no, you've got it all wrong. he will get a longevity bonus, a raise and never receive as much as a verbal reprimand even though he didn't do his job properly TWICE and cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. only government workers can get away with that type of misconduct, the private sector would never allow it. .
thats the only way we are going to effect change in this fucking country. cops are the only people that arent required to pay for their mistakes. WE PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKES.
sketch6995 ....that is happening all over the world..the police have to do it... right or wrong....their bosses drinking or having sex they have no to worry, the court used tax money for pay off.,,,,,that's the reason why the army dislike the polices , policemen collects most of the corrupted money...... the army men can rape only in war while the policemdn hide.
If the police department had to pay settlements out of their own budgets instead of the taxpayers footing the bill, there would be a lot fewer false arrests.
IF it's like most cities, they have a $1,000 deducible and the insurance company pays the rest. You could do an open records request and find out if you really want to verify that. xox
Thank you. Should the time ever come for me to be a smartass with a cop and he/she instigates the whole incident, I'll use that line while recording the interaction and upload whatever the results might be lol. P.S. To anyone interested: I know some might be fearful of recording your interactions with law enforcement. So, in case you didn't know, download apps such as Background Video Recorder for those times you might need to be discreet about recording what is going on around you. Hope this helps and spread the word. Tc
Sean L so if you’re an employee at home depot and you were loading lets say a pallet of something expensive and ended up dropping and destroying it and cost home depot 20k, you want that to come out of your pay? Lol it doesn’t work like that chief, he made a mistake at work, we can all do that and cost our employers money.... Now i do think he should have been fired and forced to go back to training without pay to learn his job
Tradesmen have their own public liability insurance such as plumbers. Owner opperator drivers have it, hell i do and I'm a musician. Why the hell don't 'police'?
@@m.b.3916 Your home depot example isn't applicable because it doesn't involve the home depot employee stripping someone of their constitutional rights. If that home depot employee dropped that pallet on a customer and hurt them however, that individual employee can be sued along with the place of employment. Settlements for police brutality and corruption SHOULD be paid from the police pention, taxpayers should not be footing the bill for corrupt police doing things that they specifically know they cannot do.
Military personnel have money taken out rot their pay if equipment they’re responsible for is damaged or lost. For really expensive equipment, they get reduced pay for x # of months & a note put in their personnel file so they’re not likely to get promoted.
Considering that some states have successfully stolen pensions from police officers who have not done anything wrong I would say there is definitely a precedent to do exactly that. Let's increase the pensions of all police officers, but then take from the pension to pay off settlement offers. That would act as a financial incentive for the officers to do their jobs.
I hate when officers use the phrase "Are you a lawyer?" When they're being challenged. You don't need a law degree to look up the laws for yourself... In fact, you don't even need a law degree to enforce said laws..
Many police officers don't even know the laws they are charged with enforcing. I overheard two officers once jokingly say to each when they didn't know they being overheard that they just arrest people and jail them and then let the lawyers decide if the arrestee broke the law or not, to let the lawyers sort it all out.
They play psychopath mind games and word games with people. Everyone's legal rights should be respected, weather or not they are lawyer or not. And the cop isn't a lawyer and is allowed to lie and is under no obligation to explain or educate the person what the law, the cop can break the law without any personal consequences.
@@ronhiel6898 except in court, the prosecutor and judge assume that you've done something wrong to deserve to be arrested, so you are guilty, unless.. you can prove you are innocent.. since they don't have time and money for court for everyone, they scare and bully people into signing a forced confession.. so nobody really figures out if the arrested are guilty, everyone is forced to plead guilty.
They should have their pay docked until the lawsuit is paid, clearly this cop didn't pay near enough attention when the law was explained to them in the academy. In California you only agree to a chemical test that's done at the department or at a trailer that's set up for it.
That actually makes sense. Otherwise a drunk person could say no to a field sobriety test and what could the cops do? They are well within their rights to arrest him. However after its all said and done, if he can prove he wasn't intoxicated the case will be dropped.
@@derrick5380 in a court of law.... This is a traffic stop where there are clear laws about submitting a sobriety check that you consent to when you receive a license.
@@cocaineinmyvein if you read your license it says you consent to any sobriety test REQUIRED BY LAW. That does not include field sobriety test only breath blood and urine. That's why the guy here specifies field
John R He basically admitted that if the driver wouldn't submit to a fake law, he was going to lie to get the driver convicted. Also he liked about the law to try and trick the driver. I am normally pro-cop. This one needs to be fired.
Indeed. Absolutely not a public servant. It amazes me that someone in law enforcement would try to present a clearly fake reason in order to arrest the guy. We must have police and I can't imagine what life would be like without them. Be that as it may, some folks just don't "fit" well in law enforcement and I wish more effort went into personality tests and personality profiling.
I sounded to me like what he ment was: if i cant examine you im gonna asume your drunk. Which make sense. He made a weird ilegal turn. He slurred ( i know there are a million posible reasons for it but my automatic instict would have been to blame alchohol) and if you, as a policeoficer suspected someone of driving around intoxicated you couldnt, in good contience, let them drive off again.
Yeah i feel like the officer just worded it wrong. And meant if “I can’t prove that you you’re within the limit then I will assume you’re drunk” because of how the guy’s speech is a bit slurred.
You might be right. It's just a bad assumption to make though. In general, law enforcement has a tough job that, I think, is somewhat predicated on most people being mostly cooperative. I think when someone in law enforcement gets into a situation like this, they're suddenly put under a lot of pressure. In this case, the old addage "words matter" really mattered a lot. I think that the police officer also didn't need to talk to that guy the way he did..."where the hell...?"...that sort of thing. As soon as you start to act in an unreasonable way and treat people like they're less than human, you get a different response. If he had worded it more like what you stated and if he had not been so pushy, that situation might have gone a lot better for both parties.
I like how he puts the pressure on the guy by putting his dogs in the pound, car towed, and losing his phone. Tax payers are guilty for not unifying to stop this.
it is to intimidate and abuse..if it was a woman with a kid, he would put the woman in jail and send her kid to CPS while taking the kid alone by himself by the hand for private time with a stranger
Glassboulders He was just being factual. Probably didn't have to volunteer that info as it made him sound callous but he could have just wanted the guy to know what would happen to the dog if he didn't go get it from the pound.
Well then he should have also said if the pound is overpopulated and they don't get adopted they will be euthanized. The pig is not the animal control, he can't make those statements and say they're facts. He doesn't even understand how to do his own job.
I don't know why the officer asked if he is a lawyer I mean you don't need be a lawyer to know you rights only u need be an educated citizen that's all
Adn Soes Because in our jacked up legal system rights are only for government officials and lawyers. Plebes like you and me have no rights unless they feel generous that day.
It goes even deeper than that and has to do with who actually owns the legal name and who is indemnified in court to use it. So much tortious conversion going on in the system.
Falsely arresting someone for dui can ruin someone's life, could you imagine going through this knowing that you haven't drank, complete miscarriage of justice
He may not have been drinking however he very well could have been under the influence of something else -- perhaps just a lack of sleep, either way it goes he made a wrong turn and he did have slurred speech. Just on GP I'm glad he won.
THEN THE IDIOT SHOULD HAVE DONE THE FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT THE TEST WAS CREATED FOR. And he did say "then take me to jail". He shouldn't have won since he actually told the cop to arrest him.....
@@OdintheGermanShepherd that's his own fault then. It would have taken less than 5 minutes to prove he was not drunk or under the influence and he would have been on his way.... But he decided to be a dick....
@@rebeccahetrick6576 yes, perhaps....however...it’s the officers discretion as to wether he passed or failed if he chose to do the field test...some folks have better balance than others (sober or drunk) ... eye movement while tracking a fast-moving ink pen varies greatly from individual to individual also....
Michael Arvin imagine losing 160 grand in a private industry. Your ass would be out on the street in no time. N this includes stock brokers. If they are in the red for 3 consecutive months they are fired.
CriscDogs22 the only difference here is that he didn’t cost his employer 160k, he cost the taxpayers 160k. When taxpayers choose not to elect his superior, that’s when accountability happens. In the meanwhile, his immediate boss doesn’t care
CriscDogs22 People are fired if their till dosent add up by even by 16 bucks . They need to start suing the individual cops and let the money come out of their pockets. Watch how quickly this shit will stops.
