If you've got nothing to worry about, then why make it a bigger issue than it has to be? Most people, Sovereign Citizens for example, make it a point to NOT allow an officer of the law to perform their duties and do everything in their power to aggravate a situation to the point where the officer is FORCED to make an arrest due to non-complacence. I believe most logical people would agree with that statement.
@@aiden_macleod As a logical person, I completely agree. I have had several police encounters, and none of them have amounted to anything. As a general rule, you should cooperate with the police and answer their questions. But then there are reasonable exceptions to that rule you should consider. The main one being when they are potentially accusing you of a serious crime. You should not answer those questions without an attorney. And you should not consent to searches. But if they proceed anyway, you should not resist them. And in most cases, unless you require their assistance, you should not consent to them entering your home. And, again, if they do it anyway, do not resist them.
It's all based around consent, when an officer "asks" what's in you pockets? People hear empty your pockets , anything illegal you pull out , you consented to give it to the officer, during a Terry frisk the officer cannot even manipulate anything in you pocket or on your person , the general public do not hear the difference between asking and being told , I spent 10 weeks in a academy learning how to manipulate that to find reasons to arrest people and then exploit their ignorance of the law and their own rights , needless to say I only lasted about 5 years protecting and educating people from the system
It's has been known that Race Soldiers kkk ws nazi ger plants drugs on people to give them a record. I search your car and put things There too. They love doing this if you tell them that this is a rental car. They know that it's not your so they do it.
So they don’t teach basic rights, just how to make we the people look guilty of something. Why any applicant for the police should have a criminal justice degree.
No, those kinda questions are NOT complicated. You are NOT obligated to ID yourself to a cop unless he can reasonably articulate suspicion that you’ve committed a crime, AND you’re being lawfully arrested for that crime. You are NOT obligated to participate in his ‘investigation’ either. You do NOT have to answer any of his questions. You do NOT have to prove anything to the cop. The burden of proof is on him, NOT on the citizen. Bottom line, DO NOT TALK TO COPS. They are NOT your friend, and they are NOT on your side. Know your rights, know the law, and know the Constitution. Cops will try to wipe their ass with your rights, and cops will try to wipe their ass with the Constitution.
antlers163 i would'nt want their job, looking around me i can see more and more assholes and jerks compared to my younger days, they were better people back then.
You don't have to prove anything to the cop? then why do we give them license, registration and insurance? We are prooving we meet the standards for the 'priviledge' of moving-about. The right to remain silent, trumps any state or local law to provide ID.
The right to remain silent is a Constitutional Right. There is no Constitutional ‘right’ to drive. They passed laws that say, specifically, if you drive then you have to provide this information to the harassers and extorters (cops - tax collectors with badges and guns).
As the replies to this comment point out, it can be a lot of effort (sometimes impossible) to definitively determine if there was reasonable suspicion... so much so that for most people with limited time and resources, it is only worth pursuing when facing criminal charges, and then as mentioned below, it can be based on the officers perception. This is why many people feel nervous when talking to police even when they've done nothing wrong. We wish we could say everything works perfectly all the time, but as you point out it doesn't. Still, we believe citizens should be better informed both relating to our rights and the risks at play. Thx for the comment.
Matthew Alistair yes your right it happened to me the cop told me I fit the description of a suspect, I know it was bullshit cause I asked the cop how.long ago was this called in he said he did know
Matthew Alistair you immediately ask for the exact criminal complaint or police report that specifically identifies you as the possible "subject" identified!
"... The answer is, as in most legal questions, THAT DEPENDS." And with that, I now know exactly as much about this subject as I did BEFORE I watched this video. Thanks Professor Capes but I dare say this video was less than helpful!
dredkalifighter sorry you didn’t find it more helpful. You’re definitely right that it’s super murky, but as you pointed out so are the rules. So we asked him to share the law and the messy reality of it.
No. You never have to answer questions. No matter what they ask you. Another thing wrong with this is you don't have to ID yourself unless suspected of a crime. Even in stop and ID states....in states with no stop and ID statutes, well....
& a @2:00 they cannot make YOU empty your pockets. That would be aiding them in searching you. You don't have to assist them in investigating or searching you. You'd be incriminating yourself. Is this guy really a lawyer? Because he sucks.
Not true. All a peace officer needs is "probable cause" whether you think you have broken the law or not. By your ignorance, anyone could say, "I don't have to comply because I haven't done anything wrong." That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Most cops don't act illegally because if they did cases would not be filed by D.A.'s because they know it would be thrown out. D.A.'s only file cases they feel they can win and pass legal muster. Any cop that consistently ignored the constitution would be admonished by his supervisors, the assistant district attornies who can't win the cases, and would ultimately be fired. Police don't operate in a vacuum, and the judicial system has a say in what they can do by what they will accept to take to court. Why are people so stupid and think they know so much, when clearly they have no real knowledge on a subject.
@@rchapel Ron, don't conflated probable cause and reasonable suspicion. They need reasonable suspicion to detain you, and probable cause to arrest you. For clarification, read this: www.taylorlawco.com/blog/reasonable-suspicion-and-probable-cause-what-s-the-difference.cfm
@@veryfarfromhome And they must be able to articulate the suspicion. Just be "suspicious" does not constitute Probable Cause. I also like to ask them, " do you have your miranda rights card on you??? Good, Read the first line . . . . . . . " You have the right to Remain silent, anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law. . . . . . . . "
this means that there is essentially no difference between a free citizen and a criminal in a prison. the cops have the leverage to treat a citizen like a convicted criminal and administer extra judicial executions over a traffic stop. It is not what the law says, but the law cannot help you if you are dead
I find it interesting that we encounter law enforcement officers so often and just assume that we have to obey their orders just because they're cops. Thanks for the insightful video, much of this information most people aren't aware of.
I (mostly) obey cops not because they are cops. But because they can get away with doing illegal stuffs to get me in a lot of trouble. (For example, arrest me and jail me for at least 48 hours for no good reason, then never press any charges) Sad, but thats the reality.
May we politely suggest the following de-escalation for remedy? THE TRUST IS COLLAPSED....in other words, your company is no longer granting them any more credit. If the policeman is not lawfully investigating the crime on behalf of the male/female victim and is entering YOUR company jurisdiction without you summonsing them, then would it not be advisable to be politely placing YOUR public-servants/trustees under your notification that your company is charging $707 per hour/part-there-of for YOUR company time and also $717 for YOUR company performance?....and that any further communicating (verbal) and/ or corresponding (written) with your company, is with them accepting the terms & conditions of the commercial contract IN THE PRIVATE (the cop and their CHIEF and their POLICE UNION is now with PERSONAL liability.... because Notice-to-Agent-is-Notice-to-Principal....and also through JOINDER) This way, you are NOT resisting/refusing to obey/comply with their orders/demands/policy /questions, but instead, you are now willing to perform WITH THE CONDITION that payment is with your company immediately, because you have NO CONFIDENCE with them administrating YOUR company trust! THE PUBLIC TRUST IS COLLAPSED...Why is YOUR company issuing them extra credit! Are YOU not the executor and the beneficiary of YOUR trust?...making them the trustees, whom are with their fiduciary obligation and duty-of-care to be NOT causing you injury nor damage nor loss nor harm. Is THEIR job YOUR job? Is THEIR company policy YOUR company policy? not unless and until they are PAYING for your company time & performance THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IS COLLAPSED...YOUR company is no longer performing free-of-charge! You may be willing to pursue the matter through the small-claims-court and/or through arbitration which is held in-the-private because PUBLIC court is only for the PUBLIC servant. YOUR TRUST FUND IS NOW WITH RESTORATION....YOUR company now making money from every encounter with YOUR public-servants because the days of doing something with your trustees for free are over. PS-Be the BUSINESS man with your public-servants.....NOT the victim.....this will involve SOME talking to the police...for YOUR benefit.
@@grigoriyefimovichrasputin7897 Thank you for your reply. Our apologies for the (rather lengthy) comment. Perhaps you would be kind enough to act as sub-editor and submit an abridged version (we don`t claim to have all the answers) as our intention is only to help others. Thanks in advance.
@@grigoriyefimovichrasputin7897 Thanks for the reply. Does such a position exist?....and if so, to whom do we send our invoice?... (we wouldn't`t want to be giving our time and performance for free!)
Yeah I know theres cops out there that think there above the law n can get away with or make up anything they want, but in my life I found it's best to just show ur ID n move on.
Professor, professor, professor. Reasonable ARTICULABLE Suspicion. You left out a most important word. Also, you conflate a lawful demand by police to ID with the possible voiding of the 4th and 5th amendment. A person who is lawfully required to ID can only voluntarily waive their 4th and 5th amendments. A person can always refuse consent to searches, as well as exercise their right to remain silent.
Thanks for the comment! As a moderator, I can't speak for the professor, but you're right in noting that this is an overview and doesn't get into some of the details of 4th and 5th Amendment legal rules or the difficulties of an equal protection claim under the 14th Amendment. For a more in depth discussion, check out this 1hour-long interview on your rights vis-a-vis police power. www.talksonlaw.com/talks/police-power-and-personal-rights
Perhaps because there is no legal requirement anywhere in the Republic that an officer has to tell a person why they are being stopped. Hell, the courts have even ruled the police may lie to people about such things.
@ NeverTalktoCops: The phrase is "Reasonable suspicion". Yes, it must be based on articulable facts, but the phrase that everyone, including the courts, uses is "Reasonable suspicion".
NO LAW CAN VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, AND HOLD LEGAL AUTHORITY...THIS IS FACT! NO MATTER WHAT TGE EMPLOYEE SAYS, THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW, FUCK THE JUDGE, COURTS AND POLICE...NOBODY WILL BE ALLOWED TO VIOLATE OUR RIGHTS! DOING THIS CRIME CAN GET YOU SHOT DEAD FOR TYRANNY! THE CONSTITUTION STATES: AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC...NO DISCERNING WHAT THAT ENEMY MIGHT BE...SO....THAT CHOICE IS CLEARLY OPEN FOR OUR DETERMINATION ONLY!
If you choose to close your mouth and absolutely refuse to speak one single word to police, or anyone else, you are within your rights and as far as I know, the US Constitution protects that action as a right.
I bet every one of those dislikes on this video are from cops who have exploited the fact that some people don't know their rights in the past to meet their "quota".
I think maybe it's more from the people who tried the tactic and was detained until their identification was established and those are the ones who disliked it. I bet you even secretly disliked it too, because you misunderstand the concept yourself.
Video is entitled "Do you you have to answer a police officer's questions?". Content of video addressed 2 main points. #1: when you have to provide ID and #2: when you can be searched. No where was the actual subject addressed. Are we sure this guy is a lawyer?
