@@AECRADIO1 hey captain capslock if you don't respect the law you're not better than them using loopholes.
@@xetinc5356 There's nothing about the law that obligates respect.
The judge is also corrupt, Plain and simple. They have to be stopped and put in hell I mean jail!
Nah you meant what you said, and I ain't gonna argue different.
You’re stupid. You can’t just go around being a troll and expect to profit from it.
@@samplexample Oh mommy, sam(ple) called me stupid. I mean damn dude, get a grip and grow tf up.
@@samplexample nah he is right
You r the stupid one
Bodies need to drop
It needs to be criminally punishable for seizing assets with no legitimate laws broken
I mean it is, but not for the people who yell qualified immunity....
Repeal qualified immunity, and establish steep statutory fines for breaches of duty.
Illegal detainment: $10,000
illegal search: $50,000
illegal seizure (for the purpose of this, it's anything that's taken without a warrant, cars transported to impound lots having less protections): $100,000 (per piece of property taken, in this case, phone, camera, the lens, and memory card, yes I am being that pedantic when I say PIECE of property), would be $400,000) police could steal a penny under "Civil Asset Forfeiture" and be subject to pay out 100k in statutory damages
illegal arrest: $1,000,000. Oh, and kidnapping charges.
In a case like this if these rules applied, Mr. Robins would be owed a minimum of $450,000.
And BTW, these are only STATUATORY, if the wronged individual wants to pursue further compensatory and punitive damages they are free to do so.
@@ZeldagigafanMatthew they will never get rid of qualified immunity.
@@ZeldagigafanMatthew so who is to say it's illegal, the supreme court our you?
This is crazy "suspicious activity" has become he glanced at me and when I looked at him he turned his head. He wasn't wearing socks, his shirt didn't match his pants. The police have turned "suspicious activity" into a catchall phrase!
In this case, it was suspicious activity.
What constitutes reasonable suspicion for a cop? The cop seeing someone doing something. Anything. Anytime. Anywhere.
@@skankhunt9497 What are you trying to say?? Huh?! Show some ID!!!
and dont forget every car smelling like marijuana and any plant material--leaves, blades of grass--all looking like marijuana
The judge was wrong! Also, Youngbloot gets an F! He exercised his authority in vengeance! He did not have to confiscate the equipment!
Judge was a a former Tyrant police officer
All my videos (go-pro and dash camera) get streamed to the cloud so no one can delete them.
@@The93Vector Obviously you don't. :D
These dictatorial ass holes stole his property. You cant count on a Blood drinking, baby eating Paedophile to make a just ruling.
Loitering is being somewhere without a purpose he obviously has a purpose.he Is there documenting how our employees violate our constitutionally protected rights.
Loitering is a magic word for police, has nothing to do with the actual laws on the subject. Loitering is a prime tool for police to control people by playing "catch and release."
@thunderbird002 last time I checked this was America and you don't have to state your reason for being anywhere in public. Innocent until proven guilty, if I'm not mistaken. Although the judge ruled against him so this state is obviously government by the government for the government. Not by the people for the people. Although all charges were dropped.
@thunderbird002
His purpose was photography... so, not loitering.
@thunderbird002 can't loiter in a public space, as long as the walkway isn't blocked then they're in the right and can stay.
thunderbird002 totally agree with you on this one! The cop started by legally asking this dude what he was doing. Ol boy should of just answered the question. Second point, there is no law against taking pics in a public place but when you start taking pics of police and unmarked cars well thats a bit suspicious IMO. In the same way that if you are in your home and peek out the window and see some dude taking pics of your house and cars. I’m sure the police are the first people anyone would call in that situation. I agree that there are some bad cops and some not so smart ones too but bro, don’t poke the hornets nest cuz you’re just going to get stung.
You know what I learn everyday watching these videos? That everyday we the people have less and less rights, and Courts find more and more excuses to erode them.
New title:
Middle aged man surrounded by a gang of armed thugs, was robbed.. all of it caught on camera
LEGALLY, I'll remind you!
These dictatorial ass holes stole his property. You cant count on a Blood drinking, baby eating Paedophile to make a just ruling.