@@ThatBeeyatch That would be stupid . . . HELLO . . . No one would dare be in law enforcement. The departmental budget feeling the burn to demand accountability is one thing . . . . but not the individual.
They don't care he is acting and using standard police protocols , this is how the police are trained ,to knowingly violate your rights , that's why we have police violence against people who know there Rights . Our police training needs to be changed.
Of course, because you should always believe someone when they say they haven't had a drink. Its a fact that no-one ever drinks and drives, and everyone is always truthful about that!
@Klaa2 You're right, that's not the issue. The issue is that people like this antagonize the police. Instead of complying is a simple test, he decided, before the conversation even started, that he was going to antagonize the cop. The recording had already started, after all. I wonder what this country would look like if all police in every state stopped doing their job for just one week.
People who don’t like cops got caught doing shit the cops don’t like lol. The only reason he got any clout was because the cop slipped up on some words that’s it. Otherwise what he did was legal.
I love how cops can just blatantly lie about how an event went down. Antagonistic and Slurred speech? Imagine the corruption before phones and recording came into the mix.
The abuses are still there. Most cops are really slow learners. Still doing the same old shit, expecting the same results, even when they know they are being filmed.
@@jamessilberschlag1705 Because they know the taxpayer will foot the bill for their misconduct. What is even more galling is LEPS (law enforcement public servants) like this will get promotions and commendations for their "aggressive policing". Slow learning is to be expected from the low IQ individuals employed as LEPS. abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
I got pulled over and told I had to do a breathalyzer. I hadn't drank in 20 years by that time. I blew zero alcohol and the cop made me do it again. Again, zero. Told me to do a third one...ZERO. After 4 attempts he says to me "boy, you are very lucky. I told him luck has nothing to do with it and that after 20 years not drinking I can smell booze a mile away and "officer, I can smell alcohol on your breath" He was fired 8 days later.
Are you a lawyer? Translation; Do you know the law, and can you hold me accountable? Can I lie to you and get away with it? Do I have to follow the law when I deal with you? Because if not, I won't! Cops are so predictable! And this one is more bravado than brains!
There's one big flaw with that though. If they're bad enough cops, they'll tamper with or destroy the evidence, then you'll have nothing. Even if you're using your phone. IMO, going live on FB or here might do the trick
Bad cops are like bad priests. They ruin it for the good, decent ones. But seriously, think about what it takes to be a police officer. Is it any wonder we get guys like that one who needs a sobriety field test for being drunk with power!
@666NedFlanders You're NEVER required to do a field sobriety test, and NEVER required to answer an officer's questions apart from giving your name and DOB (or providing a driver's license, proof of insurance and vehicle registration if you're driving). In fact, ANY defense attorney would tell their client to ALWAYS refuse a FST and ALWAYS refuse (politely) to answer any questions. If you refuse to take a breathalyzer or refuse a blood draw there ARE legal consequences, but those consequences need to be weighed against incriminating yourself so you should consult an attorney first.
@It smells like bulshit In here Many reasons. Main reason is that even if you don't think you've done anything wrong, there's always the possibility that you've broken some law you weren't aware of. Plus, if an officer has any suspicion about you, they aren't obligated to tell you what that suspicion is, AND they are allowed to lie to you. You might think you're answering innocent questions ("Do you live around here?" "Where are you heading tonight?" "Where are you coming from?" etc) while the officer is already building a case in their mind. For example, they can say that X location is a high crime/high drug traffic neighborhood and use that to give them "reasonable suspicion" to search your car. There is literally zero upside to speaking to police, and huge potential downsides. And that's just if you think you're innocent! If you're guilty of something, let them build their case without your help.
1) the officer is doing what he is trained to do. Its the mayor and the police chief that you should get mad at, not the underlings. I promise you that random field sobriety tests in the evenings are pushed by the department, and many counties even setup blockades for these illegal tests, with the mayor and police chief's blessing. You wouldn't fire an employee that was doing something idiotic that you told them to do, right? And the customer shouldn't get mad at say a cashier that is doing what you setup as policy for your small business. 2) Unionization of public sector employees should be illegal, and that's the main reason officers feel no repercussions for their actions, as if anything they often get a paid vacation out of serious infractions. And ironically, people think its right winger fascism to blame, but the mayors and police chiefs are almost always Democrats and unions are promoted by the left as well, and very much opposed by the right ideologically. Replace the bad mayors and police chiefs, and abolish public sector unions, and you won't have this problem.
That’s what I’m thinking... my brother got arrested and he was driving with his puppy and the officer called for me to pick her up because they DID NOT wanna call the pound..
It's not simple and refusing to oblige comands should not mean you automatically go to jail this cop needs to be fired and never allowed to wear a badge ever again
I'm not sure how states to states works with DUI check point. I am from California and i am glad that there are check point in our states, because we have a lot of reckless drivers and drunk drivers over where I am at and I do understand why the officer did what he did but lying isn't one of them that I like. All of these could have been avoided if they dude would just do it real fast and go on about his business. I do however disagree with what the judge did, DUI check point are there to keep drunk driver from being on the street, and everyone should go through that and I have lots of time, but not once I ever was asked to get out of my vehicle and do these tests because simply I was awake, officer had no reasons to do anything. I am glad that citizen knows their rights and laws, but I wish judge knows their laws too.
zerious1016 "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
The driver was delusional, because if you say you aren't drunk by not taking their test then that does not prove that you aren't drunk and you become suspicious. If people cooperate and prove themselves then there would be no problem afterwards.
@yeeeamayne Nothing is about entitlement, cops have to follow the same laws as citizens do. If I grew weed in my house during the time it is illegal and it was noticed by the authority's then why should I deny and hide the fact that I grow weed and let them investigate? If you make an illegal right turn, your voice sounds slurred, with blood shot eyes, and don't seem to communicate properly, then why should you not prove anything?
@@radioactivedynamite The driver was standing up for his civil rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled drivers are not required to perform a field sobriety test. When citizens do not stand up for their civil rights the United States Constitution and their civil rights mean nothing.
Newton Washinton youre right. Im sure that no cop would become scared to arrest anyone when they hear that they need to pay 160000 if their arrest was wrong. Brilliant plan. Ps: sarcasme all the way
It seems the only freedom we have is eroding right before our eyes when police who supposed to serve and protect are looking to arrest people even when their driving I know the person made a wrong turn but give a ticket and move on but no this officer continues with is bullshit it’s a miracle he didn’t get shot oh I forgot he isn’t a person of color
Hunter Bogart - I wish it were not true. www.innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/ www.washingtonexaminer.com/appeals-court-police-can-lie-to-get-consent-to-search-your-home en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp www.policeone.com/legal/articles/6909121-Case-law-on-police-deception/
@@hunterbogart1923 lying is not illegal, therefore anybody can do it as long as they haven't sworn under oath not to lie. Police officers don't have to tell you the truth. Don't be naive.
@@hunterbogart1923 I mean, of course they aren't necessarily supposed to lie to you, but realistically there are rarely ever consequences for them if they do. There is the law and then there is how people interpret it, If it doesn't have to do with the info on your ticket they can pretty much say whatever they want. Didn't mean to insult by telling you not to be naive. My apologies.
You have more of a right to prove you aren't drunk by doing a simple test, but you have more of a suspicion if you deny and refuse. Daym that's a great quote.
I've seen Mr Checkpoint videos before. I respect this young man. I wonder if he has a degree and what it's in? He'd make a great lawyer, judge or congressman or senator. Best Wishes, Mr C.
U said it! Laws=Control Tax=strength Jail=Time ....( Control Strength And Time) .......so sad, when god creative every single one of us, he has not control us once,human rule human laws!! we r all just really an intelligent mammals that been brain wash, look around us, all there is animals and nature, Are we food source to outter intelligent???WTF....lol
Wow! Dumb comment. If you had an 8th grade education, you would know that an arrest is not a guilty verdict. (When you sign for your drivers license, you sign consent to be tested for DUI. If there is probable cause.) If you don't like living under our system of laws, leave. Go live in Venezuela or some other 3rd world country.