And if you don't comply, the officer will sometimes illegally detain you and argue with you until they can come up with fradulent charges, because their power ego was hurt.
Most "consensual encounters" will start with you denying to identify, and then they will cite "policy of any encounters we ask for id" that protects their immunity, afterwards they will say that you are suspicious because you didn't identify and officially detain you.
Starts for the time you take your first breath. Many things have consequences for not soing them but death is inevitable for all no matter how much money you have.
It is not a protection for a criminal. I point everyone to the 1963 ruling and judgment of chief justice Ritter ut Teratory court Federal his is the controlling ruling and was used in Miranda vs AZ
It keeps the criminals who actually have concealed weapons from shooting innocents. If you've got nothing to worry about, then you won't have anything to worry about. Why is this concept so foreign to so many people?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you
As a Canadian friend said, if you don't know if a police officer is asking or ordering you to do something, ask "Must I, sir?". If it is an order, or the officer thinks it is an legal order, you will find out quickly. Then comply with a "Yes, sir". If not, say "I would rather not, sir". The exceptions are the field sobriety tests and roadside breath tests.. In America the walking tests are misused to fail everyone so always refuse those and many roadside breath tests aren't calibrated, unless used by certified DUI task forces in very few states. DUI convictions in quite a few counties in America are profit centers, money from fines, and not about proper enforcement.
Pfft. All they have to say is your vehicle is suspicious or resembles a vehicle used in a crime. One night we got pulled over. They said our car was "just like one used in a robbery". Uh huh. My car: 1976 Chevy Monte Carlo. Silver body, brown fenders, with a yellow hood. No way there were two such ugly cars yet that was their story. They searched for stolen goods. Found nothing. They were fishing for a dui..it was 1:45 AM. They were VERY interested in my carpentry tools. They kept calling them burglar tools so I had my boss call them the next day and point out that yep...he is a carpenter.
@@mikeries8549 Let me guess, a DUI? 1:45 am? Ugly car? Tools in the back? Sounds ripe for a burglary in the making to me. I'd be suspicious of that car at that time of night too.
Thanks Tom. Yes, some critics argue that some police may attempt to claim reasonable suspicion in hindsight after they've uncovered the additional evidence.
TALKSONLAW All a cop has to do is say he smells marijuana coming out of the vehicle or on a person, and they can legally search your car or person. That's why most people don't trust cops.
Well at least you're going to ask him on camera to state what his reasonable suspicion is. If he doesn't respond which is likely, maybe that's something a lawyer can use. And if he says something then maybe that too is something a lawyer can use. I would never skip asking for reasonable suspicion.
Soooo.... nobody has heard about the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree? You can't just make PC up without anything founding it, unless of course you want to lose your job and be sued.
@@TomO-if7nh ACTUALLY, NO! SUSPICION STILL DEMANDS A LEGAL WARRANT BEFORE A SEARCH. FORGET WHAT TGEY TOLD YOU, IT IS ILLEGAL TO SEARCH WITHOUT PERMISSION OR WARRANT...WHICH MUST BE SPECIFIC..OR IT IS CRIMINAL. FORCED SEARCHES ARE ALWAYS THROWN OUT, THEY HAVE NO LEGAL SUPPORT TO VALIDATE SUCH ACTS. PROBABLE CAUSE IS NOT A FREE FOR ALL TO SEARCH, IT IS TGE LOWEST DETERMINING VALUE TO OBTAIN A WARRANT WITH, THAT IS TGE LEGAL DEFINITION, NOT WHAT THE EMPLOYEE SAID...HE IS NOT THE LAW, NOR ARE THEY LAWYERS...NO POWER TO ACT AS ONE... WHEN COPS CITE LAW, YOU CAN PROSECUTE THEM FOR PLAYING ATTORNEY WITHOUT LICENSE. ADDED CHARGE IF THEY FORCE A SEARCH WITHOUT A VALID WARRANT. FOR US, IF THE WARRANT IS HANDLED BY THE EMPLOYEE, WE REFUSE IT. WE ONLY RECOGNIZE THE SOLE ELECTED COP...THE SHERIFF, NOT THE HIRED HENCHMEN..WE CDO NOT OBEY THE HELP, THEY HOLD NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY..
You're right that proving an officer lacked reasonable suspicion can be very hard, unless the officer happens to admit it (that does occasionally happen)... Do you think police body cameras would help?
I was once questioned by the police and I was glad to answer his questions, this way I had a chance to tell my side of the story. Everything worked out in my favor.
Thanks Joe. Of course we are not suggesting people refuse to help or communicate with police… just answering the question of what happens legally if you choose not to. Is “sorry I’m in a hurry,” likely to result in an official stop? Etc.
Sometimes and sometimes not. Many more people get into trouble by talking with the police than by exercising their rights. This refers to targets not witnesses.
In examining a large number of cases in which people were convicted of crimes and later exonerated by DNA or other solid evidence, it turns out that in nearly every case the person wrongfully convicted cooperated with or spoke with police at the time of the original investigation. What that should tell every single innocent person is to NEVER, EVER speak with or answer questions of police unless advised to do so by an attorney representing his/her interests. Period.
YOU'RE STUPID TOO. It has nothing to do with cooperating. The police don't do anything but make arrests. The DA decides to prosecute based on evidence. a judge arbitrates, and a jury decides.
@@rchapel The police collect evidence of a crime that WILL be used against you in a court of law by the Prosecuting Attorney. That includes ANYTHING that you might say. If you don't say anything, then they don't have any comments to twist or misrepresent.... Larry Glick is very accurate in his advice.
Sadly we're just legal education platform and don't have lawyers on the ground... Here's some advice from the ACLU for those who feel their rights have been violated by law enforcement: "Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don't physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint. Write down everything you remember, including officers' badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses. If you are injured, take photographs of your injuries (but seek medical attention first). File a written complaint with the agency's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish. Call your local ACLU or visit www.aclu.org/profiling."
I am NOT "LOL'ing" Advice from the Amerikan Communists Lawyers Union? As Larry the Cable Guy would say, "that's funny, I don't care WHO you are." Have YOU ever tried contacting / using them? Scripture says you're a hypocrite if you tell someone, "be warm and be filled," yet you do NOTHING to make it happen.
@@tooge47 I'm just a youtube moderator of a legal education company, but yeah I'd try and help if I saw injustice on the street, but I personally wouldn't know too much. Prof Capra from the video is an expert on criminal law though and he uses his legal understanding to help advise judges on the rules of evidence.
@@tooge47 Another idiot who doesn't comprehend the difference between 'CIVIL LIBERTIES" and 'communist'. The ACLU takes on all kinds of cases where AMERICANS" rights are infringed. How would you know they're 'difficult to contact' if you hadn't tried to? That begs the question...if you describe them as 'Amerikan communists' (the k fits the KLAN which is diametrically opposite to communist, which makes you sound very confused if not downright ignorant), why did you try to have them help you in the first place?
I suppose it depends on state law, but the only time a citizen has to provide identification is when he or she is arrested. Identification doesn't have to be physical; it can be verbal, and quite often this is the letter of the law.
Maxim of Law "No man is bound to arm his adversary." Miranda v Arizona opinion and holding Americans have the right to remain silent. And wrong, reasonable suspicion is not probable cause. "Any restraint, however slight, upon another's liberty to come and go as one pleases, constitutes an arrest." Swetnam v. W. F. Woolworth Co., 318 P.2d 364, 366, 83 Ariz. 189. An arrest without probable cause is aggravated kidnapping or false imprisonment and the capital felony of treason.
Miranda raises a good point about rights after someone is arrested. This explanation is focused on the question of when if ever is there a requirement to obey police orders or requests prior to an arrest and whether refusal could lead to reasonable suspicion for a stop or probable case for an arrest.
Really? Since when does exercising or invoking a right fulfill the criteria of Reasonable Articulable Suspcion? The police can not develop RAS from a person invoking their right to remain silent, same for developing probable cause. A right can not be converted into a crime.
Well said! I think James's point may have been that sometimes even if no right has been given up, and no RAS in fact exists, the officer may be able to create some pretext for the arrest after the fact. When that happens, it can be difficult to prove.
EVERY lawyer worth their salt will tell every client NEVER talk to the police without counsel present and without a "lawful arrest" No id is ever required. Brown v Texas, Kolender v Lawson and Miranda v Arizona....and the second an officer states YOU cannot leave YOU ARE under arrest. I was kidnapped for refusing to provide information as a passenger and that sworn servant is now paying me 150k from his pocket for the felonies he committed, because I refused to play his traitor games. ANYTHING you say to any of these officers CAN and WILL be used to harm you....Only a fool would ever willingly speak to them without many witnesses....I had video that proved his felonies he settled before I took it to a jury for 65 years +1.8 million.... Of course being a 2 decade combat vet and ex lawman helped.
Kidnapped me for 64 hours, but agreed to the fee I charged and was stupid enough to tell my wife when she asked why I was being arrested "I don't know, but I'll think of something, with the way he acted." Proving not only, he had no probable cause, but that his act was malicious. I agreed to non disclosure, but yeah, I have it taped.....Will never be non disclosure again, in fact one ever tries to kidnap me again....I'll absolutely resist, NO man is obligated to be compliant to kidnapping and false imprisonment, by a treasonous felon with a badge.
Not clear in my mind either. I still don't know what to do in such a situation. That's because, although the laws themselves are not vague, the day-to-day, real-time interpretations often are. I was surprised to hear him say that we have to comply with an ID demand in those cases.
NO. RAS is only enough to detain and demand ID in a stop and ID state. In a state that does not have a stop and ID law you do not have to provide ID unless you have been lawfully arrested.
To DEMAND ID they need reasonable suspicion of a crime (in a stop and ID state). They can ask anytime but you do not legally have to provide. You film the encounter to keep them in line and protect yourself.
Wrong.....Try Brown V Texas and Kolender v Lawson, unless "lawfully" arrest you have no obligation to id...EVER. Arrest requires probable cause and to detain, IS an arrest by definition.
Pedestrians do not have to have identification in any state of this country as confirmed by the SCOTUS. If an officer stops a pedestrian for reasonable suspicion or probable cause, they can request identification either verbally or a physical identification card but you do not have to carry identification as a pedestrian.
Even if you're suspected of a crime you still have a constitutional right to remain silent and haev legal counsel before answering any questions...so how it that right not violated by being forced to tell law enforcement your name? Doesn't' make sense.
