They already do. “Suspicious,” “disorderly conduct,” “obstructing and impeding,” and “officer safety,” are used and abused everyday by law enforcement to justify civil rights violations.
@@Impervium1090 Tell me 1 time a police officer has pulled up behind you driving or turned the corner and you didn't instantly feel nervous. Bc it will always be a thing. Ppl die bc police have policies like this. They are there to protect and serve. When did that turn into comply or die? Ask George Floyd. This system is beyond broke and needs to be defunded bc their power is getting us killed.
Couldn't you say the same about the officer in front of you in the same neighborhood. Granted his job is to catch criminals. I know with tickets they got to make quota which I beat a ticket in a town called Hubert Oklahoma. Speed trap tiny town. Where there only source of revenue seems to come from traffic stops. Perfect driving record judge was cool. Scolded the officer who didn't "remember" writing my ticket. Hee dismissed it and sent me on my way. They had people in there for having fog lights on during the daytime a guys kids had turned em on. Everyone pled guilty. Nope nope 🤣.
EXTREMELY helpful video!! Thank you once again, Quimbee!! If you only knew how many law students lives you've helped through the stressful experience of cold-calling, final exams, and Bar prep.. we are forever indebted to you creators out there. Thank you!
Your second part of the video I believe Is inaccurate. You only have to identify yourself if the first part of the Terry stop Is met. He has to articulate a reasonable belief that you are committing a crime about to commit a crime or have committed a crime simply because your quote suspicious does not meet the legal requirements it has to be suspicious of a specific crime.This is where the problem begins you say the officer can demand identification is the first part has not been as not been met you can refuse. Even if the first part is met there is a problem for instance in California I do not have to identify myself until I'm actually being booked In Texas I do not have to identify self until I'm actually Lawfully arrested. You use the phrase .An officer can demand ID the officer cannot demand ID is the first part of the terrorist that has not been met or if state law says you do not have to identify yourself until you are being legally arrested lots of states are not stopping ID states there is also the Fifth Amendment when you have the right to remain silentThere's also the problem is that a legal order are not and what justifies a legal order Sibley Causey also think you're suspicious does not get his give him the right to demand ID
The police officer doesn’t have to articulate anything to you...unless your State has a law that requires that he do so. Police aren’t required to inform someone of the reason they’re being arrested, let alone detained, unless State law requires it. The officer has to be able to articulate his reasonable suspicion to a judge...generally not to the person being detained at the time of their detention.
@@ipsurvivor I would counterargue that without the explicit verbal explanation of the officers probable cause then the individual has every right to assume every interaction with a non informing officer to be an illegal kidnapping and respond in kind with force.
I was required to attend use of force training for my security job and a instructor who was in law enforcement stated that a Terry stop extends to private security.I didn't agree and I stated that our "Powers of arrest" manual specifically states that we private security can search for weapons incidental to an arrest. Again I don't agree unless things have changed?
The legality of a Terry stop merely for seeing someone running in “high crime” neighborhoods has turned those neighborhoods into domestic occupied zones by careerist-focused police officers and police hierachy.
this video gets wrong that the 4th amendment allows for a Terry stop on someone just by the cop having an opinion that the person looks strange & possibly up to no good. to perform a Terry stop there has to be suspicion of a particular & articulable offense, not just a vague hunch of general criminality. "stop & frisk" was ruled unconstitutional for both the "stop" and the "frisk" parts, not just for searching people. being a pedestrian in a high crime area is not a basis for reasonable suspicion, & avoiding cops does not automatically indicate any specific potential reason. without reasonable suspicion of any particular offense an investigatory stop is an unlawful seizure, bc the Terry case ruled that with any type of detainment people themselves are being seized.
Wouldn't you say the fact that once the pedestrian saw the officer he started acting all nervous and once the officer approached he sprinted in the opposite direction gives the officer reasonable suspicion to investigate? I mean that is more than a hunch I think. Though I guess there's no specific crime that the officer suspects him of committing.
@@Impervium1090 no, because seeming nervous does not indicate any specific potential offense. an investigatory stop legally has to be based on reasonable suspicion of a particular & articulable crime. there has to be an indication that someone either did a type of specific crime, is doing a specific crime, or is about to do a specific crime. if there is no basis for suspecting particular offenses then a stop can only be consensual.
This was very eye opening as to what the law means and what and Officer can and can not do. I am little shocked by the drawing used. All of the drawings of Whites seem to imply guilt or just law breakers in general. The Black female Officer implied a stereotype to the Asian father by asking is that a katana in the back seat. The 2 children look angry. I even notice the angry look on the officers face as if being Asian with a katana in the back seat with Children is some how illegal. The drawings really come across as being bigoted to me.
Sounds like they can just use this to say you were acting suspicious.
They already do. “Suspicious,” “disorderly conduct,” “obstructing and impeding,” and “officer safety,” are used and abused everyday by law enforcement to justify civil rights violations.
In MD we can't use those terms because it won't hold in court
They have to have probably cause or reasonable articulable suspicion
"Someone appearing casual in a bad neighborhood" is reasonable cause???? So being poor is enough of a reason to get stopped?
@@Impervium1090 Tell me 1 time a police officer has pulled up behind you driving or turned the corner and you didn't instantly feel nervous. Bc it will always be a thing. Ppl die bc police have policies like this. They are there to protect and serve. When did that turn into comply or die? Ask George Floyd. This system is beyond broke and needs to be defunded bc their power is getting us killed.