Of course not, dummy. It came from the company that insures the city for liability claims and, as the size and number of claims increase, so does the PREMIUM that's charged to...... THE STUPID TAX PAYERS WHO KEEP ELECTING THE SAME CRIMINAL OFFICIALS. (the simple law of physics and logic called Cause and Effect)
Here's an incentive to do the right thing... Lose your job if ya ain't doing it the way your employers hired you to do. We are their employers. Fuck, we, the taxpayers, are paying city employees to uphold the law, not break the law. We pay them to keep us in line and we are not keeping the cops in line. That is really stupid. We all need to demand reform, like now. Enough, already.
It's such a shame that ppl would actually need incentives to do the right thing, rather than to simply do it bc u should, or even more bc its yr JOB. Humanity can be so disappointing
dont worry about it Some police departments have forensic specialists that can get into locked phones and computers. Technically they would need a warrant but with the amount of corruption going on wouldn’t be surprised if they got in and deleted incriminating evidence anyway.
@@rebeccahetrick6576 Are you seriously dumb enough to believe that if you do not break the law, a police officer would not arrest or ticket you...and LIE??
It's really sad that we live in a country where the average citizen has to record their encounters with the very people whose job is to protect their rights so as to ensure that their own rights are protected.
It’s sad that you become a criminal by simply going through a conversation with police where the officer is provoking you and actively trying to frame you.
Well here in Belgium we have standardised breath test, every driver who passes this checkpoint has to ondergo this test. Is it demeaning to do that then?
This has happened to me several times on my way home from work and they always try to arrest me. I appreciate the police until you get a power tripping cop and they ruin it for all of them.
Yup. Police in my family and I still get antsy because they don't all see themselves as servants. Some think you should worship the ground they walk on for the danger they get (themselves) into. I've known armed security guards that work on state line where to avoid police folks just cross into the next state who have talked down drunks, prostitutes, bikers, and generally crazy folks with a joint lock in the worst cases and a spare cigarette in the best. That's community policing; caring enough about the people you're paid to protect to actually protect and communicate with them, and not exerting authority at every turn.
I was in a major American city years ago and on a certain day an police officer approached me and said to me " Can I talk with you?" We started talking and he was accusing me of attempting to purchase alcohol as a a 19 year old. He demanded that I hand him my ID. I asked him " Am I being detained or arrested "? He didn't answer my question and again demanded my ID. I asked the question 2 more time and after the 3rd time told him " If you don't answer my question, I'm walking away because I don't have to identify myself to you without just cause . I paid attention in High School Civics Class and know my rights." I was never in the liquor store that he was talking about. Don't let the Police bully you into giving up your constitutional rights.
Tate Shoquist that only applies to a certain group of individuals! Not everyone get to exercise their rights with out someone saying “shoulda just complied”
That's why if you're told to do a test then it would be easier to prove if you're not drunk. Otherwise it can be suspicious. How else do you prove that you aren't drunk?
Radioactive Dynamite its not the accused the proves innocence the accuser is supposed to prove guilt and a FST is NOT the only way to do so!! Someone who’s drunk slurs their words, someone who’s drunk has a hard time walking in a straight line, you can smell alcohol in their breath these are just a few methods that this dumbass officer didn’t think to use. If the officer had stayed cool and father deescalated the situation ACTUALLY do his job, maybe after using 1 or two of these tests and he was STILL unsure than arresting him and taking him to the station would have made some sense. Hell of the idiot had just calmly taken the man to jail like he requested... well maybe he’s not an idiot since he didn’t have to pay the lawsuit, the taxpayers did, and the force decided to allow him to keep his job. After all that who’s the real idiot in the end.
@@prime201 How can a person prove they are guilty by doing the test and following orders? There is a reason why the cop pulled over the driver in the first place and it was for making that illegal right lane turn, and because of that the cop would need to perform some tests on the driver. The drivers voice seemed a bit slow, and people who get drunk can have the same effect. It was just a misinterpretation by the cop. It's not always alcohol where a test is performed but some drugs can cause the sames affects too. But if no test can be taken because the driver kept on refusing then how can the officer really be sure that the guy is safe enough to drive when that idiot made that illegal right lane change? If the driver just cooperated then that would have saved him time, the cops time, and wouldn't have caused tax payers to pay the lawsuit. aMeRiCaNs are disobedient and undisciplined in general, because they will make an excuse for everything even if they are wrong. Cooperating and complying will get you out of situations more effectively but none of you want to do that.
Radioactive Dynamite agreed but how else are lazy Americans supposed to get huge paydays if they don’t bait cops into shit only reason he got a pay out is because of the cops word choice. Dude sounded either mentally impaired or had some speech issues. But don’t worry you can find some blm cop hating shit stains of society wishing death on cops when half of em can barely fill out their welfare forms
I have autism, and I'm at higher risk of cops than non-autistic people are. I can drive like the non-autistics, but one thing I heard is that autism tends to get mistaken for intoxication, and so it's true I can get arrested just for being autistic. So when I see a police cruiser, I get nervous, I would just turn one way if able to and go where they wouldn't be going and move on.
Tae Kwando I'm not sure on the laws in the U.S., but in Canada, being tired and admitting it can lead to a DUI charge. Here, a DUI(or a DWI) of any kind is illegal.
Driving while tired is dangerous as hell, the cop said he had bloodshot eyes. The dude sounded like he just took nyquil or something, either that or he's a good baiter/actor
well that is stupid... you could end the situation by just following plain and simple... instead he goes to jail and underwent all of it just to prove he is innocent which by the way he can do by doing the test... unless that was his real plan, to get money from the settlement that is
@@NeykongTV the 'test' they wanted to do was a field sobriety test, it requires you to do actions that the police offer tells you to do and he will decide if you look drunk or not. It is completely subjective to the police officers view.
@@gmskong i know what the test is.... if your not drunk then surely you can do it with ease.... with dealing with situations like this its important to avoid raising further suspicion... not complying and playing smart cause you know the law will only make your situation worst.... in youtube alone almost 90% of cobfrontation gone wrong is cause by "i dont want to cause i know the law" type of shit
@@NeykongTV or they could just use a breathalyzer which tests your breath for any traces of alcohol. Completely negating the subjectivity of a FST. Yes there will still be some false positives, but a lot less than FST's.
@@gmskong what ever be the case compliance is the answer.... im a firefighter but whenever im off duty or in a different city I just follow the ones on duty..... i don't brag that "i know the law so i have the right to refuse" i don't even need to verify myself to them that im in the service i just follow and off I go.... i might as well comply for a few minutes than go thru a lot just because of the "i know the law" mentality
Stephanie Sanders I agree cops should be put on a ballot every few years and let the citizens vote on keeping them if they prove honourable. Otherwise they subject to firing and public exposure.
The burden is on the plaintiff. In a civil case the plaintiff has to show by a preponderance of the evidence that every element of their civil action complaint has been met. Defendants can present evidence of an affirmative defense that they would have to prove but the plaintiff always bears the initial burden.
settlements don't stop police from abusing authority. its not their money it is taxpayers money. if they don't care about the citizens do people really think they care about the lawsuits their employer pays out...
+Steven Roberts true, but one would think that instead of playing tidly winks, one could ask to just have a breathalyzer. you may be right,,,,, I dunno because I don't drive after drinking.
"...People come up and they're intoxicated and sometimes they end up going to jail because they are too intoxicated" - The fool has learned absolutely nothing and are still putting innocent people in jail.
why not just get rid of all police department and save the tax payers a ton of $$$$...leave the sheriff because elected and they only show up to issue warrants for an arrest for an actual crime..
They are not constitutionally required to take any action that would result in the prevention of a crime. (SEE several supreme court rulings.) They do not protect. They have been summoned each and every fucking time the citizens want change in this country, which they express through protest, soley to intimidate, taze, water hose, pepper spray and terrorize the citizens into standing down. They do not serve. Their primary function is to serve the state and protect ITS property. Not you.
I wish all ppl who exercise their right like this guy get treated fairly, instead of the old “he should have just complied” bs!! Congrats on winning ur case!