Jesus Faith good point! You’re right. You have a 5th Amendment right to remain silent. But I THINK his point is that if the officer has reasonable suspicion to stop you, not answering any of her questions may result in your being arrested. You are right though, after being arrested we have the right to remain silent.
Yeah, it's bull$#!+, but in the U.S. Supreme Court's never-ending quest to demolish your constitutional rights (even if it means ignoring its own previous rulings), the court has said that the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination doesn't apply to a demand for identification if reasonable suspicion is present. _Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada_ (2008).
Especially when operating a motor vehicle, you must provide your identification because your license is required to operate said vehicle. If you can't be identified, then it's impossible to determine if you have a license to legally operate the vehicle.
Of course, that's agreed upon, but if you're not driving a vehicle then you should not be compelled in any way to talk or give any information since its our constitutional right to remain silent and non drivers are not required to carry any form of ID. End of Story.
@ Matt: Yes, in the case if a traffic stop, the police officer has a right to ask for your driver's license -- but of course the cop still has to have reasonable suspicion to stop you in the first place.
One thing that is missed here is that traffic stops are treated somewhat differently. A cop that has pulled you over for breaking a traffic violation can ask for ID and you have to provide it, along with registration and proof of insurance. This is true even if the traffic violation is not considered a crime. A lot of sovereign citizens think otherwise.
Doesn't mean that you can get away without being identified. No I.D.? What's your name and date of birth. Doesn't come back in the computer? You're lying, obstructing and arrested and held on suspicion until you are identified. Pick your poison.
Your analysis on ID is not true in every state. For example in Tx you do not have to Id unless you are under lawful arrest and failure to ID is a secondary charge. Some exception do exist. For instance if they giving yo a ticket for some reason.
Good point. States do have the ability to restrict police power beyond the constitutional limits. The professor is giving the basics under the US constitution. States and even municipalities are able to give citizens additional rights / protections or impose additional restrictions on police.
Most of the law regarding issues like search & seizure, arrest and detention, the right to remain silent, right to counsel, etc., is governed by the U.S. Constitution as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, the law in this area is mostly *federal* in nature and applies nationwide. Of course each state is free to pass laws that give individuals more rights and restrict what the police can do, but the U.S. Constitution provides a minimal backstop of basic rights that *all* states (and the federal government) have to respect. (With emphasis on the word "minimal".)
WA is similar to TX. We don't have to identify unless legally arrested, then we must give our correct identity. In case of a stop for a traffic violation, we must give name, date of birth, and I think address if we do not produce a license, in which case you can expect to be summoned to court to explain to a judge why you didn't show your license. We are required to show our concealed pistol license upon request, but if your sidearm is truly concealed I don't know how this circumstance would ever arise. Wikipedia has a entry on Stop & ID States to determine if your state provides right to not identify during a lawful Terry stop.
Even if stopped with reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime, a person is only required to provide ID if the stop located in a state with Stop and ID laws (only 23 states have these laws). If you are not located in a state with stop and ID laws you are not required to provide ID when stopped/detained. IF arrested or located in a Stop and ID state you are required by law to identify yourself. Some state Stop and ID laws require you to provide identification documents only if you have them available. In a lawful traffic stop you are always required to provide license, registration, and proof of insurance regardless if located in a state with stop and id laws.
just a little FYI if you ask me to call the police for you, I am only calling to relay your emergency... I am not sharing any of my information with any police officer because it is irrelevant to the cause. I don't have to provide any identification to relay an emergency... so you can promptly screw off if you ask for my identification... thanks, for your cooperation.
If a cop pulls you over while driving and he asks where you're coming from or where you're going to. Do you have to answer those questions? I don't think those questions have anything to do with the traffic stop.
Great question Tom. We'll add this as a topic for a future talk. As a non-lawyer moderator, I tend to agree with your analysis that it doesn't seem relevant at all to a traffic stop. Any lawyers on this channel want to weigh in?
Thank you, i appreciate it. I understand sometimes the questions might be relevant if for example there was a robbery and your car matched the description. But on a normal traffic violation like no signal or running a stop sign. Then those questions aren't relevant.
I'm a lawyer. And no, you never have to answer ANY questions, whether "relevant" to the traffic stop or not. You *_do_* have to provide your driver's license and registration, of course, but that's it. If the cop asks you any questions -- including that time-honored "Do you know why I pulled you over?", you should politely say "I respectfully decline to answer any questions" or "I prefer not to answer any questions" or words to that effect. It may feel weird to say that, and you may feel like you're doing something "wrong" by not answering the officer's questions (after all, we've all been taught since we were children that we're supposed to obey police officers), but not answering their questions is not only your constitutional right, it's the smart thing to do. Police officers are trained to elicit incriminating information from you ("Do you know why I pulled you over?") and they will carefully write down everything you say with a view toward using it against you at trial. Again, contrary to what we were all told as children, the police are NOT your friends. So don't give the cop any rope to hang you with. Just say "I prefer not to answer any questions."
they can if where you are coming from is the bar, amd the reason for stopping you is impaired driving. Often if they are asking those kinds of questions, it's because they know the area, and what has been going on. Think about it. If you're a cop and you know there is a house party going on, it would make sense to ask in case they were coming from there, then you might want to check if they have been drinking. What reason do you have to refuse to answer this anyways? The police here ask those questions all the time. I have never refused to answer. Even if it is as simple as "I was just going for a drive". Unless you are breaking the law, why would you not be as cooperative as you can within the confines of the law?
When stopped by a cop, you are at his or her mercy. Refuse to talk and you will be arrested on some pretext or another. Go to court and the judge will accept whatever the cop says and dismiss what you say. It is a no-win situation. And NEVER go to court without a lawyer or you will be crucified by the so-called justice system.
Citizenry need to pin ID on jacket/shirt or pants. Then these highest divorce rate of all professions, cop, cannot come up with excuses to feel you up. What cop hasnt sexually felt everyone up? Touching is sexual thereby sexual assault.
@@aiden_macleod the last pos police reservist, grope, as lip off, was swept front to back, " face meet floor" his arms rammed, back, up to his neck, he screamed like a girl, I cuffed him ( 5 second drop)
@@aiden_macleod Excuse me? As a matter of fact I am a former police reservist. And that knowledge, based on FTO training, no one has the right, nor authority, to touch another, disregard, nor diss, individuals personal boundaries
He's wrong you cannot in a stop and question scenario be forced to answer questions. And at no time are you compelled to give up your 5th amendment rights. You're not obligated to answer questions or self incriminate yourself
Good point. He is explaining not whether you have to answer the officer's questions. More, if you don't, can they arrest you! That's our bad for the phrasing.
Thanks Jack! It's meant as an introduction to the legal framework, so yes there are some aspects not discussed. But he's explaining the way the courts view your rights in a police stop as a legal framework... not what is practical or what to expect realistically in every police encounter.
within a legal framework, there are certain states that have stop and ID laws, but most don't. This means that if you are detained per Terry vs Ohio, if the state that you are in requires you to provide ID, you must provide ID. If, however, the state that you are in does not have a stop and ID law, you are not required to identify yourself. The narrator's claim that you must identify yourself in you are detained is false *and dangerous*. You don't have to give police this information and you *should not* give police this information, unless there are specific stop and ID laws in the state that you are in when detained.
@ MistrDamige: I think you are misunderstanding the professor. Criminal Procedure -- the area of law that deals with arrests, searches & seizures, etc., is primarily of federal origin. It's based on the U.S. Constitution. The main question that is being asked in most cases is _"What can state law require you to do?_ and _What limitations are there on the police?"_ Of course you can't be required by a local or state cop to identify yourself if there's no state law that requires it. *But that's not the point.* The point is, in those cases where the state does require it (as many, if not most, do), _do you have to comply?_ And the answer is YES, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. (See _Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada_ (2004), 542 US 177)
Does that apply only to stop and identify states? I've read that several states don't require you to identify yourself unless you've been arrested (e.g. Texas 38.02)
USA supreme court 1958 ish. A judge violates oath they war upon the constitution and they have committed treason this is founded in volume 18. Chapter 115 2381.. high treason a capital offense.
Private law is legal fiction aka theory of law. A peace officer must obey uphold defend exercise and have perfect addhearnc to the letter of the law. Via fact of law and the USA vs Lee ruling no one is above the law from the highest to the lowest even the person taking out the trash
As a point to argue against is not to argue with me but the facts of law and the supreme court that is criminal contempt for the court and the letter of the law
I got stopped driving in a store parking lot the officer told me to turn the vehicle off and throw the keys out the window, I told him I will not do that, he then asked why not?, I said I don't answer any questions and I would like a supervisor to come here now, the officer asked why again I told him I don't answer questions but what I will tell you is I have in my possession a dozen Krispy kremes that are not getting confiscated by you cops, he then busted out laughing and said I was free to go and have a nice day! There are some decent cops left.......but rare!! DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS!!!!!!!
I don’t answer questions: I wonder if you fly in from Mexico are Columbia, and a Customs agent start asking you question, is there a defense from answering those questions? Are do you just have to do whatever they say and answer anything they ask you? Do you have a good procedure for that? Thanks
Rules for consulting an overcharging lawyer: 1) Ask the lawyer what his fee is. 2) If he becomes abusive or threatening, walk out of his office. 3) If the lawyer sends you a $1,000 fee bill "for his time," keep the bill but refuse to pay it. 4) For misdemeanors, always represent yourself in court and refuse to give money to any lawyer. 5) If it's a felony , the court will appoint for you a public defender anyway. Remember lawyers do two things: 1) billing and 2) overcharging (aka as "milking"). As for policemen - both state and federal - they do two things: 1) arresting and jailing you and 2) testifying against you. Remember this is just another case for them - they want to make money off you and process you through the legal system like a steer in the slaughter house. They can even misbehave during the court system and the judge will do nothing about it.
Depends on the state if you have to identify. In several states you do not have to provide identification even if they have reasonable suspicion. I know for a fact that Texas and California both have the requirement to provide identification upon ARREST only, otherwise no and Terry vs. Ohio does not supersede those laws and you must look up your locale state laws on identification.
It does depend on the state, but the point is that IF the state requires it, is the state *_allowed_* to require it? And the answer, as a matter of United States Constitutional law, is YES.