Couldn't you say the same about the officer in front of you in the same neighborhood. Granted his job is to catch criminals. I know with tickets they got to make quota which I beat a ticket in a town called Hubert Oklahoma. Speed trap tiny town. Where there only source of revenue seems to come from traffic stops. Perfect driving record judge was cool. Scolded the officer who didn't "remember" writing my ticket. Hee dismissed it and sent me on my way. They had people in there for having fog lights on during the daytime a guys kids had turned em on. Everyone pled guilty. Nope nope 🤣.
Um yeah, that's the whole point!
Everyone is a criminal when a cop pulls you over.
EXTREMELY helpful video!! Thank you once again, Quimbee!! If you only knew how many law students lives you've helped through the stressful experience of cold-calling, final exams, and Bar prep.. we are forever indebted to you creators out there. Thank you!
Police cannot demand ID during a Terry stop in most states. In most cases you must be legally arrested to require ID.
Your second part of the video I believe Is inaccurate. You only have to identify yourself if the first part of the Terry stop Is met.
He has to articulate a reasonable belief that you are committing a crime about to commit a crime or have committed a crime simply because your quote suspicious does not meet the legal requirements it has to be suspicious of a specific crime.This is where the problem begins you say the officer can demand identification is the first part has not been as not been met you can refuse. Even if the first part is met there is a problem for instance in California I do not have to identify myself until I'm actually being booked In Texas I do not have to identify self until I'm actually Lawfully arrested. You use the phrase .An officer can demand ID the officer cannot demand ID is the first part of the terrorist that has not been met or if state law says you do not have to identify yourself until you are being legally arrested lots of states are not stopping ID states there is also the Fifth Amendment when you have the right to remain silentThere's also the problem is that a legal order are not and what justifies a legal order Sibley Causey also think you're suspicious does not get his give him the right to demand ID
The police officer doesn’t have to articulate anything to you...unless your State has a law that requires that he do so. Police aren’t required to inform someone of the reason they’re being arrested, let alone detained, unless State law requires it. The officer has to be able to articulate his reasonable suspicion to a judge...generally not to the person being detained at the time of their detention.
they don't have to articulate a specific crime, just they have to have the suspicion that a crime is being or going to be committed.
@@ipsurvivor
I would counterargue that without the explicit verbal explanation of the officers probable cause then the individual has every right to assume every interaction with a non informing officer to be an illegal kidnapping and respond in kind with force.
You go ahead a respond to officers with force and tell us how that goes.
1:30 There was still no suspected crime in this example. Suspicious behavior without articulable suspicion of a crime is still just a hunch.
In this video it said it’s probably not enough reasonable suspicion ..
Reasonable is a questionable word. Who defines reasonable
@@milkmanman 'Reasonable' IS subjective. 'Crime' is not. There is no 'suspicion' without 'of a crime'.
@@milkmanman you in WA? Or is this a different milkman?
I was required to attend use of force training for my security job and a instructor who was in law enforcement stated that a Terry stop extends to private security.I didn't agree and I stated that our "Powers of arrest" manual specifically states that we private security can search for weapons incidental to an arrest. Again I don't agree unless things have changed?
The legality of a Terry stop merely for seeing someone running in “high crime” neighborhoods has turned those neighborhoods into domestic occupied zones by careerist-focused police officers and police hierachy.
Well then people in those neighborhoods better work on making it not high crime then right?
That sounds like a lot of articulable B.S.!!
Suspicious isn't a crime.
This guy sounds like the voice from fnaf sister location and help wanted
They can say it smells like drugs and that's enough. Smell is classified as "qualia" and is subjective. Nevertheless, it is probable cause.
A casual katana in the back seat.
this video gets wrong that the 4th amendment allows for a Terry stop on someone just by the cop having an opinion that the person looks strange & possibly up to no good. to perform a Terry stop there has to be suspicion of a particular & articulable offense, not just a vague hunch of general criminality. "stop & frisk" was ruled unconstitutional for both the "stop" and the "frisk" parts, not just for searching people. being a pedestrian in a high crime area is not a basis for reasonable suspicion, & avoiding cops does not automatically indicate any specific potential reason. without reasonable suspicion of any particular offense an investigatory stop is an unlawful seizure, bc the Terry case ruled that with any type of detainment people themselves are being seized.
Wouldn't you say the fact that once the pedestrian saw the officer he started acting all nervous and once the officer approached he sprinted in the opposite direction gives the officer reasonable suspicion to investigate? I mean that is more than a hunch I think. Though I guess there's no specific crime that the officer suspects him of committing.
@@Impervium1090 no, because seeming nervous does not indicate any specific potential offense. an investigatory stop legally has to be based on reasonable suspicion of a particular & articulable crime. there has to be an indication that someone either did a type of specific crime, is doing a specific crime, or is about to do a specific crime. if there is no basis for suspecting particular offenses then a stop can only be consensual.
Why would someone have a Suzuki in the back seat? 4:20
Never know when you need to chase a Ninja.
But as Americans we’re allowed to bear weapons. Why does reasonable suspicion strip you of that right?
This was very eye opening as to what the law means and what and Officer can and can not do. I am little shocked by the drawing used. All of the drawings of Whites seem to imply guilt or just law breakers in general. The Black female Officer implied a stereotype to the Asian father by asking is that a katana in the back seat. The 2 children look angry. I even notice the angry look on the officers face as if being Asian with a katana in the back seat with Children is some how illegal. The drawings really come across as being bigoted to me.
They didn't want to come off as racist and still did sad
@@maseratireid well said
Bruh.