I love it when a cop poses the question, "are you a lawyer?" without even recognizing the paradox of their question. The implicit statement behind the "are you a lawyer?" challenge is you're not smart enough to know the law. But if the law is so esoteric that only lawyers can understand it, how are laymen expected to understand and comply with it?
In most states you do not have to perform a roadside field sobriety test--and there is no penalty for refusing to do so. You may have to, under implied consent, do a breath test under threat of loss of license. Taking a field sobriety test is a trap....the cop can just say that you failed....even if you didn't. Always, always, record.
You can refuse a breathalyzer if you’re not arrested. If the officer arrests you for driving under the influence and asks you to take a breathalyzer test and you refuse then it’s an irreversible suspension of your driving license.
Abdulziz, so you can refuse the sobriety test, then get arrested (likely for doing so) then have to take the breathalyzer (isn't it apart of the sobriety test) or is the sobriety test the backwards alphabet/walk a straight line. which I have trouble with after sitting for long periods of time. so get arrested and due later?
Yes, you can refuse both field sobriety tests & breathalyzers as long as you're not under arrest. If the officer tells you that you're under arrest for DUI (Driving under the influence) and asks you to take a breathalyzer test, in which you refuse, then it's an irreversible suspension of your driving license. A field sobriety test isn't a part of the breathalyzer. The officer won't necessarily arrest you for refusing either, however, if you do and he arrests you, they're going to use that against you in the court of law. When you appear in court they will most likely use that against you and argue that if you weren't driving under the influence that you wouldn't had refused the tests. If you have any type of impairment that might make you fail the field sobriety test then you should inform the officer before he starts his test. Field sobriety tests usually consist of three parts: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmu, One-Leg Stand and the Walk and Turn part. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmu: An officer will hold a pen and ask you to keep your eyes on the pen, if your eyes jerk around while you try to keep with the pen (or object he's using), then it might indicate that you're driving the influence. Walk and Turn: The officer will ask you to walk in a straight line then turn, if you stumble/fall when you're doing the task, it might indicate that you're driving under the influence. One-Leg Stand: The officer will ask you to stand on one of your legs for 30 seconds, if you sway around, use your arms to balance yourself or stumble, it might indicate that you're driving under the influence.
You can refuse the SFST however (and not in this case) there are other identifiers for DUI so even if you refuse the SFST you can still be arrested. Not for refusing but for having the smell of alcohol in you, slurred speech, red eyes, staggering, inability to stand, signs of urinating in self, being incoherent, etc etc
+Ann-Marie Charles so pretty much still the officer can do whatever he wants lol... who's around to prove that you weren't smelling like alcohol? Or does the cop have to prove that with phsyical evidence?
taxpayers are forced to pay to settle suits for the incompetence and crimes of cops without having any say on the hiring, firing and disciplinary actions taken when cops break the law. ISN'T THAT TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION?
Michael Shinault now now let's not point out the futilities of officer fucktard I'm pretty sure it won't be the last time the whole world sees another Piggy's snout whose iq is between a rock and a jar of pickles
Marco Sartori if I am stopped because I am suspected of driving while intoxicated and I refuse simple tests, then so be it. The thing I am not that stupid. I would quickly and easily submit knowing that I am in no way intoxicated. The kid was dumb and went to jail. The o ly reason he got money was because 1 judge believed the officer arrest partly out of anger. Besides Marco, I simply asked why an officer should be thrown behind bars for a lawful arrest and you wish it on me, Haha. What is worse even is that the poster here highlighted your negative and ignorant comment. Who the heck highlights a comment like that.
Marco Sartori Your not really worth replying to at this point but what the heck. SFST's are valid and still required. There is no violation of rights. If one does not submit, one is open to arrest. Of you drive you are open to this. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Each state is allowing you to drive. You sound like someone that is ignorant of the law and probably most things, but speaks out anyway. I believe they call those people shit disturbers.
Marco Sartori Oh Marco, all you did by posting that was re enforce what I said. They are valid tests, for helping the officer to determine the level or lack thereof, of intoxication. If you decline, you may be legally arrested because you leave the officer with no other choice. He believes you are intoxicated and therefore a danger to yourself and other drivers. He cannot morally and legally let you drive away, and because dwi is a criminal offense, he also cannot let you walk away. Btw, your researching skills are lacking much the same as your communication skills. SFST's are fully backed by NHTSA as of 2015 through 2018. They are all over the DWI section of their website, and other places. Plus I am certified and know they are supported. Fail.
Randy Hamblin as I was just mentioning in another reply police officers should be mandated to go to law school the same way that attorneys do. Usually they just go to a police academy for a couple of months and band they graduate and their cops now I wonder if they go through any type of law study.
Tina Cole Texas yeah pretty much that's all they do it should require them to go to law school but apparently they don't being a cop is easy you just have to get through the academy and that's it I've always stopped and wonder just how well do they know the laws.
Randy Hamblin the officer knew the law. He didn't articulate well enough. He was allowed to arrest him if he denied the FST, but the only difference is having mispoke and having to pay a settlement solely because of that. Police followed procedure and I'm sure he could have more readily explain why you are not allowed to refuse a FST ( which I assume to him is not allowed = able to arrest) ofc he worded it poorly and mispoke, but in all honesty the cop wasn't bad. The dude won on a technicality and imo is a Dick.( the guy that got the settlement is a dick, snowflake) like rly who records that and then refuses to cooperate, only people looking for a payout. I really hate most of the pple in this comment section
Anthony I don't know about winning on a technicality cuz suing the police is not that easy you have to really have some hardcore proof most of the time the cops always win the case anyway unless if you've got strong evidence in a good lawyer then you have a chance of coming out on top. The only thing that irks me is these bad cops that think they're above the law not all cops are like that.
I was pulled over by a cop for speeding, and let's be clear, I WAS DEFINITELY SPEEDING. Idk why, but I believe that around that time, I was extremely stressed abt my divorce and child custody case. So my tolerance level was negative 4. Anyhoo, when the cop pulled me over, I'll admit, I was HOT. But even though I was sarcastic and extremely snippy, I never screamed, yelled or cursed. I just demanded the ticket so that I could be on my ANGRY way. Needless to say, later that day, I felt awful about how i acted. I even thought about reaching out to the cop to apologize for being a super bitch. But i figure that i would see him in court, so i waited. A month later, I hired an attorney because my job wouldn't give me time off. And the day of my court date, my lawyer called me and said, "the judge wants to suspend your license for ONE YEAR," I asked my attorney why and he told me that the cop said that I cursed him out and called him obscenities! Needless to say, I was livid. I assured my attorney that I was being rude and short and bitchy BUT I was careful not to curse AT ALL or yell. My attorney told me tht it's bad, and it's my word against the cops. SO, I told my attorney to ask the judge to continue the case and make the police department PULL THE TAPE. I told my attorney to tell the judge that when he sees that I never did those things, that I wanted the lying ass cop fired. Guess what? To avoid being seen as a liar, THE COP DROPPED THE ALLEGATIONS and my case was dismissed. Victory. EDIT: For the ones whose first language is idiocy and their second language is English; I still had to pay court costs and take an online driving course, BUT the move to have my L's suspended for a year was dismissed, contingent upon me completing the course. Geez.
you should have still went with the case to get that cop fired. you could have been like pull the tape and get him fired, and if he drops the case because he lied then get him fired too.
This is the most bullshit I've ever heard. Did you really just make up this dumbass story to look cool on RUclips?? The punishments for speeding tickets are set. They can't just "decide they want to suspend your license for a year" If they were going to suspend your license it's because you had previous tickets and too many points. A judge also can't just decide to suspend your license because you supposedly yelled at a cop. That's not how any of that works, AT ALL...
Glad it worked out, you could've tried the pretty woman stressed over divorce and child cryed got him too take you too dinner too get his buddies too LEAN on your future X, solved all your worries on the cheap and in one stop
He wanted to have the car towed rather than have it safely parked. He wouldn't let him call a family member to retrieve the car or the dogs. He insisted on having the dogs be placed in the pound to potentially be adopted, against the owners wishes. And his response to the initial question of whether he had taken drugs, prescription drugs can give the appearance of being drunk. Idiot cop through and through.