That’s what I told officer when I was stopped and four more cars of cops came by and officer said I looked nervous. I said of course I’m nervous I’m standing on side of road surrounded by people with guns. Worse than being mugged
@@michaelszczys8316
When they all gather round and surround you, politely ask that you be kept out of their daisy chain. I'm sure at least one will know what you mean and feel uncomfortable, usually the latent homosexual one who goes two towns away to get his jollies.
The blue gang strikes again!!
The sovereign judge agreed with the sovereign cop? Big surprise 🙄
"Until we have a reason..." says it all
In this case, since they were acting with reasonable suspicion, that means they have reason to believe that he was doing something illegal, however, they will need to seize property and look over the evidence to see if they have a reason to arrest, and they may detain until they have a reason (I think up to three days). However, if they review the evidence and find nothing illegal, they will make a copy and log everything under the suspicion report (something they mentioned); this is done so they have a record of these events and what they found so they may put all the info together in the future, if needed, to figure out if anything illegal is being planned or has been conducted (an example can be from the video where a cop saw many people looking into a store, each of those are suspicious but not illegal, but gave them enough grounds to conduct a search and discover that a crime was going to be committed).
So, "Until we have a reason" is actually not as nefarious as you think it is, in this case. Granted, there are times when that is said for when they plan on making stuff up. So, practice some scrutiny in both directions when judging a person's intent based on a limited set of words.
@bob taylor Racism?
Really dude?
I was also very surprised his lawyer didn’t pursue a better legal defense for searching his pockets. Being searched for being suspicious and while being detained, is an illegal search. Wow ! He lost on all three counts...very surprised.
It was appealed and ruled that his fourth amendment rights were violated
That judge needs to be removed from the bench. It is clearly a constitution violation.
@Steven - American justice system is a joke.
His silence left too much room for the officers to come up w something that would stick. He should have just said “im doing a 1st amendment protected activity” and anything else he could have stated he knew his rights and is doing nothing wrong and just stayed silent from there. Court would have went very different imo but he can appeal to a higher court. Legal activity can be interpreted as suspicious bc suspicious behavior is objective and left to police judgement be that good or bad...often bad like this.
@@nibinibiru119 whatever country you come from, I’m sure laws there are shit compared to those of the US.
@@plinyelder8156 so you don't know what country he's from but your willing to make that declaration based on what?
@@plinyelder8156 The USA, land of the free, unless of course you're being wrongfully arrested, in which case you have zero rights to resist, unlike mine and many other countries.
Message of the day:
Never trust a cop.
bob taylor what does color have to do with it?
Don't trust the judges either
@bob taylor said:"All of this is FACT & well documented historically. And with the advent of handheld tech, we see it every damnef day... But we BLACKS are just crying VICTIM... Remember?"
REDACTED
@bob taylor I actually don't want to spend the time on this debate with you. Not that you aren't worth it, I don't mean to denigrate you, I simply don't wish to put in the time to find the research, link sites, etc. I regret my initial post and will redact it if I can. You may consider this your victory and need not respond.
@bob taylor I said you win, but that's not enough for you.
It has been ruled that photography done in the open, cannot be deemed suspicious.
Exactly. Because in other videos I've seen cops get a plate numbers, even standing right behind the car and writing it down.....yet that doesn't get labelled as "suspicious." How convenient.
@teslagod2003 when the Japanese attacked the military with a fleet of cameras? Remember the Maine!
Remember the Alamo!
What is your point?
@Matt Maynard only a bootlicker would say something like this
So taking a photo through your bathroom window while your child is taking a shower wouldn’t be suspicious as long as the photographer is in the open?
@@coaldoubt2879 If you are dumb enough to expose yourself or your children in front of an open window. You should be arrested for indecent exposure and child indecency.
i've noticed in these videos that whenever a cop can't answer a question their response is to ask the citizen 'what's wrong with you?' or some other attack to deflect that the officer can't provide a legal response for their own action/question.
His 4th Admendment right was violated, and that should had been the bases of his suit.
Yes, because the cop put his hand inside the victim’s pocket.
That cop dug deep into his pocket, took out his phone, looked at it to see if it had any evidence on it, put it back, and pretended like he did nothing.