A very important point on this subject--maybe the paramount one--that Professor Dan omitted, is whether the law requires that a cop must articulate reasonable suspicion to the "suspect" before the suspect must comply. In a just and fair society, it would be mandatory for the cop to articulate reasonable suspicion to the subject in the same manner as he would do so to a judge in court. What good is the 4th Amendment if we can't determine whether a cop has reasonable suspicion so that we know to comply with a *legal* stop or to challenge an *illegal* detention? I've seen at least one video of a traffic stop in which the cop demanded papers before any explanation of the stop. The suspect asked why he was stopped before presenting papers. The cop refused, said he would do so after the suspect gave his papers, and then arrested the suspect for not presenting his papers. As with so many of these cop abuse videos, I don't know what happened afterwards. So, I need to know whether a court will exonerate me if I am falsely arrested for not complying with orders to present ID if the cop refuses to state his reasonable suspicion, or if he states an obviously unreasonable suspicion. I'm not talking about physical non-compliance, like resisting arrest, but, rather, not complying by showing papers or following other such orders. P.S. I've seen a number of videos in which the detention was challenged, and the "suspect" ended up leaving the scene without presenting ID. For instance, in one traffic stop, the driver asked why he was stopped, and the cop said that he thought that the registration sticker was expired, which he could see was not expired when he was at the car. The driver argued that and was "free to go" without undergoing ID check, etc. So, this issue is not merely a mental exercise.
Thanks you for the video👍🏼it did help me. When i was in Germany i got pulled over. The german police are very disrespectful. And they lied to me and told me that i have to do a sobriety test. And because i do watch such videos on youtube i refused to submit to a search or a sobriety test because first I wasn’t drinking. And i knew that many people would fail the test even if they are not drunk. So i would just be arrested and have my night ruined because of two abusive police men. And the officer lied to me and kept repeating “YOU HAVE TO DO THE TEST” I kept refusing and you know what? He couldn’t do anything and he let me go.
One minor issue with the id request is that you are not required to have or carry id or the federal government would issue it free of charge to all citizens, now the question of identifying yourself if you are legally stopped for either arrest or investigative detention, you must give your full name and date of birth and maybe even your address. But you are not required to buy, have or possess identification and the SCOTUS has ruled as such.
Good point Willie! I think his point was that you have to identify yourself and that's often done through ID but if you don't have ID that isn't a crime.
Reasonable suspicion is what ever story a cop can come up with. It great to talk about rights the big problem is getting them enforced. The cop who is hell bent on arresting you whether you have committed a crime or not isn't going to uphold your rights neither is any other cop on the scene. So who is the judge that you are standing in front of noway. Rights are like the wind you know it is there but you cannot see it and you cannot touch it you can see the destruction it can cause. Rights are words they are meaningless without them being upheld which you cannot do alone that is why the prisons are always full and new ones are built annually.
The problem with pigs is everything is "Suspicious" and they are always "Investigating" and everyone "Matches The Description", meaning two arms, two legs, torso, head.
Right. I had a run in with the cops just waiting for a bus. He said, "You look like our guy". Hell it's wintertime I was bundled up with coat gloves scarf stocking cap and on top of that we are all wearing masks nowadays. I could have been any guy waiting for a bus. We all look the same what's the criteria? Apparently walking on two legs.
There's no legal requirement in the U.S. for a citizen to possess or carry identiication, so it's an error to say one is required to hand over ID upon demand. One can be required to identify oneself, but not to give them ID.
We as people must hold all public officials from law enforcement all the way up to politicians at a much much higher standard than the public not the other way around if the public is held up at a higher standard than the public officials that is tyranny
By Mr. Capra’s explanation, this is why ALL LEOs should be using bodycams. Some officers go beyond the law or just assume that the subjects they stop can refuse to cooperate with them and either intimidate or make up charges to force compliance. Thanks to cellphone cameras, more people are recording their encounters with police but the police themselves should also be utilizing video to hasten investigations and promote transparency by a practical and even handed policy on its use.
Willie, we didn't get to ask Prof. Capra about bodycams. We did discuss cameras at lengh in another interview. Here's an interview with Prof Capers a former AUSA from the Southern District of NY, who is an expert on criminal law and procedure. www.talksonlaw.com/talks/police-technology-from-body-cameras-to-facial-recognition
@Axios .king ; Why not? The Right, not to...….. If I, try and guess at the meaning of your question. "Why not cooperate with the [law inducement]" Google "law inducement" Result: >>> In the law of contracts, the inducement is a pledge or promise that causes an individual to enter into a particular agreement. ... Consideration is the inducement to a contract. In Criminal Law, the term inducement is the motive, or that which leads an individual to engage in criminal conduct. Inducement legal definition of inducement legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/inducement Why would I cooperate with that...……..
@Axios .king ; Anything you say, can and "WILL" be used against you...…. I have the Right, not to self incriminate...… I have the Right, to counsel being present before any questions...… I have the right to remain silent..... Shut up and shut up some more. I have Rights...… Why would I cooperate in an investigation upon myself. I have the Right not to help them screw me over. For the record, yes there is some good officers..... But the bad out way good by a extremely large %...… 90-95% of all cops have never read the Constitution that they Sworn to uphold and to protect our Rights against any and all that try to infringe upon them. Ever day law Enforcement violates more peoples Rights, than all other assholes in this country on a daily basis, only because they are trained to do so, and 95% of the time they get away with it. "We the People" are now the enemy, for the soul sucking purpose of revenue collection. You may not like my point of view.... and I really don't care if you do, either way, the people need good LAW Enforcement Under the Supreme Law of the Land that they sworn to uphold and to protect our Rights, until then, they are getting an "F" on there report card from the lacking of doing there job properly. Does standing on my rights make me a criminal?
@Axios .king ; Resisting? Exercising a Right is not resisting..... Showing a cop compassion and understanding will get me out of a lot of bad situation????? That sounds more like.... lick my boots and kiss my ass and I might be nice to you (Authoritarian Ideology) for sure...… I'm not completely sure, but I can assume, either you have lived a posh protected sheltered life or you're in complete support of this ridiculous ideology or your a cop, most likely not, but your thinking on how it should be is a cops way of thinking for sure, well trained they are...… Comply or your guilty of something, is total BS. Your words, not mine... "America is not about race it's about class" is TOTALLY FUCKUP STINKING THINKING.... Try reading the "Declaration of Independence" and the "Constitution" then and MAYBE then, you might understand, what America is about...….. Just one last thing that I like to say..... Dude, I live on a rock, ya know, third from the sun, no lines, no boarders, no words scribed on this rock, only a bunch of assholes telling me, this is how it is, do as I say or else. Men and women have gave the greatest sacrifice for this country, there life.....for you and I and all others, even idiots, for what?.... it sad to see you don't even know what that is..... If you did know, then you would know what America stands for and what it is about..... Freedom.... Freedom from Authoritarian tyrannical ideology.... The land of the Free...… Damn, just one more, you can take your "low class" and even high class and stick it where the sun don't shine...…..
Reasonable suspicion "OF A CRIME"
Thanks for the comment.
If you've got nothing to worry about, then why make it a bigger issue than it has to be?
Most people, Sovereign Citizens for example, make it a point to NOT allow an officer of the law to perform their duties and do everything in their power to aggravate a situation to the point where the officer is FORCED to make an arrest due to non-complacence.
I believe most logical people would agree with that statement.
@@aiden_macleod
As a logical person, I completely agree. I have had several police encounters, and none of them have amounted to anything. As a general rule, you should cooperate with the police and answer their questions. But then there are reasonable exceptions to that rule you should consider. The main one being when they are potentially accusing you of a serious crime. You should not answer those questions without an attorney. And you should not consent to searches. But if they proceed anyway, you should not resist them. And in most cases, unless you require their assistance, you should not consent to them entering your home. And, again, if they do it anyway, do not resist them.
It's all based around consent, when an officer "asks" what's in you pockets? People hear empty your pockets , anything illegal you pull out , you consented to give it to the officer, during a Terry frisk the officer cannot even manipulate anything in you pocket or on your person , the general public do not hear the difference between asking and being told , I spent 10 weeks in a academy learning how to manipulate that to find reasons to arrest people and then exploit their ignorance of the law and their own rights , needless to say I only lasted about 5 years protecting and educating people from the system
It's has been known that Race Soldiers kkk ws nazi ger plants drugs on people to give them a record. I search your car and put things There too. They love doing this if you tell them that this is a rental car. They know that it's not your so they do it.
Reasonable, principled cops get forced out or quit because they can't stand it.
So they don’t teach basic rights, just how to make we the people look guilty of something. Why any applicant for the police should have a criminal justice degree.
No, those kinda questions are NOT complicated. You are NOT obligated to ID yourself to a cop unless he can reasonably articulate suspicion that you’ve committed a crime, AND you’re being lawfully arrested for that crime. You are NOT obligated to participate in his ‘investigation’ either. You do NOT have to answer any of his questions. You do NOT have to prove anything to the cop. The burden of proof is on him, NOT on the citizen. Bottom line, DO NOT TALK TO COPS. They are NOT your friend, and they are NOT on your side. Know your rights, know the law, and know the Constitution. Cops will try to wipe their ass with your rights, and cops will try to wipe their ass with the Constitution.
You have the right to remain silent, do it! Pick a jury and tee-it-up. Courts will clog and die.
AND TREASON/TYRANNY MUST BE EXECUTED!
EMPLOYEES WERE NEVER GRANTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR AUTHORITY.
STOP BOWING DOWN TO EMPLOYEE POLICE TERRORISM!
antlers163 i would'nt want their job, looking around me i can see more and more assholes and jerks compared to my younger days, they were better people back then.
You don't have to prove anything to the cop? then why do we give them license, registration and insurance? We are prooving we meet the standards for the 'priviledge' of moving-about.
The right to remain silent, trumps any state or local law to provide ID.
The right to remain silent is a Constitutional Right. There is no Constitutional ‘right’ to drive. They passed laws that say, specifically, if you drive then you have to provide this information to the harassers and extorters (cops - tax collectors with badges and guns).
“Reasonable suspicion” aka made up story about they’re looking for someone with the same jacket you’re wearing
An officer can judge reasonable suspicion based solely on their training, there need not even be any BOLO out or anything of that nature at all
As the replies to this comment point out, it can be a lot of effort (sometimes impossible) to definitively determine if there was reasonable suspicion... so much so that for most people with limited time and resources, it is only worth pursuing when facing criminal charges, and then as mentioned below, it can be based on the officers perception. This is why many people feel nervous when talking to police even when they've done nothing wrong. We wish we could say everything works perfectly all the time, but as you point out it doesn't. Still, we believe citizens should be better informed both relating to our rights and the risks at play. Thx for the comment.
Matthew Alistair yes your right it happened to me the cop told me I fit the description of a suspect, I know it was bullshit cause I asked the cop how.long ago was this called in he said he did know
It's the biggest scam on Americans. Most of us are not drivers, and do not need a 'driver's licence.'
Matthew Alistair you immediately ask for the exact criminal complaint or police report that specifically identifies you as the possible "subject" identified!
