I see many of these "film the police" videos where they start out saying "whatever you do, don't talk to the police", which is great advice. Then, a minute or two later, there they are getting all social media with them. SMH
@@joeschmo7957 it’s more of a “do as I say, not as I do.” Most often they’ll tell you to not speak to police and then demonstrate what happens when you do speak to them, and also test their capacity of the law (which is usually near zero). It’s hard to test them when being silent
This is really in the minority but people will remember it because it's unusual. Sadly the thousands of times police would have looked the other way that won't get a UA-cam video and will be forgotten.
Because the cops have training to twist the actual situation. Yes, it's that simple. Sadly, they typically have qualified immunity in most cases as well.
Good job officer -- you've created a distrust of the law in at least one seemingly intelligent and responsible citizen who was articulate enough to fight you in court and win. Thanks for using our taxpayer dollars wisely to protect and serve...
Plus I'll bet next time they'll be a lot more hesitant to do the right thing if it's almost curfew. I know I wouldn't try it ever again if it'd happened to me. Got lucky once, probably wouldn't get lucky twice.
Well next time the kid sees a feller in a pickem up truck flinging whiskey bottles, he's going to pull into his driveway and have a good night's sleep! And if he hears the next day that truck t-boned a car killing a single mother and her 2 kids,,,,well, sucks to be them!
@@wholeNwon Yeah, that's the problem. Police currently only have to enforce laws. Laws are meant to establish order in a society, and this order protects people from death and other things hardened criminals do. However, many police have proven time and time again to only exist to protect their own interests, the interests of the 1%, and to wield power over people. This kind of thing only hurts the credibility of the entire profession, and gives people a distrust of police, which only makes their jobs harder. A single a-hole cop can undo the good of 10 good cops in the public's eye, and again, that only makes their jobs harder because people don't want to deal with them.
@@UBvtuber And the gov'ts. that the people ELECT refuse to act. The people won't organize around the problem and force change. So, what can we conclude?
It was a valid charge, in the sense the driver technically did break the letter of the law. But this is exactly why police discretion exists. The driver had an excellent excuse and any reasonable police officer would have looked the other way rather than waste everyone's time like this.
Especially in light of Uvalde, I have *zero* tolerance for cops who abuse their discretion. If you have discretion to wimp out and let a bunch of kids get killed, then you sure as Hell have discretion to not cite a Good Samaritan. Edit: Regarding driving being a “privilege and not a right,” I could stomach that if the US had semi-decent public transportation. However, I find it rather messed up that the same elites who created car-dependent infrastructure then have the audacity to insist that driving is a “privilege.”
@@emu314159 Per the recent report on police failure in Uvalde: “They failed to prioritize saving innocent lives over their own safety.” Oh, they didn’t fail at all. Cops nationwide are trained to prioritize their own safety first and foremost, and ensuring the safety of others is merely incidental.
@@brettstarks1846 I read that the cop with authority at first believed the guy was barricaded in an empty room or something like that, so he changed it from an active shooter to a barricaded shooter situation, so it went from 'get him quick to save the children' to 'wait him out'
Freedom of Movement is a Right. Up until the 60's or so driving was recognized as a Right. Then Government overreach using interstate commerce occurred and a Right was called a privilege. Sort of like with the 2A.
@@hahahano2796 Freedom of movement doesn't require driving, and worked perfectly well for thousands of years before automobiles were invented. Driving hasn't been considered a right at least since licenses were required and not requiring licenses in the early days doesn't mean it was consider a right then, either. While there's some argument that driving falls under our unenumerated rights none of our rights are absolute, and despite multiple chances SCOTUS has declined to identify driving as a right. As a practical matter making driving a right would mean that it's difficult to impossible to revoke that right no matter how bad or reckless a driver is.
Who knows, the officer may have a captain who is very strict, and the officer may have faced reprimand if he hadn't ticketed the kid. At least the kid was let off the hook as he should have been.
@@kele5181 Refuse to make the arrest and seek union help. That is what the police union is for. I have flat out said that I wasn't going to make an arrest and that if the supervisor wanted the arrest made to make it himself. Other times, I told my chain of command that I would be a defense witness if the arrest was made. The union always had my back.
When I was a teenager, in the 1970's, I worked at a gas station and someone came up to the pumps who was very drunk. My buddy pumped the gas slow while I called the cops. We checked his oil, washed the windows, and basically wasted time until the cops showed up. When they did, they did pretend to get gas and then dealt with the drunk. All was going well until one of the cops looked at me and yelled out "Thanks for the call!" The drunk and his buddies heard it. I was mortified. I was so pissed off, but I couldn't say anything. I should also add that my dad was the sergeant at the local detachment at the time. When I got home I told him the story, told him who the cop was who ratted me out, and said that the next time a drunk rolls up, I will happily fill his tank and send him on his way. My dad was noticeably upset, and I think he tore a strip off the offending officer the next day...but I never called in a drunk again after that.
I must've missed something. What was wrong with being "ratted out?" Did you fear repercussions from the guy who couldn't even stand on his own two feet?
What sad about this entire thing is the wasted tax dollars. I wish the officer that gave him a ticket would had to pay court fees and what not. There is ZERO punishment for what that cop did. IMO I think the kid should file a complaint on the officer and detailed how they left out critical info in court which could mess up someone who didn't know better.
He should file a complaint, and try to get the story ran by the local news outlets. If the 911 operator really did ask him to follow (should have asked for 911 recording) and/or officer asked him to remain at the scene, the press would have a field day with the department - a kid goes to extra lengths to get a drunk driver off the road, and the police issue him a citation for providing requested assistance. Gawd, LEOs like this really are the dumbest - for the assistance the kid provided, they should have escorted him home, but they wouldn't even give him a ride, he had to call his parents to pick him up.
In this situation, I'd send in two things 1) A plea of not guilty, and 2) a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The motion would detail the events, the circumstances, and the instructions of the 911 operator which would be recorded. I'd explain that I followed instructions and continued to follow the drunk driver, and the only reason I was out beyond curfew is because I followed 911 operator's instructions. It's very likely the Judge would dismiss it without ever having to go to court.