David Elliott right wing courts are fascistic
@Halsey Walter. Haha, I wouldn't put it past him to play a little, erm, "Pocket Pool."
@Daniel Treadwell. Nah, man. Suit, as in lawsuit
"Suspicion" is NOT a crime.
Sue the pig who illegally searched you .
police who are able to articulate to a judge they had reasonable suspicion of a crime CAN detain you for investigation. I dont think this situation qualifies though.
These dictatorial ass holes stole his property. You cant count on a Blood drinking, baby eating Paedophile to make a just ruling.
Did you not watch the video? He did, and lost.
@@Seedyrom247 that post is 5 months old. if he's anything like me he forgot all about this.
@@Seedyrom247 he didn't go for the illegal search though, he sued of different grounds.. I think that's the regards his comment was about
You look suspicious - is suspicious a misdemeanor or a felony?
When they tried to tie this to the car thefts (if they really existed) he should have asked, "If I were going to steal your cars would I be standing here in broad daylight?"
Here is the issue: The cops are scared. They know there is a tide going across this country where the people are fed up. And they are scare if the rubber band ever goes snap.
>is suspicious a misdemeanor or a felony?
Followed by silence and change the subject.
Like a door -to-door salesman getting their foot in the door. Suspicious is the foot in the door to seeing if they can find something to get the door all the way open to arrest.
Civ "thats not against the law"
Cop "yes it is"
Civ "whats illegal about it"
Cop "nothin"
"We've had a couple of cars stolen. We've had cars broken into."
Sure. That's what they all say.
So they are bloody useless at their jobs then?
Only reason i give auditor a B. He gave up his ID. The Judge gets an F and so does the county. Is anyone surprised that a lower case judge sided with the officers. Noooooope!
It's not quite "lower case"... it's a federal court.
nooooope
fortythiefs its a cult.
@@vadr1651 The lowest federal court.
@@vadr1651 Full of political hacks of both parties. Did you see the vids of Republican Senators being dumbfounded by some of Trump's judicial nominees? If you want a Federal Judgeship apparently all you need to do is donate to the President s campaign. Some had never practiced law.
Go to a higher court the judge was already biased 💯
Yea, I mean the guy did say “I’m taking photos _because_ it’s legal”, anyone intelligent would conclude he was referring to the law of constitution
Yeah that Judge sucks
The problem with that is that it takes a lot of money and there aren’t many attorneys who will take the case. Attorneys are notorious pussies.
The Constitutional Convention thought a lot about bad judges since most of them were trained lawyers in a time when anyone (well male and white) could be appointed or elected as judges. That's why they came up with the multilayered court system, it keeps the hacks in check.
John Adams, when he wrote the Massachusetts Constitution, put in a provision where anyone, convicted of a felony outside of Boston, had the right to a retrial in a Boston Court of the same level. He figured that the then voluntary bar association of trained lawyers would make sure that the Boston judges were competent. Last I heard this is still in the constitution. Mostly used in DUI cases where the convicted hire a State Legislators, sitting on the subcommittee that sets judges pay, to represent them. Oddly they usually win.
Stopped while driving, used to hand over my license. Now, because I have to reach down to my back pocket, I would not do that until he gets his supervisor there too. The cop might flip out as I reach down and shoot me. I used to trust cops, but not any longer.
They do not have any real training. They need real training and continuous training till the day they retire!!!
He needs a better lawyer and to sue his old one , the corruption is astounding and so obvious a blind man can see it!!!!.
@thunderbird002 ... Now I'm curious. Just how much money did he waste?
@thunderbird002 you have a real Twisted sense of what Freedom means
@@bigblockin427 He trolls Ian's channel too.
Oh man! MORE taxpayer money wasted, AND this stupid guy made a cop quit his job!
ua-cam.com/video/P60t0W8izTc/v-deo.html
thunderbird002 troll hard
""WHY ARE POS COPS SO AFRAID OF A CAMERA , BECAUSE THE CAMERA DON'T LIE AND THEY DO ............. FTP""
What if he was taking pictures to log how the cars were made so that he may be able to aid in someone making replicas of those cars to fool the public? Cameras can be used to cause harm.
Yes when you see a arrestation whit eccefif force but why filming a police station !?????