"... The answer is, as in most legal questions, THAT DEPENDS." And with that, I now know exactly as much about this subject as I did BEFORE I watched this video. Thanks Professor Capes but I dare say this video was less than helpful!
dredkalifighter sorry you didn’t find it more helpful. You’re definitely right that it’s super murky, but as you pointed out so are the rules. So we asked him to share the law and the messy reality of it.
No. You never have to answer questions. No matter what they ask you.
Another thing wrong with this is you don't have to ID yourself unless suspected of a crime. Even in stop and ID states....in states with no stop and ID statutes, well....
& a
@2:00 they cannot make YOU empty your pockets. That would be aiding them in searching you. You don't have to assist them in investigating or searching you. You'd be incriminating yourself.
Is this guy really a lawyer? Because he sucks.
Yeah this is bullshit video. No need to answer any questions even detains or under arrest. There is no "depends".
A lawyer would tell you , that YOU don’t have to talk to police. And one shouldn’t talk to police.
If you haven't broken any laws you don't have to comply-do anything they say. Problem most cops act illegally and get away with whatever they do.
Not true. All a peace officer needs is "probable cause" whether you think you have broken the law or not. By your ignorance, anyone could say, "I don't have to comply because I haven't done anything wrong." That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Most cops don't act illegally because if they did cases would not be filed by D.A.'s because they know it would be thrown out. D.A.'s only file cases they feel they can win and pass legal muster. Any cop that consistently ignored the constitution would be admonished by his supervisors, the assistant district attornies who can't win the cases, and would ultimately be fired. Police don't operate in a vacuum, and the judicial system has a say in what they can do by what they will accept to take to court. Why are people so stupid and think they know so much, when clearly they have no real knowledge on a subject.
@@rchapel Ron, don't conflated probable cause and reasonable suspicion. They need reasonable suspicion to detain you, and probable cause to arrest you. For clarification, read this:
www.taylorlawco.com/blog/reasonable-suspicion-and-probable-cause-what-s-the-difference.cfm
That and the scumbag and utterly corrupt judges are there to protect the pricks in uniform otherwise known as the public (dis) servants.
@@veryfarfromhome And they must be able to articulate the suspicion. Just be "suspicious" does not constitute Probable Cause. I also like to ask them, " do you have your miranda rights card on you??? Good, Read the first line . . . . . . . " You have the right to Remain silent, anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law. . . . . . . . "
Joe, I’ll enjoy watching your net police encounter on UA-cam. Lol
ID: Maybe. Answers: Never.
this means that there is essentially no difference between a free citizen and a criminal in a prison. the cops have the leverage to treat a citizen like a convicted criminal and administer extra judicial executions over a traffic stop. It is not what the law says, but the law cannot help you if you are dead
(You have the- right- to remain silent.)
Anything do or say will be helds againts in the court of law
Matthew Danielsen I cant breathe..
@@rushhour775 ok?
That's right we have the right to remain silent
But I didn't have the ability
Officer, "You have any identification?"
Me, "You can call me Have A Nice Day."
Officer, "Have A Nice Day?"
Me, "You too officer." as I walk away...
Timothy McNulty 😂. Ever tried that one?
It's not a consent to give false ID ?
How is that working for you?
This guy is amazing. Let's see some more of these though!
I find it interesting that we encounter law enforcement officers so often and just assume that we have to obey their orders just because they're cops. Thanks for the insightful video, much of this information most people aren't aware of.
They asked me my brothers phone number. I didnt want to give it out. I didnt know my rights. They dont carevabout them.
I (mostly) obey cops not because they are cops. But because they can get away with doing illegal stuffs to get me in a lot of trouble. (For example, arrest me and jail me for at least 48 hours for no good reason, then never press any charges) Sad, but thats the reality.
Cop- “you got your id?”
Me- “keep your hands were I can see them”
Cop- “I’m the boss here.”
Me- “when are you going to pay me?”
May we politely suggest the following de-escalation for remedy?
THE TRUST IS COLLAPSED....in other words, your company is no longer granting them any more credit.
If the policeman is not lawfully investigating the crime on behalf of the male/female victim and is entering YOUR company jurisdiction without you summonsing them, then would it not be advisable to be politely placing YOUR public-servants/trustees under your notification that your company is charging $707 per hour/part-there-of for YOUR company time and also $717 for YOUR company performance?....and that any further communicating (verbal) and/ or corresponding (written) with your company, is with them accepting the terms & conditions of the commercial contract IN THE PRIVATE (the cop and their CHIEF and their POLICE UNION is now with PERSONAL liability.... because Notice-to-Agent-is-Notice-to-Principal....and also through JOINDER)
This way, you are NOT resisting/refusing to obey/comply with their orders/demands/policy /questions, but instead, you are now willing to perform WITH THE CONDITION that payment is with your company immediately, because you have NO CONFIDENCE with them administrating YOUR company trust!
THE PUBLIC TRUST IS COLLAPSED...Why is YOUR company issuing them extra credit! Are YOU not the executor and the beneficiary of YOUR trust?...making them the trustees, whom are with their fiduciary obligation and duty-of-care to be NOT causing you injury nor damage nor loss nor harm.
Is THEIR job YOUR job? Is THEIR company policy YOUR company policy?
not unless and until they are PAYING for your company time & performance
THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IS COLLAPSED...YOUR company is no longer performing free-of-charge!
You may be willing to pursue the matter through the small-claims-court and/or through arbitration which is held in-the-private because PUBLIC court is only for the PUBLIC servant.
YOUR TRUST FUND IS NOW WITH RESTORATION....YOUR company now making money from every encounter with YOUR public-servants because the days of doing something with your trustees for free are over.
PS-Be the BUSINESS man with your public-servants.....NOT the victim.....this will involve SOME talking to the police...for YOUR benefit.
@@mccabeianenator you and your big fancy words
@@grigoriyefimovichrasputin7897
Thank you for your reply.
Our apologies for the (rather lengthy) comment.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to act as sub-editor and submit an abridged version (we don`t claim to have all the answers) as our intention is only to help others.
Thanks in advance.
@@mccabeianenator Are you some kind of supervisor for the internet?
@@grigoriyefimovichrasputin7897
Thanks for the reply.
Does such a position exist?....and if so, to whom do we send our invoice?...
(we wouldn't`t want to be giving our time and performance for free!)
Yeah I know theres cops out there that think there above the law n can get away with or make up anything they want, but in my life I found it's best to just show ur ID n move on.
Maybe lick their boots as well? Or if they demand, a BJ??
@@gimmeabreak7531 Wow, thanks for letting everyone know what your past police encounters have been.
Good information, professor. Thanks.
TALKSONLAW informative examples given here thanks for posting this!
Professor, professor, professor. Reasonable ARTICULABLE Suspicion. You left out a most important word. Also, you conflate a lawful demand by police to ID with the possible voiding of the 4th and 5th amendment. A person who is lawfully required to ID can only voluntarily waive their 4th and 5th amendments. A person can always refuse consent to searches, as well as exercise their right to remain silent.
Thanks for the comment! As a moderator, I can't speak for the professor, but you're right in noting that this is an overview and doesn't get into some of the details of 4th and 5th Amendment legal rules or the difficulties of an equal protection claim under the 14th Amendment. For a more in depth discussion, check out this 1hour-long interview on your rights vis-a-vis police power. www.talksonlaw.com/talks/police-power-and-personal-rights
Why did he not mention the officer has to tell you what he has done ? to be stopped .
Perhaps because there is no legal requirement anywhere in the Republic that an officer has to tell a person why they are being stopped. Hell, the courts have even ruled the police may lie to people about such things.
@ NeverTalktoCops: The phrase is "Reasonable suspicion". Yes, it must be based on articulable facts, but the phrase that everyone, including the courts, uses is "Reasonable suspicion".
NO LAW CAN VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, AND HOLD LEGAL AUTHORITY...THIS IS FACT!
NO MATTER WHAT TGE EMPLOYEE SAYS, THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW, FUCK THE JUDGE, COURTS AND POLICE...NOBODY WILL BE ALLOWED TO VIOLATE OUR RIGHTS!
DOING THIS CRIME CAN GET YOU SHOT DEAD FOR TYRANNY!
THE CONSTITUTION STATES: AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC...NO DISCERNING WHAT THAT ENEMY MIGHT BE...SO....THAT CHOICE IS CLEARLY OPEN FOR OUR DETERMINATION ONLY!
If you choose to close your mouth and absolutely refuse to speak one single word to police, or anyone else, you are within your rights and as far as I know, the US Constitution protects that action as a right.
You said it right, "As far as you know" which isn't very much.
And you're going to jail
Gotch'ya thanks for the clarification
Thanks for clearing that up.All seems incorruptible to me.
It's only corruptible because you perceive it is.
I bet every one of those dislikes on this video are from cops who have exploited the fact that some people don't know their rights in the past to meet their "quota".
I think maybe it's more from the people who tried the tactic and was detained until their identification was established and those are the ones who disliked it. I bet you even secretly disliked it too, because you misunderstand the concept yourself.
Video is entitled "Do you you have to answer a police officer's questions?". Content of video addressed 2 main points. #1: when you have to provide ID and #2: when you can be searched. No where was the actual subject addressed.
Are we sure this guy is a lawyer?
No hes full of shit and incorrect in his statements. And if he was either a cop or a lawyer there a reason hes not anymore.
Good to know. Thanks!
patricia craig thanks for the support! Check out our other explainers on individual rights and police power.
thank you.
Thank you Cameron!
okay thanks for the update Professor the next time I'm in the county jail because I did not comply I'll give you a call will you be my lawyer
Thomas Norman the laws say otherwise
Any false misleading inconstant material statements in an official proceeding is a felony .
And if you don't comply, the officer will sometimes illegally detain you and argue with you until they can come up with fradulent charges, because their power ego was hurt.
No need to "come up with something." If you don't cooperate you're subject to arrest.
Most "consensual encounters" will start with you denying to identify, and then they will cite "policy of any encounters we ask for id" that protects their immunity, afterwards they will say that you are suspicious because you didn't identify and officially detain you.
There's one thing in this life that I must do - die. Everything else is up for negotiation.
Starts for the time you take your first breath. Many things have consequences for not soing them but death is inevitable for all no matter how much money you have.
So all they have to say is they suspect u have a weapon and no bill of rights for u, charming!
Paul Roos so true but plan on jail the right to remain silent is for the innocent until court
It is not a protection for a criminal. I point everyone to the 1963 ruling and judgment of chief justice Ritter ut Teratory court Federal his is the controlling ruling and was used in Miranda vs AZ
It keeps the criminals who actually have concealed weapons from shooting innocents. If you've got nothing to worry about, then you won't have anything to worry about. Why is this concept so foreign to so many people?