@@timinwsac There are guides to writing a motion to dismiss. I've had six tickets dismissed in the last ten years without ever having to go into the court.
@@XtomJamesExtra It's all well and good if you are aware of the proper forms, times and departments in which to submit to. It's been my experiences that courts in different counties, within the state will have different requirements. Lawyers that practice in those counties will know about that but the general public probably won't.
@@timinwsac While what you said is true, the standard for a motion to dismiss is actually quite simple and anybody can get the format and there are typically guides for each locale or state, which anybody can look up. Traffic court is also one of the more simple courts to navigate given its informality. Typically when you are given a ticket and you are given the form to fill out if you want to plead guilty or innocent or nolo contendere, all of the necessary information is there for you to fill out a motion to dismiss and submit it with that form. Conversely you can always write to the DA handling the citation a straight forward letter explaining the situation and requesting the case be dismissed.
Kid did awesome collecting information and researching the law. Only thing more would be to get a recording of 911 requesting he follow the drunk driver, file a complaint with the department, and/or contact local news outlets.
This is an example of a story that just reinforces ACAB for the general public. The officer could’ve done “the right thing” here and not issued the curfew citation. The officer also omitted helpful details from his testimony. That, to me, earns the ACAB for this officer who is not helpful and not protecting or serving the public.
The deliberate omission of relevant information should be considered perjury, the cop should have been" riding the pine" for the offense. That absolutely is entrapment, since driver followed 911 dispatchers instructions
I absolutely agree on cleaning up. I went to traffic court as a teen and wore a suit. I was the only one in a crowded court room dressed up. The judge ended up arguing on my behalf with the prosecution to reduce the speed on the ticket and I got off with a much smaller fine and supervision to void the ticket.
There’s a word in our english language that describes any person who behaves as this officer did. That word is “douchebag.” Yes this officer completely behaved like a well used douchebag. I’m glad the OP won the judge’s decision. I hope the officer grows a good conscience.
Cop should have given the guy a thanks and said, I'll just follow you home because it's after curfew and if something happens, they'll know I was responsible. So, lets drive straight home. OK.
Sounds like the officer was trying to meet his "quota" that he doesnt have but that his performance reports are clearly reliant upon. This was a 2 for 1 stop.
I’m glad it turned out well. The officer is a real jerk. He probably got yelled at by his wife or boss (or both) and vented on the kid. Sad but at least the kid came out on top.
It’s more likely that he was nearing the end of his shift and the lengthy DUI process caused him to stay late. So he likely took it out on the kid by negative reinforcement, but the kid was doing the right thing. So sorry to force you to do your job officer...
Or else he just gets performance reviews based on number of tickets served. Or possibly overtime for court appearances, I seem to recall a scandal involving that in Pennsylvania recently, though I'm not 100% it was Pennsylvania
I've been in a stupid situation like this. The drunk driver was all over the place (across 4 lanes, nearly hitting the kerb, nearly having a head on, nearly hitting the kerb again and then an island). The police wanted to ticket me for using a phone whilst not hands free when doing 30 KPH (half the speed limit - NOTE: drunk was doing 30 KPH and I was 100 metres (300 feet) behind him with only 2 other vehicles appearing briefly in the minute this occurred. Now I just don't get involved. Let them crash. Once they crash, pass them safely and continue on your way. I found out a long time ago that the police metaphorically burn the innocent not to mention they have their own interests when "investigating". Don't talk to the police. Don't get involved. Stay safe.
Sad to hear that the cops in Oz are as bad as the ones here in the U.S. But I guess I'm not surprised. 😥 It's stories like yours and the one in this video that cause law-abiding citizens to hate cops.
@@admthrawnuru I've never dealt with the USA police (was there for a month) but police are police. Some good ones, some bad ones, some corrupt ones although most are average I think. The thing is.. If you come across a bad /corrupt one and they flag you (bolo) for whatever reason (unfriendly , doesn't co-operate, has cameras in car [dashcam etc], records police, etc) then all police are against you then. No proof is required . It does mean you'll get pulled over frequently though as all your vehicles are automatically flagged by their plate. I have a bolo which is about 3 - 4 sentences long now although the cameras keep them professional :D This record is permanent Ps No probable cause required to pull you over here. They can "randomly" do a breath alcohol test / drug test (swap of the tounge) which is a good thing overall I think.. i.e. No need to do all the dance around sobriety tests. You blow in the tube. If 0.05 or over , you get taken away for a 2nd test. If under, you get let go (after the cop looks at your tyres, checks your licence, etc)
In my state, the cellphone law has an exception for calls placed to emergency services. That exemption should be enforced on the Federal/ Supreme Court level.
Where I live people are permitted to use a cell phone while driving to call 911 in an emergency. The city even puts up signs that read "Attention: Report impaired drivers. Call 9-1-1" along the road.
He learned a lesson: "No good deed goes unpunished." My daughter got a ticket for doing 35 in a 30 MPH zone. She was polite and cooperative with the officer. He rewarded her by charging her with reckless driving which carried not only a fine, but a possible jail sentence. She wanted ME to just pay the fine. I contacted my lawyer who said it was imperative that we show up and fight this. Needless to say when we showed up at the magistrate's office with a lawyer, everything changed. The reckless driving charge was dropped and the ticket reduced to a small fine. I explained to my daughter that Officer Friendly isn't really in law enforcement, he's in revenue generating. If she hadn't fought the ticket, she would have been helping out the corporate prison system to generate even more money for private industry. Always contest a ticket. Hire a lawyer and deprive the state of generating as much "selective tax dollars" as possible. Otherwise they only have an incentive to continue this nonsense.