Fuck that puto
I would appeal this. Looks like the Judge was a good ol' boy.
ACLU filed an appeal on his behalf last October
Here’s hoping 💁🏽♀️ Appeals are in the regional circuit after all, likely same mentality.
This is a consistent ruling. He’d have a slam dunk in most court rooms if he’d articulated why he was there filming their vehicles.....he didn’t.
@@markbernhardt6281 if the aclu did that then he has a case. Aclu is very certain of the cases they take
That judge was probably a cop before.
He was just awarded $125,000 due to the cops violating his rights
6:47 Cop literally admits he can arrest the citizen "until we have a reason for what we're doing".
Once again, great job!
Even if the auditor had stated his purpose was to exercise his first amendment right, I believe the judge would have still found some convoluted wording to deny his claim. It appears many of these lower court judges are just pandering to the local police! Freedom? Justice? Rights? Yea!, maybe if you have the connections or the money to pursue the higher courts. There is certainly a double standard of justice in this country. I wish these auditors could find a way to expose more of the prosecutors, public defenders, and judges in the system who obviously favor the police. Court rooms NEED to be opened to more scrutiny and transparency.
20 years? ago the Boston Globe Spotlight Team looked into judges. Many only worked a couple of hours a day with full pay and benefits. Many were overturned an incredible number of times. I think I remember that quite a few had 4 martini lunches. A couple were prone to falling asleep during felony trials. Yup, lifetime appointments are a great idea.
That ruling was absolute BS and is nothing but holding the BLUE line of authority and intimidation. I sincerely hope this is challenged.
I'm kind of glad he lost. What was the big deal of just explaining that he's a photographer and wanted to take pictures? Sometimes people act like dicks just for the sake of it.
@@JSM270 because he wasn't required to by law.
The problem kind of goes like this:
"Sir, can you tell me what you are doing, because you look suspicious to me?"
"Do I legally have to?"
"No sir"
"Then thankyou, I won't."
"But that then makes me more suspicious that you are committing a crime."
"What crime?"
"Well I don't know yet, that's why I'm asking you questions."
"Do I legally haven't to answer them?"
"No sir."
"Then I choose not to answer them."
"Ok, well in that case I will detain you because I believe you may be about to commit a crime, more so since you won't offer me any explanation of what you are doing."
So there's a choice. Give up your rights willingly (possibly incriminating yourself in the process) or be detained for standing for them.
@@philwalker1167 It seems to me that at least one of the cops had the right idea. "Conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism" would be a legitimate cause for stopping that photographer. The officer even mentioned that he was worried that the photographer might be casing the area for later. They just didn't articulate that very well.
The ACLU have backed him for an appeal.
@@philwalker1167 There's what ought to be, and there's what is. What is in this case is the judge saying failure to provide any explanation beyond the obvious gave the officers reasonable suspicion, and if you think about it objectively asking him to provide an explanation of his activities is reasonable. Armed with that knowledge, just say, "I'm exercising my first amendment rights" and they'll have less semantic wiggle room to do what this judge did. It's about countering their moves to put them into a checkmate state where they either have to blatantly lie to the world, or change their ways and admit their wrongdoings. It's either that or violence at the end of the day, and I think I can safely assume that nobody wants violence. The cops just need to act like adults and learn a little bit of law and this could be solved overnight. As it is now, it's like hiring a referee that doesn't even know the rules of the game.
The Supreme Court ruled that filming in public can not be deemed suspicious!
Imagine that! A judge ruling in favor with their partners in crime!
They're all in bed together.👮👮👩⚖️
Exactly.
lol but if the guy won, then what? judge made his rulings for a reason. u have 0 logic.
@@skankhunt9497 You're braindead AtA explained the reasoning behind the judge's response. If he talked about illegal search in his pockets in the lawsuit, he probably would have won.
@@skankhunt9497 I know judges are corrupt, but this one was justified by the law which AtA explained. I know some judges are tyrants, but this one did the right thing.
moral of the story: when asked "I'm a journalist gathering content for a story" Apparently you need to physically say you are doing a constitutionally protected activity for it to be one. sigh.