@@Jimbob1337 I agree on his initial response...and to me he did sound intoxicated his speech wasn't slurred so much as lazy which is common with opiates. I think the cop could have at least let him call someone for the dogs tho.
The only reason why the judge drop the charges is because this corrupt police officer was audio recorded. If it wasn’t for this, it goes back to the saying, police have the judges in there pocket because whatever the police write on there arrest complaint is what the judge goes by. This judge would of been lied to with a good morning smile and a hand shake but thanks for the audio recording it set this man free not the judge.
![Cop Arrests Cop & That's When Her Troubles Begin... [RARE VIDEO]](/img/1.gif)
Shame the innocent taxpayers had to pay. The officer and superiors should've footed the bill !
no, you've got it all wrong.
he will get a longevity bonus, a raise and never receive as much as a verbal reprimand even though he didn't do his job properly TWICE and cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
only government workers can get away with that type of misconduct, the private sector would never allow it.
.
thats the only way we are going to effect change in this fucking country.
cops are the only people that arent required to pay for their mistakes.
WE PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKES.
sketch6995 ....that is happening all over the
world..the police have to do it... right or wrong....their bosses drinking or having sex
they have no to worry, the court used
tax money for pay off.,,,,,that's the reason why the army dislike the polices , policemen
collects most of the corrupted money......
the army men can rape only in war while
the policemdn hide.
HongLim Tan dude.....
I can't say whether you are right or wrong. Because I haven't got the slightest idea of what you're trying to say.
c'mon *nlp*, you're just making too much sense there...
If the police department had to pay settlements out of their own budgets instead of the taxpayers footing the bill, there would be a lot fewer false arrests.
IF it's like most cities, they have a $1,000 deducible and the insurance company pays the rest. You could do an open records request and find out if you really want to verify that.
xox
Here, here!
But hopefully, your rates go up for frivolous arrests...
This is the best idea ever thank you
Cops are useless and any one that disagrees probably never got into a situation that request help from cops.
"Are you a lawyer?!" No, but six months of training at the academy doesn't make you one either.
Love it!
🤣🤣
It's actually 6 weeks!
Thank you. Should the time ever come for me to be a smartass with a cop and he/she instigates the whole incident, I'll use that line while recording the interaction and upload whatever the results might be lol.
P.S.
To anyone interested: I know some might be fearful of recording your interactions with law enforcement. So, in case you didn't know, download apps such as Background Video Recorder for those times you might need to be discreet about recording what is going on around you. Hope this helps and spread the word. Tc
6 months at the academy, and he must have slept through the class that says you don't have to take a test
The $70k needs to come out of the officer's retirement. The tax payers should not have to foot the bill for his tyranny.
Sean L so if you’re an employee at home depot and you were loading lets say a pallet of something expensive and ended up dropping and destroying it and cost home depot 20k, you want that to come out of your pay? Lol it doesn’t work like that chief, he made a mistake at work, we can all do that and cost our employers money....
Now i do think he should have been fired and forced to go back to training without pay to learn his job
Tradesmen have their own public liability insurance such as plumbers. Owner opperator drivers have it, hell i do and I'm a musician. Why the hell don't 'police'?
@@m.b.3916 Your home depot example isn't applicable because it doesn't involve the home depot employee stripping someone of their constitutional rights. If that home depot employee dropped that pallet on a customer and hurt them however, that individual employee can be sued along with the place of employment.
Settlements for police brutality and corruption SHOULD be paid from the police pention, taxpayers should not be footing the bill for corrupt police doing things that they specifically know they cannot do.
Military personnel have money taken out rot their pay if equipment they’re responsible for is damaged or lost. For really expensive equipment, they get reduced pay for x # of months & a note put in their personnel file so they’re not likely to get promoted.
Considering that some states have successfully stolen pensions from police officers who have not done anything wrong I would say there is definitely a precedent to do exactly that. Let's increase the pensions of all police officers, but then take from the pension to pay off settlement offers. That would act as a financial incentive for the officers to do their jobs.
I hate when officers use the phrase "Are you a lawyer?" When they're being challenged. You don't need a law degree to look up the laws for yourself... In fact, you don't even need a law degree to enforce said laws..
The whole justice system is based on the fact that citizens are supposed to know the law.
He should told him hes not a lawyer but has a PHD in reading
Many police officers don't even know the laws they are charged with enforcing. I overheard two officers once jokingly say to each when they didn't know they being overheard that they just arrest people and jail them and then let the lawyers decide if the arrestee broke the law or not, to let the lawyers sort it all out.
They play psychopath mind games and word games with people. Everyone's legal rights should be respected, weather or not they are lawyer or not. And the cop isn't a lawyer and is allowed to lie and is under no obligation to explain or educate the person what the law, the cop can break the law without any personal consequences.
@@ronhiel6898 except in court, the prosecutor and judge assume that you've done something wrong to deserve to be arrested, so you are guilty, unless.. you can prove you are innocent.. since they don't have time and money for court for everyone, they scare and bully people into signing a forced confession.. so nobody really figures out if the arrested are guilty, everyone is forced to plead guilty.
If I cost my employer $70K, I would lose my job.
Taxpayers pay for it. Not the police department
@@Buccko92 Yes, we the taxpayers employ the police dept.
In a heartbeat
They should have their pay docked until the lawsuit is paid, clearly this cop didn't pay near enough attention when the law was explained to them in the academy. In California you only agree to a chemical test that's done at the department or at a trailer that's set up for it.
@@Buccko92 thats why there is always a a new wave of cops every month
"If I can't examine you, then I'm gonna assume you're drunk." Well if that's not guilty until proven innocent I don't know what is.
That actually makes sense. Otherwise a drunk person could say no to a field sobriety test and what could the cops do? They are well within their rights to arrest him. However after its all said and done, if he can prove he wasn't intoxicated the case will be dropped.
@@cocaineinmyvein no bc the law states you're(supposed to be) innocent until proven guilty
@@derrick5380 in a court of law.... This is a traffic stop where there are clear laws about submitting a sobriety check that you consent to when you receive a license.
@@cocaineinmyvein if you read your license it says you consent to any sobriety test REQUIRED BY LAW. That does not include field sobriety test only breath blood and urine. That's why the guy here specifies field
@@derrick5380 My point is just saying "no" when an officer requests a sobriety test isn't an option. At least not a legal one.
Stupidest part was at 1:15. "If I can't examine you, then I'm gonna say you're drunk."
Do people hear themselves?
John R He basically admitted that if the driver wouldn't submit to a fake law, he was going to lie to get the driver convicted. Also he liked about the law to try and trick the driver. I am normally pro-cop. This one needs to be fired.
Indeed. Absolutely not a public servant. It amazes me that someone in law enforcement would try to present a clearly fake reason in order to arrest the guy.
We must have police and I can't imagine what life would be like without them. Be that as it may, some folks just don't "fit" well in law enforcement and I wish more effort went into personality tests and personality profiling.
I sounded to me like what he ment was: if i cant examine you im gonna asume your drunk. Which make sense. He made a weird ilegal turn. He slurred ( i know there are a million posible reasons for it but my automatic instict would have been to blame alchohol) and if you, as a policeoficer suspected someone of driving around intoxicated you couldnt, in good contience, let them drive off again.
Yeah i feel like the officer just worded it wrong. And meant if “I can’t prove that you you’re within the limit then I will assume you’re drunk” because of how the guy’s speech is a bit slurred.
You might be right. It's just a bad assumption to make though. In general, law enforcement has a tough job that, I think, is somewhat predicated on most people being mostly cooperative. I think when someone in law enforcement gets into a situation like this, they're suddenly put under a lot of pressure. In this case, the old addage "words matter" really mattered a lot.
I think that the police officer also didn't need to talk to that guy the way he did..."where the hell...?"...that sort of thing. As soon as you start to act in an unreasonable way and treat people like they're less than human, you get a different response.
If he had worded it more like what you stated and if he had not been so pushy, that situation might have gone a lot better for both parties.
I like how he puts the pressure on the guy by putting his dogs in the pound, car towed, and losing his phone. Tax payers are guilty for not unifying to stop this.