@@davidfaulkner7456 I bet that sentence was a bitch to write, wasn't it?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you
As a Canadian friend said, if you don't know if a police officer is asking or ordering you to do something, ask "Must I, sir?". If it is an order, or the officer thinks it is an legal order, you will find out quickly. Then comply with a "Yes, sir". If not, say "I would rather not, sir". The exceptions are the field sobriety tests and roadside breath tests.. In America the walking tests are misused to fail everyone so always refuse those and many roadside breath tests aren't calibrated, unless used by certified DUI task forces in very few states. DUI convictions in quite a few counties in America are profit centers, money from fines, and not about proper enforcement.
Papers please.
Don’t all they have to say is that you fit a description of a suspect for reasonable suspicion?
Pfft. All they have to say is your vehicle is suspicious or resembles a vehicle used in a crime.
One night we got pulled over. They said our car was "just like one used in a robbery". Uh huh.
My car: 1976 Chevy Monte Carlo.
Silver body, brown fenders, with a yellow hood. No way there were two such ugly cars yet that was their story. They searched for stolen goods. Found nothing. They were fishing for a dui..it was 1:45 AM.
They were VERY interested in my carpentry tools. They kept calling them burglar tools so I had my boss call them the next day and point out that yep...he is a carpenter.
Yes.
@@mikeries8549 Let me guess, a DUI?
1:45 am? Ugly car? Tools in the back? Sounds ripe for a burglary in the making to me.
I'd be suspicious of that car at that time of night too.
We live in a Polce State .
These questions are puny compared to what's happening to our constant loss of privacy .
What if the cop says your completely legal actions are suspicious? They pretty much have a license to say anything is suspicious.
Good video, but we All know every officer is going to Say they have "reasonable suspicion" whether they do or not.
Thanks Tom. Yes, some critics argue that some police may attempt to claim reasonable suspicion in hindsight after they've uncovered the additional evidence.
TALKSONLAW All a cop has to do is say he smells marijuana coming out of the vehicle or on a person, and they can legally search your car or person. That's why most people don't trust cops.
Well at least you're going to ask him on camera to state what his reasonable suspicion is. If he doesn't respond which is likely, maybe that's something a lawyer can use. And if he says something then maybe that too is something a lawyer can use. I would never skip asking for reasonable suspicion.
Soooo.... nobody has heard about the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree? You can't just make PC up without anything founding it, unless of course you want to lose your job and be sued.
@@TomO-if7nh ACTUALLY, NO!
SUSPICION STILL DEMANDS A LEGAL WARRANT BEFORE A SEARCH. FORGET WHAT TGEY TOLD YOU, IT IS ILLEGAL TO SEARCH WITHOUT PERMISSION OR WARRANT...WHICH MUST BE SPECIFIC..OR IT IS CRIMINAL.
FORCED SEARCHES ARE ALWAYS THROWN OUT, THEY HAVE NO LEGAL SUPPORT TO VALIDATE SUCH ACTS.
PROBABLE CAUSE IS NOT A FREE FOR ALL TO SEARCH, IT IS TGE LOWEST DETERMINING VALUE TO OBTAIN A WARRANT WITH, THAT IS TGE LEGAL DEFINITION, NOT WHAT THE EMPLOYEE SAID...HE IS NOT THE LAW, NOR ARE THEY LAWYERS...NO POWER TO ACT AS ONE...
WHEN COPS CITE LAW, YOU CAN PROSECUTE THEM FOR PLAYING ATTORNEY WITHOUT LICENSE.
ADDED CHARGE IF THEY FORCE A SEARCH WITHOUT A VALID WARRANT.
FOR US, IF THE WARRANT IS HANDLED BY THE EMPLOYEE, WE REFUSE IT.
WE ONLY RECOGNIZE THE SOLE ELECTED COP...THE SHERIFF, NOT THE HIRED HENCHMEN..WE CDO NOT OBEY THE HELP, THEY HOLD NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY..
It’s always kept gray so cops can violate your constitutional rights! Reasonable suspicion is subjective. Laws should never be subjective.
You're right that proving an officer lacked reasonable suspicion can be very hard, unless the officer happens to admit it (that does occasionally happen)... Do you think police body cameras would help?
I was once questioned by the police and I was glad to answer his questions, this way I had a chance to tell my side of the story. Everything worked out in my favor.
Thanks Joe. Of course we are not suggesting people refuse to help or communicate with police… just answering the question of what happens legally if you choose not to. Is “sorry I’m in a hurry,” likely to result in an official stop? Etc.
Sometimes and sometimes not. Many more people get into trouble by talking with the police than by exercising their rights. This refers to targets not witnesses.
In examining a large number of cases in which people were convicted of crimes and later exonerated by DNA or other solid evidence, it turns out that in nearly every case the person wrongfully convicted cooperated with or spoke with police at the time of the original investigation. What that should tell every single innocent person is to NEVER, EVER speak with or answer questions of police unless advised to do so by an attorney representing his/her interests. Period.
YOU'RE STUPID TOO. It has nothing to do with cooperating. The police don't do anything but make arrests. The DA decides to prosecute based on evidence. a judge arbitrates, and a jury decides.
@@rchapel The police collect evidence of a crime that WILL be used against you in a court of law by the Prosecuting Attorney. That includes ANYTHING that you might say. If you don't say anything, then they don't have any comments to twist or misrepresent.... Larry Glick is very accurate in his advice.
SCOTUS has even said they tou don't have to talk to police and shouldn't. Your so full of bs.
Question, professor.
Do you offer to HELP us peons out on the streets getting violated by the cops?
Sadly we're just legal education platform and don't have lawyers on the ground... Here's some advice from the ACLU for those who feel their rights have been violated by law enforcement:
"Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don't physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint.
Write down everything you remember, including officers' badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses. If you are injured, take photographs of your injuries (but seek medical attention first).
File a written complaint with the agency's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish. Call your local ACLU or visit www.aclu.org/profiling."
I am NOT "LOL'ing"
Advice from the Amerikan Communists Lawyers Union? As Larry the Cable Guy would say, "that's funny, I don't care WHO you are."
Have YOU ever tried contacting / using them?
Scripture says you're a hypocrite if you tell someone, "be warm and be filled," yet you do NOTHING to make it happen.
@@tooge47 I'm just a youtube moderator of a legal education company, but yeah I'd try and help if I saw injustice on the street, but I personally wouldn't know too much. Prof Capra from the video is an expert on criminal law though and he uses his legal understanding to help advise judges on the rules of evidence.
@@tooge47 Another idiot who doesn't comprehend the difference between 'CIVIL LIBERTIES" and 'communist'. The ACLU takes on all kinds of cases where AMERICANS" rights are infringed. How would you know they're 'difficult to contact' if you hadn't tried to? That begs the question...if you describe them as 'Amerikan communists' (the k fits the KLAN which is diametrically opposite to communist, which makes you sound very confused if not downright ignorant), why did you try to have them help you in the first place?
Stop doing stupid shit.
That's the best advice anyone could give right there.
I suppose it depends on state law, but the only time a citizen has to provide identification is when he or she is arrested. Identification doesn't have to be physical; it can be verbal, and quite often this is the letter of the law.
Jake Gyllenhaal with his beard holding has AR as a thumbnail 😂
Maxim of Law
"No man is bound to arm his adversary."
Miranda v Arizona opinion and holding Americans have the right to remain silent.
And wrong, reasonable suspicion is not probable cause.
"Any restraint, however slight, upon another's liberty to come and go as one pleases, constitutes an arrest."
Swetnam v. W. F. Woolworth Co., 318 P.2d 364, 366, 83 Ariz. 189.
An arrest without probable cause is aggravated kidnapping or false imprisonment and the capital felony of treason.
Miranda raises a good point about rights after someone is arrested. This explanation is focused on the question of when if ever is there a requirement to obey police orders or requests prior to an arrest and whether refusal could lead to reasonable suspicion for a stop or probable case for an arrest.
Really? Since when does exercising or invoking a right fulfill the criteria of Reasonable Articulable Suspcion? The police can not develop RAS from a person invoking their right to remain silent, same for developing probable cause. A right can not be converted into a crime.
Well said! I think James's point may have been that sometimes even if no right has been given up, and no RAS in fact exists, the officer may be able to create some pretext for the arrest after the fact. When that happens, it can be difficult to prove.
EVERY lawyer worth their salt will tell every client NEVER talk to the police without counsel present and without a "lawful arrest" No id is ever required. Brown v Texas, Kolender v Lawson and Miranda v Arizona....and the second an officer states YOU cannot leave YOU ARE under arrest.
I was kidnapped for refusing to provide information as a passenger and that sworn servant is now paying me 150k from his pocket for the felonies he committed, because I refused to play his traitor games.
ANYTHING you say to any of these officers CAN and WILL be used to harm you....Only a fool would ever willingly speak to them without many witnesses....I had video that proved his felonies he settled before I took it to a jury for 65 years +1.8 million.... Of course being a 2 decade combat vet and ex lawman helped.
Kidnapped me for 64 hours, but agreed to the fee I charged and was stupid enough to tell my wife when she asked why I was being arrested "I don't know, but I'll think of something, with the way he acted." Proving not only, he had no probable cause, but that his act was malicious. I agreed to non disclosure, but yeah, I have it taped.....Will never be non disclosure again, in fact one ever tries to kidnap me again....I'll absolutely resist, NO man is obligated to be compliant to kidnapping and false imprisonment, by a treasonous felon with a badge.
It's still not clear in my mind as to how to proceed. Definitely vague here.
Not clear in my mind either. I still don't know what to do in such a situation. That's because, although the laws themselves are not vague, the day-to-day, real-time interpretations often are. I was surprised to hear him say that we have to comply with an ID demand in those cases.
Nope and nope. Talk to my lawyer. All you need to say.
depends on country.
in my country we dont even have to have id
NO. RAS is only enough to detain and demand ID in a stop and ID state. In a state that does not have a stop and ID law you do not have to provide ID unless you have been lawfully arrested.
Grendelbc so to ask for id they need a crime period. most cops dont practice that.
To DEMAND ID they need reasonable suspicion of a crime (in a stop and ID state). They can ask anytime but you do not legally have to provide. You film the encounter to keep them in line and protect yourself.
Wrong.....Try Brown V Texas and Kolender v Lawson, unless "lawfully" arrest you have no obligation to id...EVER. Arrest requires probable cause and to detain, IS an arrest by definition.