DUDE! I was just thinking about that line pacing around my living room while the video was playing before I scrolled down! Did you get that line from those videos posted by a UA-cam user whom I can't remember how who had a high-pitched studderish voice? I remember him! He was super smart! Lol the De Ja Vu is getting to me.
@@DeutschMatheLehrer That's probably News Now Houston who is I think sorta retired after they really came after him. Dug up some sex charges on him.
"On October 22, 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an amicus brief in defense of an independent photojournalist suing the city of Des Moines, Iowa after he was detained for recording police officers outside of a police station. Filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the amicus brief asks that the appeals judges reverse a prior ruling that dismissed Robbins’ lawsuit."
Dismissal was denied and oral arguments were made on September 23, 2020. No further information yet.
UPDATE: in 2022 Mr Robbins was awarded 125k for 1st and 4th amendment violation
Like the cops like to say...if you’ve got nothing to hide why are you worried about a camera?
If you sue or get arrested for exercising a Right: never expect any justice at lower courts. 99% of the time they will rubber stamp in favor of the cops no matter how obvious the violations are.
Sounds like a gang of corruption. Oh wait it is....
I got so frickin’ angry when the cop reach right into his pocket. I’m sorry. I would be dead right now if a cop ever did that.
jup cops telling the man has to explain his rights to them while they touch him without ever asking. Criminals.
It’s so dystopian that we’re expected to believe we have all these rights and freedoms but surrender them at a whim because an uneducated, power tripping, bully wants to violate them. Oh! And if you are an educated citizen who knows that you’re being done wrong? Doesn’t matter. Or else you’ll go to jail, or die.
“Fight it in court” is the classical rebuttal to that and it makes me even more sick! Why should I have to file a lawsuit so that it can come out of the taxpayers pocket and the cop gets off scott free? It’s one of America’s biggest flaws (The police system) and I will argue it until I die.
Yup, and there would be a bunch of ppl online and on TV saying you got what you deserved. And most likely the cops woulda been left off the hook. "land of the free" my azz
The threat of an arrest is known as criminal coercion and carries two to five years in prison and a permanent mark on the officers record.
anybody who stand up for he's right is being difficult for cops
"his", not "he's"
robert duguay "STOP RESISTING! DO NOT MAKE ME TURN THIS RAPE INTO A MURDER!" "I feared for my safety."
it's his rights not he's rights
@thunderbird002 Quite the leap in logic. You are skilled in the art of the Straw Man sensei.
Civil disobedience do not comply
5:20 "Who crossed you to make you behave like this?"
Look in the mirror buddy.
No need for him to look in the mirror more like he has rights which might be annoying but that's not breaking the law. For example they accuse him of loitering so in essence they're all loitering in this incident.
@@ishitunot5152 bro I think you misunderstood the comment he was talking about the cop was the one that mistreated him so many times and made him act that way , in short it was about the cop not the guy looking in the mirror
A bunch of bullies. They have no sense of humanity.
That is the reason they should be removed from their positions..."no sense of humanity". Well worded, my friend.
UPDATE: As posted from the original video... "Update: The Federal Appeals Court just ruled against these bullies regarding the charges of false arrest and illegal seizure of his camera and cell phone. He now has a slam dunk case on these two charges. The City of Des Moines is probably going to be paying settlement in this case. LOUSY, power drunk cops like these raise your property taxes."
90% of all police confiscated property ends up in the officers’ garages.
LMFAO, you're probably right.
Especially the gay porn.
@@geo-george2639 and the dildos and vibrators.
cop a: you're free to go
cop b: I can make something up
cop c: ok do that.
"I have no ill will or nefarious purposes against anyone. I am exercising my legal First Amendment rights." Next time, we can all learn how to circumvent these intimidating tactics. Support Auditor's legal fund.
Yes. When we make contact or are forced to interact with any law enforcement officer (God I hate this terminology), we by law default cannot lie (as opposed to their SCOTUS given permission to lie basically any time they wish).
Thus, the cop should assume that what we are saying is true.
Of course, I am talking about the circumstances that surround cases like this - not the cases where there is not a speculative form of so called reasonable suspicion.
Courts will almost always side with the cops where there are not clear boundaries established in order to shield their protectors from potential liabilities.