It's situations like this, that discourage innocent bystanders, from getting involved in matters that determine the safety of others. Sometimes, life or death. What if that kid has simply gone home, and the drunk driver had hit a pedestrian and kept driving? There would've potentially been no witnesses. This upstanding young man, was taught by an officer of the law, the life lesson that, "No good deed goes unpunished." Sad indeed, in this era of diminished trust in law enforcement, that this young, do-gooder citizen, now has a tainted perspective. When I was growing up, granted that was a long time ago, leos, were seen as father figures, and we walked around with a sense of safety, simply because of their presence. Today, they lie to achieve their ends, seem to care only about themselves, and wield their power as if it is omnipotent. And, as in this case, they have no qualms about lying by omission. Same coin; two sides. This story disgusts me, but on the positive side, this young man learned valuable lessons, that he will carry throughout his life.
"He said they'd have to give me another ticket if I drove home myself." And let me guess, they'd need to call a local tow truck company to come get the car?
Someone should tell the officer about "discretion". I have heard that an officer often has *discretion* to write a ticket or not. Otherwise there would be no need for warnings. This officer is a jerk.
Many years ago, my daughter was driving and slid off the road on an icy patch. The PA State Trooper said she had to write her a ticket (not sure what the specific offense was) but then told her to check the box requesting a hearing and go to the hearing when told to. My daughter went to the district court on the day and when the case was called the trooper was a no show, so the ticket was dismissed.
There actually was an Audit the Audit about precisely this exact thing. It occurred it TX. This pig started THREATENING the good Samaritan with arrest for not showing ID! But she knew her rights!
Thank you for making the comment about driving being considered a privilege and not a right. God, the self-imposed authority by the government is nauseating.
My limited experience with judges is that they want the money for their budget. They tend to be skeptical of pro se clients. But when a lawyer shows up and they become reasonable guys.
Discretion, de minimus, good citizen, basic common sense, basic human decency, the fact that he was asked to continue following.. there are many layers the LEO ignored in order to write that ticket
I'm glad that this young man's innocence was affirmed, but the fact remains that he was not recompensed for his inconvenience and anxiety. I hope he learned two valuable life lessons from this incident, 1) No good deed goes unpunished 2) If you see something, ̶s̶a̶y̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶. ... keep your mouth shut and go about your business. The government LOVES when we call in to snitch on each other - it makes their job maintaining high arrest statistics so much easier, but they don't give a hoot about collateral damage. Don't they assign George Orwell's 1984 in high school anymore, or have they banned that too? I hate drunk drivers as much as any other law abiding driver, but it's up to the police to catch them, and they have so many legal and quasi-legal means at their disposal, that they shouldn't need the assistance of a self-deputized teenager .
When I went to school in the 90s/00s, they don't teach anything about George Orwell. Now with so many books being banned from schools, I don't think there is any chance anyone will know about him.
This case should have turned into a possible purgery case against the officer as wel as a malicious prosecution case against the court. Absolutely ridiculous.
1) The officer didn't lie, so there's no perjury. 2) The ticket is a civil infraction - there's literally no prosecution involved. (Aside: I agree the whole thing is ridiculous. But your remedies make no sense.)
@@G.Aaron.Fisher he lied in the common sense by omission, but not in the legal sense. But agree, since being an asshole cop doesn't create liability, it would be hard to get him with anything. Best revenge is going to the media and exposing him for being a jerk.
@@admthrawnuru Yeah, the problem with prosecuting "lying by omission" is that it basically criminalizes the right to remain silent which is why they don't have that.
A one horsepower horse vs a 250 horsepower car very different. The founding fathers put gun ownership in the constitution as a right to defend us from the government. They didn’t put righting a horse in the constitution as a right because they delegated that to the states.
It's great to see that the "Doctrine of Competing Harms" did apply. It's also apparent that the officer was just looking to improve his stats and not care about anything else. Not all cops are like that BUT you won't know until it's too late. Know your rights and stand up for them. No one else will.
I've been a Deputy Sheriff and had cited citizens that later convinced our trial judge to rule in their favor. But, even if assisted by a paid attorney, I've also been validated in a courtroom based on evidence. It never bothered me to watch justice being done as I desired a legitimate education.
I don't think I've ever met a police officer that wouldn't have looked the other way on the curfew violation under these circumstances. Perhaps this officer was fresh out of training and not yet comfortable in a new profession.
I'm surprised they didn't also ticket the person for calling 911... Using a cellphone while driving. 😕 (It varies from place to place as to whether this would be a crime.)
Stuff like this is why I'd be hesitant to call the police if there's ever an issue where calling them could actually save a life but doing so would require me to interact with them to some extent. Just heard about a friend of a friend that was in a multiple car collision on I-66 here in VA, and he called it in because one of the guys ran, and they ended up ticketing HIM because he changed lanes to avoid a more serious crash (and the police weren't even there to witness what happened).
The take away from this is that "no good deed goes unpunished" - sure he was eventually found not guilty but he still had to take time to fight it in court. When I see someone like the poster called 911 on I just keep my distance from them and alter my route if possible to get away from him - after all, talking on a cell phone while driving is supposed to be illegal. Let the plods do their own work.
As part of discovery get the recording of the 911 call to include where they ask/tell you to continue following the individual. It should be mitigating circumstances and get you at least a reduced penalty, if not get it tossed.
I would ask the local news channel if the police are encouraging people to just ignore drunk drivers. I would tell them the story of the officer citing you and let the officer make his whole department look bad. It is up to the officer's discretion to write you a ticket as it is up to them to make themselves look bad.
Many statutes include the provision to the effect of "unless directed otherwise by law enforcement", meaning, you can violate the vehicle code if directed to do so by the police. This is a valid defense. Justification with exigent circumstances is also a valid defense, which is what the kid won the case on.
Been in court several times and cleaning up as a young person and being represented by a lawyer didn't help any. Went to court as an older guy and talking with the judge was great. I once went in and explained what the officer told me to tell the court and almost got thrown in a cell.
The cops never have to give you a ticket, they can give you a warning, or just say chill out. But they have to get that money! I knew the guy was up when I was listening to a radio story about San Jose, CA. and found out "citation revenue" was in the budget. I've never believed that "we don't have a quota" BS since.
The police shouldn't be getting a share of money from tickets directly. The money should go to the government of the district in which the ticket was issued.