The "I'd rather inflict torment with you're dogs being adopted out thru animal control, or better yet euthanized" tone of voice.
it is to intimidate and abuse..if it was a woman with a kid, he would put the woman in jail and send her kid to CPS while taking the kid alone by himself by the hand for private time with a stranger
@@claireh.7605shit just went left real quick 😮. Pretty damn dark there.
If he didn't record, they would have believe the officer . To many officers abuse their power. He should be made to pay the cost not the city.
yes, but kinda hard to say a guy is drunk or impaired after his blood test was cleaner than a nuns !! LOL
It seems all these videos stem from Cali. This doesnt happen in the state I reside.
I highly suggest installing a dashcam, when I get pulled over I know they see it is there.
FILM COPS, ALWAYS! ALWAYS! ALWAYS!
A dash camera or recorder more than pays for itself. It's a silent witness in such situations.
The way the cop taunted him with the possibility that his dogs could be adopted from the pound pissed me off.
Glassboulders
He was just being factual. Probably didn't have to volunteer that info as it made him sound callous but he could have just wanted the guy to know what would happen to the dog if he didn't go get it from the pound.
Well then he should have also said if the pound is overpopulated and they don't get adopted they will be euthanized. The pig is not the animal control, he can't make those statements and say they're facts. He doesn't even understand how to do his own job.
Glassboulders me to.
Paul Denet Cop never said "if you fail to pick them up." Listen again without adding any of your own words. It was meant to be spiteful
Paul Denet no he wanted to threaten the guy
I don't know why the officer asked if he is a lawyer I mean you don't need be a lawyer to know you rights only u need be an educated citizen that's all
Adn Soes! R
Adn Soes Because in our jacked up legal system rights are only for government officials and lawyers. Plebes like you and me have no rights unless they feel generous that day.
It goes even deeper than that and has to do with who actually owns the legal name and who is indemnified in court to use it. So much tortious conversion going on in the system.
It's a dismissive tactic to show that the officer has the upper hand. School yard bully antics!
Adn Soes ikr?!
"Are you a lawyer?"
"No, and I'm not a veterinarian, either but I know a horse's ass when I see one"
I'll have to remember that one. It's great
@@williammarkhart7047 exactly, I’m stealing that one also, lol!
I'm using that one.🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@treadlightly8456 You can't
I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT,L.O.L!!!!
All I know is if I cost my employer 160,000$ I would not have a job.
Yep. That's why the police don't give a shit because it's the taxpayer's money.
Dwayne Williams i
Dwayne Williams
And WE are the employers unfortunately
Right!
Yap but this logic doesn’t apply to law enforcement.
Falsely arresting someone for dui can ruin someone's life, could you imagine going through this knowing that you haven't drank, complete miscarriage of justice
He may not have been drinking however he very well could have been under the influence of something else -- perhaps just a lack of sleep, either way it goes he made a wrong turn and he did have slurred speech.
Just on GP I'm glad he won.
If driving was part of his career, dude would have lost his job over false accusations from a cop.
THEN THE IDIOT SHOULD HAVE DONE THE FIELD SOBRIETY TEST.
THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT THE TEST WAS CREATED FOR.
And he did say "then take me to jail". He shouldn't have won since he actually told the cop to arrest him.....
@@OdintheGermanShepherd that's his own fault then. It would have taken less than 5 minutes to prove he was not drunk or under the influence and he would have been on his way.... But he decided to be a dick....
@@rebeccahetrick6576 yes, perhaps....however...it’s the officers discretion as to wether he passed or failed if he chose to do the field test...some folks have better balance than others (sober or drunk) ... eye movement while tracking a fast-moving ink pen varies greatly from individual to individual also....
Officer Arnold cost SM $160,000 in 2 suits so far.
Michael Arvin imagine losing 160 grand in a private industry. Your ass would be out on the street in no time. N this includes stock brokers. If they are in the red for 3 consecutive months they are fired.
CriscDogs22 the only difference here is that he didn’t cost his employer 160k, he cost the taxpayers 160k. When taxpayers choose not to elect his superior, that’s when accountability happens. In the meanwhile, his immediate boss doesn’t care
CriscDogs22 People are fired if their till dosent add up by even by 16 bucks . They need to start suing the individual cops and let the money come out of their pockets. Watch how quickly this shit will stops.
@@ThatBeeyatch That would be stupid . . . HELLO . . . No one would dare be in law enforcement. The departmental budget feeling the burn to demand accountability is one thing . . . . but not the individual.
They don't care he is acting and using standard police protocols , this is how the police are trained ,to knowingly violate your rights , that's why we have police violence against people who know there Rights . Our police training needs to be changed.
Can you imagine how much money cops like this has caused the city?
And cops wonder why members of the public don't trust or like them. He's an example of horrible cops at work.
Of course, because you should always believe someone when they say they haven't had a drink. Its a fact that no-one ever drinks and drives, and everyone is always truthful about that!
I don't fault the cop. This man tried to act drunk.
@Klaa2 You're right, that's not the issue. The issue is that people like this antagonize the police. Instead of complying is a simple test, he decided, before the conversation even started, that he was going to antagonize the cop. The recording had already started, after all. I wonder what this country would look like if all police in every state stopped doing their job for just one week.
@@Talon771 he calmly and coherently stated his rights. The cop doesn't even know the law he's trying to enforce.
People who don’t like cops got caught doing shit the cops don’t like lol. The only reason he got any clout was because the cop slipped up on some words that’s it. Otherwise what he did was legal.
Funny how the cop thinks one only has rights when one is a lawyer. 😂
NOT “only has rights”.
“Has rights only”.
I love how cops can just blatantly lie about how an event went down. Antagonistic and Slurred speech? Imagine the corruption before phones and recording came into the mix.
The abuses are still there. Most cops are really slow learners. Still doing the same old shit, expecting the same results, even when they know they are being filmed.
He 100% appeared to have slurred speech though
I thought the dude was an older dude the way he sounded, not knowing he was in his 20s.
@@gavinscott10 Scarey to think of how many people are behind bars for someone who makes up charges just to strut his shit..
@@jamessilberschlag1705 Because they know the taxpayer will foot the bill for their misconduct. What is even more galling is LEPS (law enforcement public servants) like this will get promotions and commendations for their "aggressive policing". Slow learning is to be expected from the low IQ individuals employed as LEPS.
abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
I got pulled over and told I had to do a breathalyzer. I hadn't drank in 20 years by that time. I blew zero alcohol and the cop made me do it again. Again, zero. Told me to do a third one...ZERO. After 4 attempts he says to me "boy, you are very lucky. I told him luck has nothing to do with it and that after 20 years not drinking I can smell booze a mile away and "officer, I can smell alcohol on your breath" He was fired 8 days later.
"officer koby arnold has cost the city over $160,000..."
Note to self, go see officer koby
Exactly what I was thinking
Money in the bank fellas
LOL
Ask me if i’m a lawyer , thats the exact moment i would call my lawyer .
Are you a lawyer? Translation; Do you know the law, and can you hold me accountable? Can I lie to you and get away with it? Do I have to follow the law when I deal with you? Because if not, I won't! Cops are so predictable! And this one is more bravado than brains!
Fark, if I cost my boss $70K i'd be fired on the spot. Seem the cops are held to a different standard than the rest of society.
SkinnyCow exactly. How scary is that?!
Curtis Brown
And that makes it ok??
How much do you think it's worth to be hated by most of American society because your job is to make people do the things they don't want to.
SkinnyCow in the sewer standard of low standards.
Curtis Brown we are the boss you moron
Advice to all Law-Abiding-Citizens.
Buy a high quality dashcam. Make sure it records audio as well as video.... and make sure it’s on.
There's one big flaw with that though. If they're bad enough cops, they'll tamper with or destroy the evidence, then you'll have nothing. Even if you're using your phone. IMO, going live on FB or here might do the trick
Where to purchase them from.
@Derek Stairs sure but to Facebook? Idk. I'm conflicted.
I don’t know why the automotive industry doesn’t make this option standard on all vehicles
A lying bully cop? I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Bad cops are like bad priests. They ruin it for the good, decent ones. But seriously, think about what it takes to be a police officer. Is it any wonder we get guys like that one who needs a sobriety field test for being drunk with power!