This case also typifies the conflict between the Constitution (Common Law) and Corporate Law that sadly has the upper hand these days.
We must remember that police, although they swear to protect and uphold the Constitution, are all
1) Officers of Corporation that is independently free from Constitutional law (sort of lime Federal Reserve),
2) Officers of the Court which in almost all but one are private corporations as well.
At least that is my understanding of how things work these days.
People like this guy needlessly push the limits of their behaviour and they do provoke cops into a sworm like response.
You might not be causing any harm to a wasp nest either by being in their immediate vicinity.
However, if you you start agitating them, they will inevitably respond, right or wrong.
The idea of testing limits of freedom should be based on situations that we ourselves do not initiate with the sole purpose of testing those limits but when they occur by our own normal activity.
When we trigger encounters like this with the idea to do just that (to draw a negative attention of the wasp hive), the results might not be what we would anticipate.
We should educate ourselves about the law and lawful limits of our freedom - because those limits do exist.
But to engage in provocations to find out where those limits are, is, in my opinion, not a smart or intelligent option to make.
If I find myself in the situation where I without any intention start looking suspicious, then testing the limits of our constitutionally protected freedoms is very appropriate course to take simply because we did not actively sought a conflict.
This man (and many others on You Tube do actively test their power to balance on the edge of a cliff yet they are not even trained to walk up to the cliff itself, let alone perform the balancing act.
@@mitsanut5869 Your last paragraph was the crux of the matter. It is intrepid non-instigating auditors who test the furthest boundaries of We the People's Constitutional rights, as interpreted by SCOTUS and Circuit Courts. It can get a bit messy at times, but constant education about our Bill of Rights (our school systems are negligent) to the public and public officials is critical, step by step. ABE: Always Be Educating should be the credo of 1A auditors. Our progeny will thank them.
@@lesliesylvan I think that testing those limits could be done in some wiser way.
As you could observe, the man's case at the Court, in the way it was presented by him or by his attorney, was weak where it should be strong and bound for failure simply because he did not in any way asserted his rights in proper manner when the situation occurred, resulting in only one possible way - dismissal of his lawsuit.
What I am trying to say here is that yes, fight for freedom, for your God given rights and against oppression....but be smart about it.
It is NOT smart to have only some knowledge in law. You must be equipped with very specific knowledge when you decide to undertake this kind of mission.
These people go there precisely because they want to stir conflict with cops; but more often than not, they are intellectually ill equipped to push these limits like they do.
Law is a very complex subject. And using one wrong word or not using a correct word when it would throw the case on it's head, may cause you to end up in prison. Very slippery slope....
Needless to say, this man probably thinks of himself as a truth warrior. I look at him and others like on the fools they mostly are.
It's like going into a boxing match without any training, technical knowledge or studying your opponent, all the while thinking that your one punch will do the job.
I call this foolish
@@mitsanut5869 Agreed. When going to court for the purpose of setting new precedents is best done selectively, based on a surer ticket of success. This one, sadly is not and might actually turn the clock back for this vital movement. People like Dave Warden of News Now Houston and others having greater legal and experiential background (there are a few others and growing, thank goodness) are best to move forward. A major difficulty is the great expense, plus a paucity of good legal minds and trial attorney skill sets to take on 1A cases; few will risk doing it on a contingency basis. And not great for going before judges who "don't get it."
One can already see great improvements when comparing older 1A videos with those of today. Many auditor revisits are like nigh and day. Officers now explain the legalities to security guards and public officials are not leaping out of there seats to hide in fear of a camera.
Of course. many still do, and bad cops are still ubiquitous, but all in all, it moves toward the light of the Constitution.
As I said before, it will get messy before things begin to smooth out. Cops are understandably confused and conflate instigating auditors with non manipulating ones. When the public and cops finally begin to catch on and simply ignore fly on the wall audits, the bad auditors will slowly disappear due to lack of click bait and $$$. The good auditors will be out of a job, pretty much. That's my optimist's view.