I wonder what the collateral was? I had a friend that got arrested and asked me to post bail. I did so, then I had to wait for several court cases before I got my bail back. It wasn't as much as I had paid and I was told the balance had been retained to pay the court costs. So no bailing anyone out any more.
Was glad the judge saw that the young guy was doing the right thing in trying to be proactive about public safety. Even if the other driver wasn't under influence, he could have been very tired or having some sort of medical condition to impair his driving.
I think the young man should go to law school after finishing his university studies. He has ethics and thinks in a logical manner. Obviously very intelligent.
I'm in PA as well and had to fight a ticket last year in Magisterial Court; won't go into the details but it was also dismissed. I also had to pay the fine up front (what the OP called "collateral") in order to get on the court's calendar. Had I not paid up front I would not have been able to fight the ticket. This feels like I had to pay for justice. What if someone can't pay? Any thoughts, Andrew?
14th Amendment... "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Therefore, you can't be deprived of your property (money) without due process, so if you pay in advance, you're paying BEFORE due process of law! Paying before appearing in court denies someone of "due process." !!!
@@jsivco3sivco785 But here is the problem. If you want to fight you, you would have to sue the courts. But to sue the courts you need to pay lawyer fees and what not. Meaning if you didn't have the money to start with, then you surely don't have the money to pay for a lawyer to fight for this right to be honored.
@@jsivco3sivco785 welcome to PA. I haven't been back east since God was a boy, but I know EVERYONE that gets to deal with traffic cops there gets screwed
I find it hard to believe that practice hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. The constitution is extremely clear about your right to trial, and you can't be charged to exercise your rights.
Odd, all of the curfew laws I ran into locally when younger, both before and after being able to drive, proceeding to home was never considered a violation...
Unless there is something REALLY dangerous I don't even bother to call the police. I had something similar to this young man except I and at least one other driver were put in serious danger by an impaired driver. I called em and they acted as if I was a real nuisance for getting the man off the road. I have observed a lack of integrity in about half of my encounters with the police
GREAT information in this & the rest of your episodes!! It's sad the general public needs to guard themselves when interacting with Law Enforcement. A situation can easily be twisted &/or escalated to become a disadvantage for the person being detained by an officer. Thank you for your expertise!!
Judge should have reprimanded the officer for not using discretion! He could have written a warning and cited the 911 call about the drunk driver as a reason. Telling the bad without the good is hardly the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but cops operate thinking they can lie without any repercussions.
The biggest issue I have with the story is 911 has ZERO authority to tell anyone what to do. Cops have discretion to write a ticket or give a warning, so that's annoying as hell too.
AF....another great video about real life Courtroom decor....I would ask for dismissal & willing to pay court costs. When YOU are blabbing to Police, the ONLY thing cops are thinking is .. "WHAT is this JERK guilty of?'
I spent $3500 in legal fees to fight a ticket with a $150 fine. As I see it, my record is what is important, not the fine. On the day when the trial was supposed to begin. The Judge dismissed the ticket 10 minutes before my trial was supposed to begin.
This kind of thing is why many people won't help or cooperate with the police.
I see many of these "film the police" videos where they start out saying "whatever you do, don't talk to the police", which is great advice. Then, a minute or two later, there they are getting all social media with them. SMH
@@joeschmo7957 it’s more of a “do as I say, not as I do.” Most often they’ll tell you to not speak to police and then demonstrate what happens when you do speak to them, and also test their capacity of the law (which is usually near zero). It’s hard to test them when being silent
This is really in the minority but people will remember it because it's unusual. Sadly the thousands of times police would have looked the other way that won't get a UA-cam video and will be forgotten.
@@jmr Well, as the saying goes, it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the whole barrel. And likewise, it only takes one rotten cop....
Because the cops have training to twist the actual situation. Yes, it's that simple. Sadly, they typically have qualified immunity in most cases as well.
Good job officer -- you've created a distrust of the law in at least one seemingly intelligent and responsible citizen who was articulate enough to fight you in court and win. Thanks for using our taxpayer dollars wisely to protect and serve...
Plus I'll bet next time they'll be a lot more hesitant to do the right thing if it's almost curfew. I know I wouldn't try it ever again if it'd happened to me. Got lucky once, probably wouldn't get lucky twice.
Well next time the kid sees a feller in a pickem up truck flinging whiskey bottles, he's going to pull into his driveway and have a good night's sleep! And if he hears the next day that truck t-boned a car killing a single mother and her 2 kids,,,,well, sucks to be them!
The police have no obligation to "protect" you.
@@wholeNwon Yeah, that's the problem. Police currently only have to enforce laws. Laws are meant to establish order in a society, and this order protects people from death and other things hardened criminals do. However, many police have proven time and time again to only exist to protect their own interests, the interests of the 1%, and to wield power over people.
This kind of thing only hurts the credibility of the entire profession, and gives people a distrust of police, which only makes their jobs harder. A single a-hole cop can undo the good of 10 good cops in the public's eye, and again, that only makes their jobs harder because people don't want to deal with them.
@@UBvtuber And the gov'ts. that the people ELECT refuse to act. The people won't organize around the problem and force change. So, what can we conclude?
Cops. Protecting and serving the shit out of you.
I'd put that on a back burner with no parole.
The police department should have to pay legal fees and lost wages when they do things like this.
They'll investigate themselves and find no wrongdoing. There's qualified immunity in case somebody makes a mistake and does.
It was a valid charge, in the sense the driver technically did break the letter of the law. But this is exactly why police discretion exists. The driver had an excellent excuse and any reasonable police officer would have looked the other way rather than waste everyone's time like this.
The state SHOULD pay fees, and he can indeed file for lost wages.
Especially in light of Uvalde, I have *zero* tolerance for cops who abuse their discretion. If you have discretion to wimp out and let a bunch of kids get killed, then you sure as Hell have discretion to not cite a Good Samaritan.
Edit: Regarding driving being a “privilege and not a right,” I could stomach that if the US had semi-decent public transportation. However, I find it rather messed up that the same elites who created car-dependent infrastructure then have the audacity to insist that driving is a “privilege.”
I love how the uvalde cops went in and got their kids but sat around disallowing anyone wise to go in.