Crooked cops. They don't come any other way.
Zig says its hard to beleive that this cop did this, so hard to beleive..🤢🤢🤢
"If I can't examine you I going to say you were drunk".... OK...well... don't you need evidence to say someone is drunk?
stevekap8 apparently not in Santa monica
666NedFlanders true but in this case it’s as the judge stated. Retaliation for refusal. Not for law
@666NedFlanders You're NEVER required to do a field sobriety test, and NEVER required to answer an officer's questions apart from giving your name and DOB (or providing a driver's license, proof of insurance and vehicle registration if you're driving). In fact, ANY defense attorney would tell their client to ALWAYS refuse a FST and ALWAYS refuse (politely) to answer any questions. If you refuse to take a breathalyzer or refuse a blood draw there ARE legal consequences, but those consequences need to be weighed against incriminating yourself so you should consult an attorney first.
I’m sure he’d use the same standard for his dear old grandma.
@It smells like bulshit In here Many reasons. Main reason is that even if you don't think you've done anything wrong, there's always the possibility that you've broken some law you weren't aware of. Plus, if an officer has any suspicion about you, they aren't obligated to tell you what that suspicion is, AND they are allowed to lie to you. You might think you're answering innocent questions ("Do you live around here?" "Where are you heading tonight?" "Where are you coming from?" etc) while the officer is already building a case in their mind. For example, they can say that X location is a high crime/high drug traffic neighborhood and use that to give them "reasonable suspicion" to search your car. There is literally zero upside to speaking to police, and huge potential downsides. And that's just if you think you're innocent! If you're guilty of something, let them build their case without your help.
I own a small business, if I had an employee that cost me 160k dollars, he'd be so fired he'd have to apply for unemployment twice!
1) the officer is doing what he is trained to do. Its the mayor and the police chief that you should get mad at, not the underlings. I promise you that random field sobriety tests in the evenings are pushed by the department, and many counties even setup blockades for these illegal tests, with the mayor and police chief's blessing. You wouldn't fire an employee that was doing something idiotic that you told them to do, right? And the customer shouldn't get mad at say a cashier that is doing what you setup as policy for your small business. 2) Unionization of public sector employees should be illegal, and that's the main reason officers feel no repercussions for their actions, as if anything they often get a paid vacation out of serious infractions. And ironically, people think its right winger fascism to blame, but the mayors and police chiefs are almost always Democrats and unions are promoted by the left as well, and very much opposed by the right ideologically. Replace the bad mayors and police chiefs, and abolish public sector unions, and you won't have this problem.
Plus 6 figure salary they get for this BS.
Police departments are very used to scheduling out cash for their shitty behavior
Police Union
So because he had no reasonable suspicion or evidence, and the victim wasn't going to self incriminate, he arrested him.....Welcome to america.....
He made an illegal right turn. That is reasonable suspicion.
Nope, that is justification to make a stop, nothing else.
Jon Richards haha stupid
Jon Richards please come back and comment more dumb ass shit
@@tylercouture216 he had reasonable suspicion for the stop (red light violation), but no probable cause for the arrest.
Where the hell did this cop learn that not complying automatically finds you guilty of a crime?!
Sounds like a Trump supporter to me.
Shinnyshinshin probably his captain
Ryan Plethra whenever someone brings up trump in a unrelated issue it shows their extreme mental retardation
Shinnyshinshin Israel
truth and common sense warrior What makes you say that? You don't need to be black to be against trump, my dude(?)
Not only was the officer threatening he also said his dogs would go to the pound and would be given to other people. POS!!
That’s what I’m thinking... my brother got arrested and he was driving with his puppy and the officer called for me to pick her up because they DID NOT wanna call the pound..
L
That’s what they do, threaten you with arrest. With every action.
That’s not what he said he said he will be at the pound until someone(owner or friend of owner) or they will be adopted if nobody picks them up.
It's not simple and refusing to oblige comands should not mean you automatically go to jail this cop needs to be fired and never allowed to wear a badge ever again
it would be nice if these lousy cops had to pay the settlement out of their own pockets....
I only gave thumbs up to bring the likes from 199 to 200
everyone is guilty, everything is against the Law. and going to jail is the reward for knowing your rights as every citizen should.
I'm not sure how states to states works with DUI check point. I am from California and i am glad that there are check point in our states, because we have a lot of reckless drivers and drunk drivers over where I am at and I do understand why the officer did what he did but lying isn't one of them that I like. All of these could have been avoided if they dude would just do it real fast and go on about his business. I do however disagree with what the judge did, DUI check point are there to keep drunk driver from being on the street, and everyone should go through that and I have lots of time, but not once I ever was asked to get out of my vehicle and do these tests because simply I was awake, officer had no reasons to do anything.
I am glad that citizen knows their rights and laws, but I wish judge knows their laws too.
Same here in Illinois. I applaud DUI check points, it helps keep deadly drivers off the road,
zerious1016 & littleblitz - why are you guys talking about a DYING checkpoint when it was just a stop from doing an illegal right hand turn? D'oh!
Everr Itt 😱..................😏😎
zerious1016 "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Wow! I can’t believe, after reading your description, that people actually thought you HAVE to do field sobriety tests!
This officer is so delusional that he should be hospitalized. Sad state of affairs giving these types a gun and the authority.
The driver was delusional, because if you say you aren't drunk by not taking their test then that does not prove that you aren't drunk and you become suspicious. If people cooperate and prove themselves then there would be no problem afterwards.
@@radioactivedynamite Fuck no, never EVER talk to no pig.
@yeeeamayne Nothing is about entitlement, cops have to follow the same laws as citizens do. If I grew weed in my house during the time it is illegal and it was noticed by the authority's then why should I deny and hide the fact that I grow weed and let them investigate? If you make an illegal right turn, your voice sounds slurred, with blood shot eyes, and don't seem to communicate properly, then why should you not prove anything?
Danielle Adair former soldiers
@@radioactivedynamite The driver was standing up for his civil rights.
The United States Supreme Court ruled drivers are not required to perform a field sobriety test.
When citizens do not stand up for their civil rights the United States Constitution and their civil rights mean nothing.
If my job bailed me out everytime I'd also be saying "it's a great job"
Of course, he probably took a pay cut or demotion for being a "horse soldier" too!
160,000 needs to come out of the Officers pocket.
Newton Washinton out of their retirement
Remy Martin Both
Newton Washinton youre right. Im sure that no cop would become scared to arrest anyone when they hear that they need to pay 160000 if their arrest was wrong. Brilliant plan. Ps: sarcasme all the way
Guilty until proven innocent. There's no point in asking the police what is the law. They will lie to you and there is no consequence to them.
... and he’s still a cop?
Anything is possible in Land of Freedom!
Thanks for sharing.
This was 9 years ago...
It seems the only freedom we have is eroding right before our eyes when police who supposed to serve and protect are looking to arrest people even when their driving I know the person made a wrong turn but give a ticket and move on but no this officer continues with is bullshit it’s a miracle he didn’t get shot oh I forgot he isn’t a person of color
@@Cheepchipsable probably still employed LMAO
He is probably a supervisor covering up for sex predators or kidnappers.
Anything IS possible in the land of freedom to include a 70k settlement.
Cops by law are allowed to lie to you. Always assume they are lieing about the law, but not about how they plan on abusing you & your rights.
Hunter Bogart - I wish it were not true.
www.innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/
www.washingtonexaminer.com/appeals-court-police-can-lie-to-get-consent-to-search-your-home
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp
www.policeone.com/legal/articles/6909121-Case-law-on-police-deception/
@@hunterbogart1923 lying is not illegal, therefore anybody can do it as long as they haven't sworn under oath not to lie. Police officers don't have to tell you the truth. Don't be naive.
@@hunterbogart1923 I mean, of course they aren't necessarily supposed to lie to you, but realistically there are rarely ever consequences for them if they do. There is the law and then there is how people interpret it, If it doesn't have to do with the info on your ticket they can pretty much say whatever they want. Didn't mean to insult by telling you not to be naive. My apologies.
Hunter Bogart - So it’s best to assume the police are lying to you unless you know for sure what they are saying is true.