Auditors main purpose, imo, is to educate. ABE: Always Be Educating. They should give talks about the nuances of the Bill of Rights and especially video recording. The kids will eat it up, since their worlds revolve around the cell phone~
@@lesliesylvan I understand the idea behind all of this, but as you correctly said, it must be done in smart way, i.e. people must pick their battles. I think that's one of the most essential ingredients that must be taken into the account. We are dealing with nuances of law, the language that it contains and one bad move might actually result in landmark decision that will be even more detrimental and damaging to people's rights.
Cops were given too much power without any qualifying lawful authority and, as I said earlier, Courts, who are essentially their puppeteers, will not give up their collective oppressive power that easily.
The stakes for them are too great, their money machine needs to feed itself their very comfortable, mostly without any worries, lives generously at the expense of people it enslaves.
People with bad morals are usually much more persistent in their actions and work harder not to get exposed by those on the right side of the honor.
Pick your battles, be smart while doing your work, and study law diligently. Reciting Constitutional Amendments is simply not enough, all of this is much more complex issue. The law waters have been muddied throughout last 100 years to such degree that simple things are simple no more, and the system does not easily give up it's powers it has usurped from the people on incremental basis like an invisible parasite that grew into uncontrolable monster.
Officer: "What organisation are you from?"
Answer should have given: "The United States and we operate with a constitution."
That was the exact thing I thought when I heard that.
He ran his pockets without even telling him and from behind.
Not legal to rummage thru his pockets-
Looked like sexual assault the way he felt that man's ass.
"What organization do you belong to that makes you be difficult?". WTF?
And cops wonder why some people want to shoot them. This is why.
"uh, I belong to Team America, you might've heard of us before."
They asked that for a reason they thought they were Being investigated and wanted to identify him so they’d have heads up on what exactly they need to cover up which this video reveals a lot about them
more need to be shoot in your country
When this happens to one of our first amendment Auditors maybe it would be a good idea for our Second Amendment auditors to be close by and approach when this s*** happens
I agree. In the future, there should be more order when conducting these audits....they should be more tactical, where, there should be a first amendment auditor accompanied by a second amendment auditor and should work in sync
Lmfao I'd like to see that play out
@@raymondschreiner7856 gotta start somewhere, they arent learning.
TheChangospace a loaded second amendment auditor
Yes get ORGANIZED
I am so tired of state and local laws. There should never be “varying degrees of interpretation” when it comes to the law.
State and local laws are done for a reason. NH doesn't need hurricane laws, florida doesn't need snow laws. There is many laws based on locations and needs. Town laws are based on needs of the community. In NH they have an all encompassing rule that state laws trump town laws unless the law specificys you can make other laws. This is to ensure some universal rules, such as road rules. Towns can't make a law that you drive on the left side of the road when state law says right. But an executive order recently on masks ends with it doesn't supersede town orders nor stop towns from passing stricter rules.
@@adamplummer2190 I understand what they are for, but you are equating “rules” or mandates, to actual laws. The weather also has absolutely zero bearing when it comes to most laws.
People should not be able to cross some imaginary, arbitrary border, and the laws be so vastly different, they can go to jail for something legal next door. That is ridiculous. My original statement, “varying degrees of interpretation” should not be a thing at all, especially when it comes to how law enforcement treats citizens.
As I have always said
We are the Divided States of America..
Now after this Election they have proven me correct.
The government consistently over reaches and extortss the citizens...
Then they wonder why we are heading in the direction of a civil war.....
There are over 3000 federal laws just in Title 18 alone. If you count all the rules and regulations of the various agencies that are subject to criminal enforcement the number rises to over 300,000. That is just Federal law. Every year legislatures keep writing and passing more laws but when was the last time you remember any laws being removed? We seriously need a law code rewrite.
United States. Each state is its own. Basically becoming a state is a treat where the state will follow federal law, but each state maintains independence.
I always get disgusted when I see them just go through people's pockets
I'm looking into auditing and your videos have been EXTREMELY VALUABLE to me! Thank you!!!
"are u releasing me to go?. Then I'm free to stay as well'😂💪🏿
"Just because it's legal, doesnt mean its not suspicious"
No, no, no.. correction. Just because its suspicious, doesn't mean it's not legal.
I pray this ends up in front of a higher court. These cops clearly violated his rights and stated he was not breaking any laws. They were retaliating and need to be held accountable. Looks like the entire police force was out there. Welcome to to growing police state we live in.