@@emu314159 Per the recent report on police failure in Uvalde: “They failed to prioritize saving innocent lives over their own safety.” Oh, they didn’t fail at all. Cops nationwide are trained to prioritize their own safety first and foremost, and ensuring the safety of others is merely incidental.
@@brettstarks1846 I read that the cop with authority at first believed the guy was barricaded in an empty room or something like that, so he changed it from an active shooter to a barricaded shooter situation, so it went from 'get him quick to save the children' to 'wait him out'
Freedom of Movement is a Right. Up until the 60's or so driving was recognized as a Right. Then Government overreach using interstate commerce occurred and a Right was called a privilege. Sort of like with the 2A.
@@hahahano2796 Freedom of movement doesn't require driving, and worked perfectly well for thousands of years before automobiles were invented. Driving hasn't been considered a right at least since licenses were required and not requiring licenses in the early days doesn't mean it was consider a right then, either. While there's some argument that driving falls under our unenumerated rights none of our rights are absolute, and despite multiple chances SCOTUS has declined to identify driving as a right. As a practical matter making driving a right would mean that it's difficult to impossible to revoke that right no matter how bad or reckless a driver is.
This is why people don't speak up to help with these things. I've had similar interactions and I'm terrified as a result
We’ll you are the Supervillain!
Great story. The officer certainly didn't build any bridges with the community with that one. Fortunately, the judge seemed to have some common sense.
Who knows, the officer may have a captain who is very strict, and the officer may have faced reprimand if he hadn't ticketed the kid. At least the kid was let off the hook as he should have been.
@@kele5181 Refuse to make the arrest and seek union help. That is what the police union is for. I have flat out said that I wasn't going to make an arrest and that if the supervisor wanted the arrest made to make it himself. Other times, I told my chain of command that I would be a defense witness if the arrest was made. The union always had my back.
@@1bornsurvivor Huzzah, a cop who probably knows who their father is
When I was a teenager, in the 1970's, I worked at a gas station and someone came up to the pumps who was very drunk. My buddy pumped the gas slow while I called the cops. We checked his oil, washed the windows, and basically wasted time until the cops showed up. When they did, they did pretend to get gas and then dealt with the drunk. All was going well until one of the cops looked at me and yelled out "Thanks for the call!" The drunk and his buddies heard it. I was mortified. I was so pissed off, but I couldn't say anything. I should also add that my dad was the sergeant at the local detachment at the time. When I got home I told him the story, told him who the cop was who ratted me out, and said that the next time a drunk rolls up, I will happily fill his tank and send him on his way. My dad was noticeably upset, and I think he tore a strip off the offending officer the next day...but I never called in a drunk again after that.
Ah, the days you could get service at a service station.
@@morefiction3264 You can go back to those days if you visit Oregon!
@Jesse Weigert even if you’re not in Oregon or New Jersey, you’d still be able to find them if the demand were to be there. Personally, I’ll pass
I must've missed something. What was wrong with being "ratted out?" Did you fear repercussions from the guy who couldn't even stand on his own two feet?
What sad about this entire thing is the wasted tax dollars. I wish the officer that gave him a ticket would had to pay court fees and what not. There is ZERO punishment for what that cop did.
IMO I think the kid should file a complaint on the officer and detailed how they left out critical info in court which could mess up someone who didn't know better.
He should file a complaint, and try to get the story ran by the local news outlets. If the 911 operator really did ask him to follow (should have asked for 911 recording) and/or officer asked him to remain at the scene, the press would have a field day with the department - a kid goes to extra lengths to get a drunk driver off the road, and the police issue him a citation for providing requested assistance.
Gawd, LEOs like this really are the dumbest - for the assistance the kid provided, they should have escorted him home, but they wouldn't even give him a ride, he had to call his parents to pick him up.
In this situation, I'd send in two things 1) A plea of not guilty, and 2) a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The motion would detail the events, the circumstances, and the instructions of the 911 operator which would be recorded. I'd explain that I followed instructions and continued to follow the drunk driver, and the only reason I was out beyond curfew is because I followed 911 operator's instructions.
It's very likely the Judge would dismiss it without ever having to go to court.
I would think that would be entrapment. Cop tells you to keep driving, and then cop gives you a ticket for continuing to drive.
And unless it's presented in a form and manner acceptable to the court it probably be ignored.
@@timinwsac There are guides to writing a motion to dismiss. I've had six tickets dismissed in the last ten years without ever having to go into the court.
@@XtomJamesExtra It's all well and good if you are aware of the proper forms, times and departments in which to submit to. It's been my experiences that courts in different counties, within the state will have different requirements. Lawyers that practice in those counties will know about that but the general public probably won't.
@@timinwsac While what you said is true, the standard for a motion to dismiss is actually quite simple and anybody can get the format and there are typically guides for each locale or state, which anybody can look up. Traffic court is also one of the more simple courts to navigate given its informality. Typically when you are given a ticket and you are given the form to fill out if you want to plead guilty or innocent or nolo contendere, all of the necessary information is there for you to fill out a motion to dismiss and submit it with that form. Conversely you can always write to the DA handling the citation a straight forward letter explaining the situation and requesting the case be dismissed.
Kid did awesome collecting information and researching the law. Only thing more would be to get a recording of 911 requesting he follow the drunk driver, file a complaint with the department, and/or contact local news outlets.
Sounds like he should go to law school
Don’t ever help the police or call em. There’s no situation they can’t make worse.
Truer words have not been spoken
This is an example of a story that just reinforces ACAB for the general public. The officer could’ve done “the right thing” here and not issued the curfew citation. The officer also omitted helpful details from his testimony. That, to me, earns the ACAB for this officer who is not helpful and not protecting or serving the public.
The deliberate omission of relevant information should be considered perjury, the cop should have been" riding the pine" for the offense. That absolutely is entrapment, since driver followed 911 dispatchers instructions
no good deed goes unpunished
Rewards in the afterlife
@@conservativeriot5939 I’ll be pissed, if that’s not true!
So true!
@@richarde735 You'll be too busy being dead to be pissed off, my friend.