Pedestrians do not have to have identification in any state of this country as confirmed by the SCOTUS. If an officer stops a pedestrian for reasonable suspicion or probable cause, they can request identification either verbally or a physical identification card but you do not have to carry identification as a pedestrian.
Even in a stop and id state, you do not have to id if you "properly" claim your fifth amendment right.
Even if you're suspected of a crime you still have a constitutional right to remain silent and haev legal counsel before answering any questions...so how it that right not violated by being forced to tell law enforcement your name? Doesn't' make sense.
Jesus Faith good point! You’re right. You have a 5th Amendment right to remain silent. But I THINK his point is that if the officer has reasonable suspicion to stop you, not answering any of her questions may result in your being arrested. You are right though, after being arrested we have the right to remain silent.
Yeah, it's bull$#!+, but in the U.S. Supreme Court's never-ending quest to demolish your constitutional rights (even if it means ignoring its own previous rulings), the court has said that the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination doesn't apply to a demand for identification if reasonable suspicion is present. _Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada_ (2008).
Especially when operating a motor vehicle, you must provide your identification because your license is required to operate said vehicle. If you can't be identified, then it's impossible to determine if you have a license to legally operate the vehicle.
Of course, that's agreed upon, but if you're not driving a vehicle then you should not be compelled in any way to talk or give any information since its our constitutional right to remain silent and non drivers are not required to carry any form of ID. End of Story.
@ Matt: Yes, in the case if a traffic stop, the police officer has a right to ask for your driver's license -- but of course the cop still has to have reasonable suspicion to stop you in the first place.
went to Theodore Roosevelt high on Fordham road
One thing that is missed here is that traffic stops are treated somewhat differently. A cop that has pulled you over for breaking a traffic violation can ask for ID and you have to provide it, along with registration and proof of insurance. This is true even if the traffic violation is not considered a crime. A lot of sovereign citizens think otherwise.
Soooooo...I just don’t carry my ID on me unless I’m driving 😉, correct?
No, u simply forget license take out from other jeans .
Doesn't mean that you can get away without being identified. No I.D.? What's your name and date of birth. Doesn't come back in the computer? You're lying, obstructing and arrested and held on suspicion until you are identified. Pick your poison.
Your analysis on ID is not true in every state. For example in Tx you do not have to Id unless you are under lawful arrest and failure to ID is a secondary charge. Some exception do exist. For instance if they giving yo a ticket for some reason.
Good point. States do have the ability to restrict police power beyond the constitutional limits. The professor is giving the basics under the US constitution. States and even municipalities are able to give citizens additional rights / protections or impose additional restrictions on police.
Most of the law regarding issues like search & seizure, arrest and detention, the right to remain silent, right to counsel, etc., is governed by the U.S. Constitution as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, the law in this area is mostly *federal* in nature and applies nationwide. Of course each state is free to pass laws that give individuals more rights and restrict what the police can do, but the U.S. Constitution provides a minimal backstop of basic rights that *all* states (and the federal government) have to respect. (With emphasis on the word "minimal".)
P and P News you didn’t understand anything the man said did you?!!
WA is similar to TX. We don't have to identify unless legally arrested, then we must give our correct identity. In case of a stop for a traffic violation, we must give name, date of birth, and I think address if we do not produce a license, in which case you can expect to be summoned to court to explain to a judge why you didn't show your license. We are required to show our concealed pistol license upon request, but if your sidearm is truly concealed I don't know how this circumstance would ever arise.
Wikipedia has a entry on Stop & ID States to determine if your state provides right to not identify during a lawful Terry stop.
serious...that's kind of shocking that you would talk about ID as fact when what your saying is not even 100% true
Even if stopped with reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime, a person is only required to provide ID if the stop located in a state with Stop and ID laws (only 23 states have these laws). If you are not located in a state with stop and ID laws you are not required to provide ID when stopped/detained. IF arrested or located in a Stop and ID state you are required by law to identify yourself. Some state Stop and ID laws require you to provide identification documents only if you have them available. In a lawful traffic stop you are always required to provide license, registration, and proof of insurance regardless if located in a state with stop and id laws.
just a little FYI if you ask me to call the police for you, I am only calling to relay your emergency... I am not sharing any of my information with any police officer because it is irrelevant to the cause. I don't have to provide any identification to relay an emergency... so you can promptly screw off if you ask for my identification...
thanks, for your cooperation.
If a cop pulls you over while driving and he asks where you're coming from or where you're going to. Do you have to answer those questions? I don't think those questions have anything to do with the traffic stop.
Great question Tom. We'll add this as a topic for a future talk. As a non-lawyer moderator, I tend to agree with your analysis that it doesn't seem relevant at all to a traffic stop. Any lawyers on this channel want to weigh in?
Thank you, i appreciate it. I understand sometimes the questions might be relevant if for example there was a robbery and your car matched the description. But on a normal traffic violation like no signal or running a stop sign. Then those questions aren't relevant.
I'm a lawyer. And no, you never have to answer ANY questions, whether "relevant" to the traffic stop or not. You *_do_* have to provide your driver's license and registration, of course, but that's it. If the cop asks you any questions -- including that time-honored "Do you know why I pulled you over?", you should politely say "I respectfully decline to answer any questions" or "I prefer not to answer any questions" or words to that effect.
It may feel weird to say that, and you may feel like you're doing something "wrong" by not answering the officer's questions (after all, we've all been taught since we were children that we're supposed to obey police officers), but not answering their questions is not only your constitutional right, it's the smart thing to do. Police officers are trained to elicit incriminating information from you ("Do you know why I pulled you over?") and they will carefully write down everything you say with a view toward using it against you at trial. Again, contrary to what we were all told as children, the police are NOT your friends. So don't give the cop any rope to hang you with. Just say "I prefer not to answer any questions."
You are always coming from a "known drug origin point" and going to a "known drug destination.". Every city in the country fits these descriptions.
they can if where you are coming from is the bar, amd the reason for stopping you is impaired driving.
Often if they are asking those kinds of questions, it's because they know the area, and what has been going on. Think about it. If you're a cop and you know there is a house party going on, it would make sense to ask in case they were coming from there, then you might want to check if they have been drinking.
What reason do you have to refuse to answer this anyways? The police here ask those questions all the time. I have never refused to answer. Even if it is as simple as "I was just going for a drive". Unless you are breaking the law, why would you not be as cooperative as you can within the confines of the law?
Talk to my lawyer. I will remain silent. (Of course, I have a weapon, I’m an American with a right to keep and bear Arms)
WISE ARCADIAN always an option!
You will be arrested.
The choice is between Lexington or Dachau.
When stopped by a cop, you are at his or her mercy. Refuse to talk and you will be arrested on some pretext or another. Go to court and the judge will accept whatever the cop says and dismiss what you say. It is a no-win situation. And NEVER go to court without a lawyer or you will be crucified by the so-called justice system.
I'm from New Jersey and if i get pulled over I give him my papers and that's it. Either i get the ticket or I don't get the ticket lol
That was clear as mud.
Citizenry need to pin ID on jacket/shirt or pants. Then these highest divorce rate of all professions, cop, cannot come up with excuses to feel you up. What cop hasnt sexually felt everyone up? Touching is sexual thereby sexual assault.
Lol.
I bet you liked it too?
@@aiden_macleod the last pos police reservist, grope, as lip off, was swept front to back, " face meet floor" his arms rammed, back, up to his neck, he screamed like a girl,
I cuffed him
( 5 second drop)
@@iiatargetanalyst3046 Sounds like a nice story. Tell it to Readers Digest.
@@iiatargetanalyst3046 So, you DID like it?
@@aiden_macleod Excuse me? As a matter of fact I am a former police reservist. And that knowledge, based on FTO training, no one has the right, nor authority, to touch another, disregard, nor diss, individuals personal boundaries
I can't imagine having to sit in a class and listen to this guy talk for an hour 3 times a week.
Average median salary of Fordham Law School graduate is $160,000/yr. I would sit and listen to him fart 3 times a week for that salary.
That's why you have the job you have
@ bobberguy1: LOL! According to who, Fordham Law School???
Well, if you get stopped. You will wish you did.
Obedience is death! ~Jim Morrison
I must obey facts of law
He's wrong you cannot in a stop and question scenario be forced to answer questions. And at no time are you compelled to give up your 5th amendment rights. You're not obligated to answer questions or self incriminate yourself
Good point. He is explaining not whether you have to answer the officer's questions. More, if you don't, can they arrest you! That's our bad for the phrasing.
And where did you go to law school? You have no 5th Amendment Rights until you are ARRESTED fool.
cool video...but it's full of holes.
Thanks Jack! It's meant as an introduction to the legal framework, so yes there are some aspects not discussed. But he's explaining the way the courts view your rights in a police stop as a legal framework... not what is practical or what to expect realistically in every police encounter.
within a legal framework, there are certain states that have stop and ID laws, but most don't. This means that if you are detained per Terry vs Ohio, if the state that you are in requires you to provide ID, you must provide ID. If, however, the state that you are in does not have a stop and ID law, you are not required to identify yourself. The narrator's claim that you must identify yourself in you are detained is false *and dangerous*. You don't have to give police this information and you *should not* give police this information, unless there are specific stop and ID laws in the state that you are in when detained.
@ MistrDamige: I think you are misunderstanding the professor. Criminal Procedure -- the area of law that deals with arrests, searches & seizures, etc., is primarily of federal origin. It's based on the U.S. Constitution. The main question that is being asked in most cases is _"What can state law require you to do?_ and _What limitations are there on the police?"_
Of course you can't be required by a local or state cop to identify yourself if there's no state law that requires it. *But that's not the point.* The point is, in those cases where the state does require it (as many, if not most, do), _do you have to comply?_ And the answer is YES, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. (See _Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada_ (2004), 542 US 177)
The whole ID check here in Texas San Antonio area 38.02 it works
Does that apply only to stop and identify states? I've read that several states don't require you to identify yourself unless you've been arrested (e.g. Texas 38.02)
Nice theory.
Reality: As soon You no to a cop
- You become a suspect.
Game over.
USA supreme court 1958 ish. A judge violates oath they war upon the constitution and they have committed treason this is founded in volume 18. Chapter 115 2381.. high treason a capital offense.