No 👎 its not suspicious because the supreme court said that photography itself cannot be considered suspicious
"CITE ME A CODE"
*Crickets*
your filming undercover cars well if you don't want them recorded you should put them undercovers duh
Oh! Those are undercover cars! Thanks! No one knew until now! Idiot.
@@stephenle-surf9893 lol, they should literally put some piece of cover on them
Seriously, I don't air dry my asshole in the yard because I don't want anyone to see it. Why keep your undercover cars in broad daylight? I also don't believe them when they say they've had cars stolen from that lot, what percentage of criminals think it's a good idea to steal from a police parking lot?
This will be completely reversed when he takes it to a higher court.
I honestly hope so
If he can afford to do so . They count on that you cant
Not completely
“Cite me a code”.....ok this got me, time to change the subject.
LOITERER!
- “Is suspicious a felony or a misdemeanor?”
- “If I am free to go, I am free to stay.”
Guy’s playing the classics.
The issue most officers have is they cannot differentiate being merely suspicious on a personal level from Official Suspicion (RAS) as a part of their job.
"I don't answer questions". The 5th Amendment was definitely overlooked here...
According to the judge's ruling, defendant basically had to say that he had a 1st amendment right to do what he was doing. I think that's a crock. Sounds like a crooked judge protecting illegal police behavior.. But the 5th amendment way to go is still best.
@@johnrambo5436 this is not the country our Forefathers set up for us anymore! Our Forefathers would not only be ashamed of these "officers" but would have shot them for the tyrannical way they conduct thier business!
@@johnrambo5436 So the man had to tell his rights to the officer ( who should know his rights ). But the other officer felt entitled to touch and frisk the man without consent or telling him what he is about todo.
Lol How about this....
I'm exercising my 1st amendment in hopes that undereducated cops will be dumb enough to violate my civil.
I'm hoping I can buy an Island for my retirement.
Are you volunteering to help me?
@Jonny B It wouldnt appear it's ok since they ein civil suits
After the first judge dismissed his lawsuit. The city forked over $125k for their officers being officers and enforcing their will and not enforcing laws
This goes to show they really are crooks and the love to steal.They knew exactly what he was doing.
I have to say that I absolutely love Audit the Audit. Extremely well done, and very educational. Many Thanks!
people should really have at least 2 people doing these kinds of audits.
Auditing should probably be reserved for the temperament of someone who knows how to control a conversation like my boy down in South Carolina and a few others. This guy is saying things that he's heard watching other videos and doesn't seem to be fully prepared to be an auditor, but I think it's more of a temperament issue than it is knowledge related.
Z in Oklahoma mmhhmm
@@zinoklahoma343 yea, and it’s silly when criminals do auditing and end up worse off lol. These guys are not ready for confrontation, yet they still provoke it intensely
Imagine having cars being stolen outside of ur own damn police station😂
Obviously that judge had friends in the same PD to rule against the citizen. Sad.
He should of put illegal search in the law suit for that cop putting his hand in his back Pocket
That was the fourth amendment part.
7:01 "We can confiscate the camera until we have a reason for what we're doing." Translation: We're going to steal your property- just because we can -and we're going to keep it until we're finished getting our stories straight and making up charges against you.
Also, this judge lacks the authority to assert that his opinion of any accused's demeanor, or that his opinion of what anybody should have done or said, outweighs anybody's Constitutional rights.
The judge was overturned by higher court and the case is going back to district court. The officers involved no longer have qualified immunity and the city will most likely settle before it goes to trial. As of January 2021
Investigative detention is only after reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed is being committed or is about to be committed. Statute does not stop at suspicious. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Just my just my humble and uneducated opinion.
Criminals with badges get backed up by a crooked judge
Scott H True that!👍
I don't think auditors think legal activities can't be suspicious. I think they know it's not suspicion of a crime and the 1st amendment isn't supposed to be suspicious activity.
I would have said, "as a taxpayer, I am concerned police are buying unnecessary cars for personal use and intend to determine if my taxes are properly spent."
I have reported NCIS for doing exactly that. Didn't go anywhere of course. They were using government vehicles as personal vehicles (taking kids to school, shopping, commuting).