@@richarde735 it is, praise Jesus Christ for dying for us so that we might be saved. No reward in hell.
You would have to be living under a rock to be shocked at the cop's actions.
I absolutely agree on cleaning up. I went to traffic court as a teen and wore a suit. I was the only one in a crowded court room dressed up. The judge ended up arguing on my behalf with the prosecution to reduce the speed on the ticket and I got off with a much smaller fine and supervision to void the ticket.
Respect is earned not simply given, the courts have well and truly earned nothing but contempt.
There’s a word in our english language that describes any person who behaves as this officer did. That word is “douchebag.” Yes this officer completely behaved like a well used douchebag. I’m glad the OP won the judge’s decision. I hope the officer grows a good conscience.
Cop should have given the guy a thanks and said, I'll just follow you home because it's after curfew and if something happens, they'll know I was responsible. So, lets drive straight home. OK.
This is a video that should never have had to have been made.
And people wonder why cops are often dispised? Lol. Sad..
Great video. And advice BTW.
Sounds like the officer was trying to meet his "quota" that he doesnt have but that his performance reports are clearly reliant upon. This was a 2 for 1 stop.
What?! A quota? Police departments swear they don't have those!".....lol
They call them averages now.
Or they call it proactive policing...at least that is what I have seen it called to here.
@@uncletaylorify don"t forget, the police can lie to you.
I’m glad it turned out well. The officer is a real jerk. He probably got yelled at by his wife or boss (or both) and vented on the kid. Sad but at least the kid came out on top.
It’s more likely that he was nearing the end of his shift and the lengthy DUI process caused him to stay late. So he likely took it out on the kid by negative reinforcement, but the kid was doing the right thing. So sorry to force you to do your job officer...
Or else he just gets performance reviews based on number of tickets served. Or possibly overtime for court appearances, I seem to recall a scandal involving that in Pennsylvania recently, though I'm not 100% it was Pennsylvania
I've been in a stupid situation like this. The drunk driver was all over the place (across 4 lanes, nearly hitting the kerb, nearly having a head on, nearly hitting the kerb again and then an island). The police wanted to ticket me for using a phone whilst not hands free when doing 30 KPH (half the speed limit - NOTE: drunk was doing 30 KPH and I was 100 metres (300 feet) behind him with only 2 other vehicles appearing briefly in the minute this occurred.
Now I just don't get involved. Let them crash. Once they crash, pass them safely and continue on your way.
I found out a long time ago that the police metaphorically burn the innocent not to mention they have their own interests when "investigating". Don't talk to the police. Don't get involved. Stay safe.
Sad to hear that the cops in Oz are as bad as the ones here in the U.S. But I guess I'm not surprised. 😥
It's stories like yours and the one in this video that cause law-abiding citizens to hate cops.
Based on your username and use of the metric system, looks like the Aussie police are as bad about this as the US police, eh? Sad.
@@admthrawnuru I've never dealt with the USA police (was there for a month) but police are police. Some good ones, some bad ones, some corrupt ones although most are average I think. The thing is.. If you come across a bad /corrupt one and they flag you (bolo) for whatever reason (unfriendly , doesn't co-operate, has cameras in car [dashcam etc], records police, etc) then all police are against you then. No proof is required . It does mean you'll get pulled over frequently though as all your vehicles are automatically flagged by their plate. I have a bolo which is about 3 - 4 sentences long now although the cameras keep them professional :D This record is permanent
Ps No probable cause required to pull you over here. They can "randomly" do a breath alcohol test / drug test (swap of the tounge) which is a good thing overall I think.. i.e. No need to do all the dance around sobriety tests. You blow in the tube. If 0.05 or over , you get taken away for a 2nd test. If under, you get let go (after the cop looks at your tyres, checks your licence, etc)
In my state, the cellphone law has an exception for calls placed to emergency services. That exemption should be enforced on the Federal/ Supreme Court level.
Where I live people are permitted to use a cell phone while driving to call 911 in an emergency. The city even puts up signs that read "Attention: Report impaired drivers. Call 9-1-1" along the road.
He learned a lesson: "No good deed goes unpunished."
My daughter got a ticket for doing 35 in a 30 MPH zone. She was polite and cooperative with the officer. He rewarded her by charging her with reckless driving which carried not only a fine, but a possible jail sentence. She wanted ME to just pay the fine. I contacted my lawyer who said it was imperative that we show up and fight this. Needless to say when we showed up at the magistrate's office with a lawyer, everything changed. The reckless driving charge was dropped and the ticket reduced to a small fine.
I explained to my daughter that Officer Friendly isn't really in law enforcement, he's in revenue generating. If she hadn't fought the ticket, she would have been helping out the corporate prison system to generate even more money for private industry.
Always contest a ticket. Hire a lawyer and deprive the state of generating as much "selective tax dollars" as possible. Otherwise they only have an incentive to continue this nonsense.
Go to court and ask for the recording where the dispatcher told you to continue to follow the drunk.
It's situations like this, that discourage innocent bystanders, from getting involved in matters that determine the safety of others. Sometimes, life or death. What if that kid has simply gone home, and the drunk driver had hit a pedestrian and kept driving? There would've potentially been no witnesses.
This upstanding young man, was taught by an officer of the law, the life lesson that, "No good deed goes unpunished."
Sad indeed, in this era of diminished trust in law enforcement, that this young, do-gooder citizen, now has a tainted perspective.
When I was growing up, granted that was a long time ago, leos, were seen as father figures, and we walked around with a sense of safety, simply because of their presence.
Today, they lie to achieve their ends, seem to care only about themselves, and wield their power as if it is omnipotent. And, as in this case, they have no qualms about lying by omission. Same coin; two sides.
This story disgusts me, but on the positive side, this young man learned valuable lessons, that he will carry throughout his life.
*So true!!!*
So true indeed soon no one will assist an officer ever they cannot be trusted to do the right thing have had similar experiences myself.
That officer needs to be fired. This is bad officer discretion.
Having a curfew in the first place sounds wrong.
People still have not learned that the badged jackboots do NOT serve the people.