Also 18 115 2384 and 2385. Apply
2384 sedition to attack a citizen inside or outside of the United states to violate oath. The enemy within statute
Private law is legal fiction aka theory of law. A peace officer must obey uphold defend exercise and have perfect addhearnc to the letter of the law. Via fact of law and the USA vs Lee ruling no one is above the law from the highest to the lowest even the person taking out the trash
As a point to argue against is not to argue with me but the facts of law and the supreme court that is criminal contempt for the court and the letter of the law
I got stopped driving in a store parking lot the officer told me to turn the vehicle off and throw the keys out the window, I told him I will not do that, he then asked why not?, I said I don't answer any questions and I would like a supervisor to come here now, the officer asked why again I told him I don't answer questions but what I will tell you is I have in my possession a dozen Krispy kremes that are not getting confiscated by you cops, he then busted out laughing and said I was free to go and have a nice day! There are some decent cops left.......but rare!! DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS!!!!!!!
I don’t answer questions: I wonder if you fly in
from Mexico are Columbia, and a Customs agent start asking you question, is
there a defense from answering those questions? Are do you just have to do
whatever they say and answer anything they ask you? Do you have a good
procedure for that? Thanks
Exactly.Reasonable suspicion...only problem with that is that it is open to interpretation.....its grey and murky
I could have become a cop. . . . but I was disqualified. They found out my parents were married.
And they weren't brother and sister.
I WOULD!!!
I cite the rod class case in context to lawfully acting.
that "reasonable suspicion" is so easy to use
Thanks for your comment, Mikey B.
Rules for consulting an overcharging lawyer: 1) Ask the lawyer what his fee is. 2) If he becomes abusive or threatening, walk out of his office. 3) If the lawyer sends you a $1,000 fee bill "for his time," keep the bill but refuse to pay it. 4) For misdemeanors, always represent yourself in court and refuse to give money to any lawyer. 5) If it's a felony , the court will appoint for you a public defender anyway. Remember lawyers do two things: 1) billing and 2) overcharging (aka as "milking"). As for policemen - both state and federal - they do two things: 1) arresting and jailing you and 2) testifying against you. Remember this is just another case for them - they want to make money off you and process you through the legal system like a steer in the slaughter house. They can even misbehave during the court system and the judge will do nothing about it.
There is not justice in America, only law. You are always under suspicion.
Always Attorney up and remain Silent. Call a Attorney
Other than being tasered, beaten, or shot, how do you know which one of the first two id stops apply?
Depends on the state if you have to identify. In several states you do not have to provide identification even if they have reasonable suspicion. I know for a fact that Texas and California both have the requirement to provide identification upon ARREST only, otherwise no and Terry vs. Ohio does not supersede those laws and you must look up your locale state laws on identification.
It does depend on the state, but the point is that IF the state requires it, is the state *_allowed_* to require it? And the answer, as a matter of United States Constitutional law, is YES.
'What happens on the ground'
Like when a knee is jammed in the small of your back....lol
How about pepper spray when you're being an idiot? You hit the ground real quick I bet.
A very important point on this subject--maybe the paramount one--that Professor Dan omitted, is whether the law requires that a cop must articulate reasonable suspicion to the "suspect" before the suspect must comply. In a just and fair society, it would be mandatory for the cop to articulate reasonable suspicion to the subject in the same manner as he would do so to a judge in court. What good is the 4th Amendment if we can't determine whether a cop has reasonable suspicion so that we know to comply with a *legal* stop or to challenge an *illegal* detention? I've seen at least one video of a traffic stop in which the cop demanded papers before any explanation of the stop. The suspect asked why he was stopped before presenting papers. The cop refused, said he would do so after the suspect gave his papers, and then arrested the suspect for not presenting his papers. As with so many of these cop abuse videos, I don't know what happened afterwards. So, I need to know whether a court will exonerate me if I am falsely arrested for not complying with orders to present ID if the cop refuses to state his reasonable suspicion, or if he states an obviously unreasonable suspicion. I'm not talking about physical non-compliance, like resisting arrest, but, rather, not complying by showing papers or following other such orders.
P.S. I've seen a number of videos in which the detention was challenged, and the "suspect" ended up leaving the scene without presenting ID. For instance, in one traffic stop, the driver asked why he was stopped, and the cop said that he thought that the registration sticker was expired, which he could see was not expired when he was at the car. The driver argued that and was "free to go" without undergoing ID check, etc. So, this issue is not merely a mental exercise.
Thanks! Good point. We will look into having the professor or another legal expert in to explain this relate question!
Thanks you for the video👍🏼it did help me. When i was in Germany i got pulled over. The german police are very disrespectful. And they lied to me and told me that i have to do a sobriety test. And because i do watch such videos on youtube i refused to submit to a search or a sobriety test because first I wasn’t drinking. And i knew that many people would fail the test even if they are not drunk. So i would just be arrested and have my night ruined because of two abusive police men. And the officer lied to me and kept repeating “YOU HAVE TO DO THE TEST”
I kept refusing and you know what? He couldn’t do anything and he let me go.
The simple solution is to say NO AND KEEP WALKING!
Well, for an intelligent person, that was clear as mud.
eqlzr2 thanks for the comment and yes it’s definitely not simple.
You'll have to be with me the next time a cop asks me for I.D.
i don't have to comply with lying police officers...
The police are allowed to lie. IF you are the target of an investigation, you can lie to the police, too. If you are a witness, you may not lie.
One minor issue with the id request is that you are not required to have or carry id or the federal government would issue it free of charge to all citizens, now the question of identifying yourself if you are legally stopped for either arrest or investigative detention, you must give your full name and date of birth and maybe even your address. But you are not required to buy, have or possess identification and the SCOTUS has ruled as such.
Good point Willie! I think his point was that you have to identify yourself and that's often done through ID but if you don't have ID that isn't a crime.
Reasonable suspicion is what ever story a cop can come up with. It great to talk about rights the big problem is getting them enforced. The cop who is hell bent on arresting you whether you have committed a crime or not isn't going to uphold your rights neither is any other cop on the scene. So who is the judge that you are standing in front of noway. Rights are like the wind you know it is there but you cannot see it and you cannot touch it you can see the destruction it can cause. Rights are words they are meaningless without them being upheld which you cannot do alone that is why the prisons are always full and new ones are built annually.
I hope when I call the police on someone commiting a crime this will help them dance with the police better!!
there is NO ID law in oregon ever
Maybe I am dating myself but I can remember pay phones.
Talksonlaw
The problem with pigs is everything is "Suspicious" and they are always "Investigating" and everyone "Matches The Description", meaning two arms, two legs, torso, head.
Right. I had a run in with the cops just waiting for a bus. He said, "You look like our guy". Hell it's wintertime I was bundled up with coat gloves scarf stocking cap and on top of that we are all wearing masks nowadays. I could have been any guy waiting for a bus. We all look the same what's the criteria? Apparently walking on two legs.
@@alcoholic2412 Like I said...
Nonetheless.... I never give ID to anyone unless I am arrested. Period.
Thanks for the comment, Harry.
There's no legal requirement in the U.S. for a citizen to possess or carry identiication, so it's an error to say one is required to hand over ID upon demand. One can be required to identify oneself, but not to give them ID.
We as people must hold all public officials from law enforcement all the way up to politicians at a much much higher standard than the public not the other way around if the public is held up at a higher standard than the public officials that is tyranny
Thanks for the comment. And yes government officials should (and according to the Constitution do) have the same 4th and 5th Amendment rights.
And a matter of the equity of the supreme court.
By Mr. Capra’s explanation, this is why ALL LEOs should be using bodycams. Some officers go beyond the law or just assume that the subjects they stop can refuse to cooperate with them and either intimidate or make up charges to force compliance. Thanks to cellphone cameras, more people are recording their encounters with police but the police themselves should also be utilizing video to hasten investigations and promote transparency by a practical and even handed policy on its use.
Willie, we didn't get to ask Prof. Capra about bodycams. We did discuss cameras at lengh in another interview. Here's an interview with Prof Capers a former AUSA from the Southern District of NY, who is an expert on criminal law and procedure. www.talksonlaw.com/talks/police-technology-from-body-cameras-to-facial-recognition
Unless I'm under arrest, I do not have to id my self, I have this constitutional right.
@Axios .king ; Why not? The Right, not to...….. If I, try and guess at the meaning of your question. "Why not cooperate with the [law inducement]" Google "law inducement" Result: >>> In the law of contracts, the inducement is a pledge or promise that causes an individual to enter into a particular agreement. ... Consideration is the inducement to a contract. In Criminal Law, the term inducement is the motive, or that which leads an individual to engage in criminal conduct.
Inducement legal definition of inducement
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/inducement
Why would I cooperate with that...……..
@Axios .king ; Anything you say, can and "WILL" be used against you...…. I have the Right, not to self incriminate...… I have the Right, to counsel being present before any questions...… I have the right to remain silent..... Shut up and shut up some more. I have Rights...… Why would I cooperate in an investigation upon myself. I have the Right not to help them screw me over. For the record, yes there is some good officers..... But the bad out way good by a extremely large %...… 90-95% of all cops have never read the Constitution that they Sworn to uphold and to protect our Rights against any and all that try to infringe upon them. Ever day law Enforcement violates more peoples Rights, than all other assholes in this country on a daily basis, only because they are trained to do so, and 95% of the time they get away with it. "We the People" are now the enemy, for the soul sucking purpose of revenue collection. You may not like my point of view.... and I really don't care if you do, either way, the people need good LAW Enforcement Under the Supreme Law of the Land that they sworn to uphold and to protect our Rights, until then, they are getting an "F" on there report card from the lacking of doing there job properly. Does standing on my rights make me a criminal?
@Axios .king ; Resisting? Exercising a Right is not resisting..... Showing a cop compassion and understanding will get me out of a lot of bad situation????? That sounds more like.... lick my boots and kiss my ass and I might be nice to you (Authoritarian Ideology) for sure...… I'm not completely sure, but I can assume, either you have lived a posh protected sheltered life or you're in complete support of this ridiculous ideology or your a cop, most likely not, but your thinking on how it should be is a cops way of thinking for sure, well trained they are...… Comply or your guilty of something, is total BS. Your words, not mine... "America is not about race it's about class" is TOTALLY FUCKUP STINKING THINKING.... Try reading the "Declaration of Independence" and the "Constitution" then and MAYBE then, you might understand, what America is about...….. Just one last thing that I like to say..... Dude, I live on a rock, ya know, third from the sun, no lines, no boarders, no words scribed on this rock, only a bunch of assholes telling me, this is how it is, do as I say or else. Men and women have gave the greatest sacrifice for this country, there life.....for you and I and all others, even idiots, for what?.... it sad to see you don't even know what that is..... If you did know, then you would know what America stands for and what it is about..... Freedom.... Freedom from Authoritarian tyrannical ideology.... The land of the Free...… Damn, just one more, you can take your "low class" and even high class and stick it where the sun don't shine...…..
A Terry Stop is only lawful in "Stop and ID States"... in those states with an ID statute, ID is only required with an arrest.