"He said they'd have to give me another ticket if I drove home myself."
And let me guess, they'd need to call a local tow truck company to come get the car?
Someone should tell the officer about "discretion". I have heard that an officer often has *discretion* to write a ticket or not. Otherwise there would be no need for warnings. This officer is a jerk.
Many years ago, my daughter was driving and slid off the road on an icy patch. The PA State Trooper said she had to write her a ticket (not sure what the specific offense was) but then told her to check the box requesting a hearing and go to the hearing when told to. My daughter went to the district court on the day and when the case was called the trooper was a no show, so the ticket was dismissed.
No good deed goes unpunished!
It is tough being a Police Officer and having to find excuses to write tickets to make your quota.
Props for fighting the ticket. Most would not have. It's principle in my book.
"Anything you say can be used AGAINST you in court..."
Doesn't say anything about it being used FOR you.
They never do anything FOR you, that's not the point of the law.
Next time, the kid ain't gonna even CALL the police.
This is one of the best examples ever of, "No good deed goes unpunished." No wonder no one wants to help the cops!
NEVER talk to the police!
This is why you never provide ID to the police regardless of the situation.
Good luck with that, buddy.
@Account NumberEight Agreed, but that unfortunately comes with risk.
There actually was an Audit the Audit about precisely this exact thing. It occurred it TX. This pig started THREATENING the good Samaritan with arrest for not showing ID! But she knew her rights!
Thank you for making the comment about driving being considered a privilege and not a right. God, the self-imposed authority by the government is nauseating.
My limited experience with judges is that they want the money for their budget. They tend to be skeptical of pro se clients. But when a lawyer shows up and they become reasonable guys.
I guess that cop has never heard of a "warning". Good job, earning the hate one citizen at a time.
Discretion, de minimus, good citizen, basic common sense, basic human decency, the fact that he was asked to continue following.. there are many layers the LEO ignored in order to write that ticket
Would be a shame if he pled the fifth when they ask him to testify at the drunk driver's hearing.
No good deed goes unpunished….
Just remember, no good deed goes unpunished.
I'm glad that this young man's innocence was affirmed, but the fact remains that he was not recompensed for his inconvenience and anxiety.
I hope he learned two valuable life lessons from this incident,
1) No good deed goes unpunished
2) If you see something, ̶s̶a̶y̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶. ... keep your mouth shut and go about your business. The government LOVES when we call in to snitch on each other - it makes their job maintaining high arrest statistics so much easier, but they don't give a hoot about collateral damage. Don't they assign George Orwell's 1984 in high school anymore, or have they banned that too?
I hate drunk drivers as much as any other law abiding driver, but it's up to the police to catch them, and they have so many legal and quasi-legal means at their disposal, that they shouldn't need the assistance of a self-deputized teenager .
When I went to school in the 90s/00s, they don't teach anything about George Orwell. Now with so many books being banned from schools, I don't think there is any chance anyone will know about him.
This case should have turned into a possible purgery case against the officer as wel as a malicious prosecution case against the court. Absolutely ridiculous.
1) The officer didn't lie, so there's no perjury. 2) The ticket is a civil infraction - there's literally no prosecution involved. (Aside: I agree the whole thing is ridiculous. But your remedies make no sense.)
How do you arrive at either?
@@G.Aaron.Fisher 👍
@@G.Aaron.Fisher he lied in the common sense by omission, but not in the legal sense. But agree, since being an asshole cop doesn't create liability, it would be hard to get him with anything.
Best revenge is going to the media and exposing him for being a jerk.
@@admthrawnuru Yeah, the problem with prosecuting "lying by omission" is that it basically criminalizes the right to remain silent which is why they don't have that.
A one horsepower horse vs a 250 horsepower car very different. The founding fathers put gun ownership in the constitution as a right to defend us from the government. They didn’t put righting a horse in the constitution as a right because they delegated that to the states.
It's great to see that the "Doctrine of Competing Harms" did apply. It's also apparent that the officer was just looking to improve his stats and not care about anything else. Not all cops are like that BUT you won't know until it's too late. Know your rights and stand up for them. No one else will.
Yet ANOTHER reason why I will no longer consider rendering assistance to any law enforcement officer for any reason...including to save their life.
I've been a Deputy Sheriff and had cited citizens that later convinced our trial judge to rule in their favor.
But, even if assisted by a paid attorney, I've also been validated in a courtroom based on evidence. It
never bothered me to watch justice being done as I desired a legitimate education.
Would you have been concerned about the curfew, after this driver was told to continue? Would you have issued the ticket?
I wonder why people don't want to help cops anymore.
Kid learned a valuable lesson!
I don't think I've ever met a police officer that wouldn't have looked the other way on the curfew violation under these circumstances. Perhaps this officer was fresh out of training and not yet comfortable in a new profession.
"Call a lawyer" - unless they take it pro bono, then the kid is still paying for a bunk ticket, just by proxy.
The first consultation is free with every lawyer I have dealt with.
I'm surprised they didn't also ticket the person for calling 911... Using a cellphone while driving. 😕 (It varies from place to place as to whether this would be a crime.)
And the 911 operator said it sounded like he wasn't wearing his seatbelt 😉
Andrew is even against drivers licenses, clearly a based libertarian
Stuff like this is why I'd be hesitant to call the police if there's ever an issue where calling them could actually save a life but doing so would require me to interact with them to some extent. Just heard about a friend of a friend that was in a multiple car collision on I-66 here in VA, and he called it in because one of the guys ran, and they ended up ticketing HIM because he changed lanes to avoid a more serious crash (and the police weren't even there to witness what happened).
Typical
The take away from this is that "no good deed goes unpunished" - sure he was eventually found not guilty but he still had to take time to fight it in court. When I see someone like the poster called 911 on I just keep my distance from them and alter my route if possible to get away from him - after all, talking on a cell phone while driving is supposed to be illegal. Let the plods do their own work.
I couldn't imagine a Judge not tossing that out. I Hope you Lawyer Up, Dress up, and Show up.
Just gos to show, no good deed goes unpunished. NEVER TALK TO THE COPS!!!
As part of discovery get the recording of the 911 call to include where they ask/tell you to continue following the individual. It should be mitigating circumstances and get you at least a reduced penalty, if not get it tossed.
I would ask the local news channel if the police are encouraging people to just ignore drunk drivers. I would tell them the story of the officer citing you and let the officer make his whole department look bad. It is up to the officer's discretion to write you a ticket as it is up to them to make themselves look bad.
Many statutes include the provision to the effect of "unless directed otherwise by law enforcement", meaning, you can violate the vehicle code if directed to do so by the police. This is a valid defense. Justification with exigent circumstances is also a valid defense, which is what the kid won the case on.
I'm surprised he didn't get a ticket for talking on the cell phone while driving, also.
Proof why you shouldn't ever talk to cops and never for any reason help them!
Smart Judge. As always nicely told.
Been in court several times and cleaning up as a young person and being represented by a lawyer didn't help any. Went to court as an older guy and talking with the judge was great. I once went in and explained what the officer told me to tell the court and almost got thrown in a cell.
officer "I have complete discretion, so I have to give you this ticket..."
It would actually be interesting for you to comment on any of the numerous police encounter videos (like on Audit the Audit).
Pay the ticket, or pay the lawyer?
Yep....no good deed goes unpunished.
No good deed goes unpunished.
The cops never have to give you a ticket, they can give you a warning, or just say chill out. But they have to get that money! I knew the guy was up when I was listening to a radio story about San Jose, CA. and found out "citation revenue" was in the budget. I've never believed that "we don't have a quota" BS since.
The police shouldn't be getting a share of money from tickets directly. The money should go to the government of the district in which the ticket was issued.
@wizardsuth Even if it doesn't go to the PD, you think someone in City Hall isn't going to be bugging the Chief if citation revenue isn't up to par?
I wonder what the collateral was? I had a friend that got arrested and asked me to post bail. I did so, then I had to wait for several court cases before I got my bail back. It wasn't as much as I had paid and I was told the balance had been retained to pay the court costs. So no bailing anyone out any more.
The cop should have escorted him home and thanked him for the help.
Andrew I love the videos. I also love when people refuse the sobriety tests and BAC. It makes the report easier.
Was glad the judge saw that the young guy was doing the right thing in trying to be proactive about public safety. Even if the other driver wasn't under influence, he could have been very tired or having some sort of medical condition to impair his driving.
I'd like to see videos about stuff like this for Pennsylvania seeing how every state is different
Well that guy will never make the mistake of doing the right thing and calling the cops again.
I think the young man should go to law school after finishing his university studies. He has ethics and thinks in a logical manner. Obviously very intelligent.
Great ending ! Congratulations to the Reddit OP. And a Thanks to the judge.
I'm in PA as well and had to fight a ticket last year in Magisterial Court; won't go into the details but it was also dismissed. I also had to pay the fine up front (what the OP called "collateral") in order to get on the court's calendar. Had I not paid up front I would not have been able to fight the ticket. This feels like I had to pay for justice. What if someone can't pay? Any thoughts, Andrew?
14th Amendment... "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Therefore, you can't be deprived of your property (money) without due process, so if you pay in advance, you're paying BEFORE due process of law! Paying before appearing in court denies someone of "due process." !!!
@@jsivco3sivco785 But here is the problem. If you want to fight you, you would have to sue the courts. But to sue the courts you need to pay lawyer fees and what not. Meaning if you didn't have the money to start with, then you surely don't have the money to pay for a lawyer to fight for this right to be honored.
@@jsivco3sivco785 welcome to PA. I haven't been back east since God was a boy, but I know EVERYONE that gets to deal with traffic cops there gets screwed
I find it hard to believe that practice hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. The constitution is extremely clear about your right to trial, and you can't be charged to exercise your rights.
@@TheAIKnowledgeHub not to mention run up against something called Sovereign immunity
Odd, all of the curfew laws I ran into locally when younger, both before and after being able to drive, proceeding to home was never considered a violation...
Unless there is something REALLY dangerous I don't even bother to call the police. I had something similar to this young man except I and at least one other driver were put in serious danger by an impaired driver. I called em and they acted as if I was a real nuisance for getting the man off the road. I have observed a lack of integrity in about half of my encounters with the police
Why be dumb, say thanks, ask him to drive home and be grateful that we have people that choose to get involved!
GREAT information in this & the rest of your episodes!! It's sad the general public needs to guard themselves when interacting with Law Enforcement. A situation can easily be twisted &/or escalated to become a disadvantage for the person being detained by an officer. Thank you for your expertise!!
This lines up with that video of the guys magnet fishing, found bombs and called it in. Then they were given a ticket for magnet fishing haha
Judge should have reprimanded the officer for not using discretion! He could have written a warning and cited the 911 call about the drunk driver as a reason. Telling the bad without the good is hardly the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but cops operate thinking they can lie without any repercussions.
❓️If Someone Pleads " NOT GUILTY " and Later are Proven "GUILTY " Would that be Considered " PERJURY "❓️
The biggest issue I have with the story is 911 has ZERO authority to tell anyone what to do. Cops have discretion to write a ticket or give a warning, so that's annoying as hell too.
Every single person on the planet has a right to ask him to follow the driver, and he has the right to refuse.
If the 911 dispatcher is a police officer, technically they are directing traffic.
I wouldn't be surprised if that officer had a quota to fulfill or some other incentive to write a ticket.
Kid needs to file a complaint against the officer as well.
Andy, you the man👍
Never help. Ever. This is why there’s trust issues between government and citizens.
AF....another great video about real life Courtroom decor....I would ask for dismissal & willing to pay court costs. When YOU are blabbing to Police, the ONLY thing cops are thinking is .. "WHAT is this JERK guilty of?'
I spent $3500 in legal fees to fight a ticket with a $150 fine. As I see it, my record is what is important, not the fine. On the day when the trial was supposed to begin. The Judge dismissed the ticket 10 minutes before my trial was supposed to begin.
Call a lawyer? Paying the ticket would be cheaper!!