You have more of a right to prove you aren't drunk by doing a simple test, but you have more of a suspicion if you deny and refuse. Daym that's a great quote.
do you have to be a lawyer to abide by the law? if no why do officers think citizens cant know and understand them.
Always always in today's world lawyer up and pleed the 5th . it doesnt matter if ur a good person or not . it seems to be the only way to our freedom.
I've seen Mr Checkpoint videos before. I respect this young man. I wonder if he has a degree and what it's in? He'd make a great lawyer, judge or congressman or senator. Best Wishes, Mr C.
They should have fired the cop!
Pete Woods firing a police officer = retraining him
That cop was butt hurt thats why he arrested him. get off your high horse your a public servant deal with it or get out.
High HORSE! I see what you did there! XD
So this is guilty before proving innocence... I thought it was innocent until proven guilty?
U said it!
Laws=Control Tax=strength Jail=Time ....( Control Strength And Time) .......so sad, when god creative every single one of us, he has not control us once,human rule human laws!! we r all just really an intelligent mammals that been brain wash, look around us, all there is animals and nature, Are we food source to outter intelligent???WTF....lol
In America, its guilty, untill proven innocent.
Cindy Nguyen - No, you had it right the first time.
Wow! Dumb comment. If you had an 8th grade education, you would know that an arrest is not a guilty verdict. (When you sign for your drivers license, you sign consent to be tested for DUI. If there is probable cause.) If you don't like living under our system of laws, leave. Go live in Venezuela or some other 3rd world country.
A M found the trump supporter
For him to “drink,” he was able to communicate very well
Unless you're really drunk communicating well shouldn't be a problem.
And the cop couldn't smell any alcohol either.
Did the money come out of the pension fund? Create incentives for the police to do the right thing.
Of course not, dummy. It came from the company that insures the city for liability claims and, as the size and number of claims increase, so does the PREMIUM that's charged to...... THE STUPID TAX PAYERS WHO KEEP ELECTING THE SAME CRIMINAL OFFICIALS. (the simple law of physics and logic called Cause and Effect)
Alorand that’s exactly what needs to happen! These bastards need to know their money will be affected when they infringe on taxpayer’s rights!
Here's an incentive to do the right thing... Lose your job if ya ain't doing it the way your employers hired you to do. We are their employers. Fuck, we, the taxpayers, are paying city employees to uphold the law, not break the law. We pay them to keep us in line and we are not keeping the cops in line. That is really stupid. We all need to demand reform, like now. Enough, already.
Rick, what the fuck does Obama have to do with anything? Go take your meds.
It's such a shame that ppl would actually need incentives to do the right thing, rather than to simply do it bc u should, or even more bc its yr JOB. Humanity can be so disappointing
Even if they terminated him he’ll just get picked up in another city..
keepinitsk8a or worse, be the one serving you a los tacos when you clearly ordered a 5 layer burrito with cinnamon twists.
Like the church.
Adam
I need to invest in a recording software that automatically uploads to a cloud. I don’t want an officer to take my phone and delete it
dont worry about it Some police departments have forensic specialists that can get into locked phones and computers. Technically they would need a warrant but with the amount of corruption going on wouldn’t be surprised if they got in and deleted incriminating evidence anyway.
@@dontworryaboutit8127 I just turn on my recorded and lock my screen it'll record until all space is taken
Then don't break the law. And always comply with the officer if you get pulled over....
You can livestream to Facebook, it's the one thing FB is good for.
@@rebeccahetrick6576 Are you seriously dumb enough to believe that if you do not break the law, a police officer would not arrest or ticket you...and LIE??
It's really sad that we live in a country where the average citizen has to record their encounters with the very people whose job is to protect their rights so as to ensure that their own rights are protected.
It’s sad that you become a criminal by simply going through a conversation with police where the officer is provoking you and actively trying to frame you.
Another California cop that they gave a badge and a gun to, and he thinks he's above the law. Just another bully with a badge...
Ernie Bunch Well wouldnt there be any problem of me checkpoint just politely do the dui test, if he wasn't drunk then there wouldnt be a problem ..
maarten wils thats called submitting to opression.
What's oppressive about being polite to a cop?
maarten wils submitting isnt being polite. Thats letting someone step all over you. Its called having selfrespect and not letting a liar bully you.
Well here in Belgium we have standardised breath test, every driver who passes this checkpoint has to ondergo this test. Is it demeaning to do that then?
This has happened to me several times on my way home from work and they always try to arrest me.
I appreciate the police until you get a power tripping cop and they ruin it for all of them.
Yup. Police in my family and I still get antsy because they don't all see themselves as servants. Some think you should worship the ground they walk on for the danger they get (themselves) into. I've known armed security guards that work on state line where to avoid police folks just cross into the next state who have talked down drunks, prostitutes, bikers, and generally crazy folks with a joint lock in the worst cases and a spare cigarette in the best. That's community policing; caring enough about the people you're paid to protect to actually protect and communicate with them, and not exerting authority at every turn.
I hate police.
I was in a major American city years ago and on a certain day an police officer approached me and said to me " Can I talk with you?" We started talking and he was accusing me of attempting to purchase alcohol as a a 19 year old. He demanded that I hand him my ID. I asked him " Am I being detained or arrested "? He didn't answer my question and again demanded my ID. I asked the question 2 more time and after the 3rd time told him " If you don't answer my question, I'm walking away because I don't have to identify myself to you without just cause . I paid attention in High School Civics Class and know my rights." I was never in the liquor store that he was talking about. Don't let the Police bully you into giving up your constitutional rights.
Norman Brown what major state in America were you in and where are you from
0:16 the officer said, “no or no?” Trying to bait him into incriminating himself. What a pos
"Are you a lawyer?" No but I stayed at a Holiday Express." "You may go."
Best to know your rights. Knowledge is powerful.
Tate Shoquist that only applies to a certain group of individuals! Not everyone get to exercise their rights with out someone saying “shoulda just complied”
Yup, Like giving up before the battle even begins 😔
Seems like he has a habit of assuming everyone is intoxicated.
That's why if you're told to do a test then it would be easier to prove if you're not drunk. Otherwise it can be suspicious. How else do you prove that you aren't drunk?
Radioactive Dynamite its not the accused the proves innocence the accuser is supposed to prove guilt and a FST is NOT the only way to do so!! Someone who’s drunk slurs their words, someone who’s drunk has a hard time walking in a straight line, you can smell alcohol in their breath these are just a few methods that this dumbass officer didn’t think to use. If the officer had stayed cool and father deescalated the situation ACTUALLY do his job, maybe after using 1 or two of these tests and he was STILL unsure than arresting him and taking him to the station would have made some sense. Hell of the idiot had just calmly taken the man to jail like he requested... well maybe he’s not an idiot since he didn’t have to pay the lawsuit, the taxpayers did, and the force decided to allow him to keep his job. After all that who’s the real idiot in the end.
@@prime201 How can a person prove they are guilty by doing the test and following orders? There is a reason why the cop pulled over the driver in the first place and it was for making that illegal right lane turn, and because of that the cop would need to perform some tests on the driver. The drivers voice seemed a bit slow, and people who get drunk can have the same effect. It was just a misinterpretation by the cop. It's not always alcohol where a test is performed but some drugs can cause the sames affects too. But if no test can be taken because the driver kept on refusing then how can the officer really be sure that the guy is safe enough to drive when that idiot made that illegal right lane change? If the driver just cooperated then that would have saved him time, the cops time, and wouldn't have caused tax payers to pay the lawsuit. aMeRiCaNs are disobedient and undisciplined in general, because they will make an excuse for everything even if they are wrong. Cooperating and complying will get you out of situations more effectively but none of you want to do that.
Radioactive Dynamite agreed but how else are lazy Americans supposed to get huge paydays if they don’t bait cops into shit only reason he got a pay out is because of the cops word choice. Dude sounded either mentally impaired or had some speech issues. But don’t worry you can find some blm cop hating shit stains of society wishing death on cops when half of em can barely fill out their welfare forms
@@SlaughterTheSick95 lol, true that.
Imagine now , how many innocent ppl have been screwed over by these blue goons
I have autism, and I'm at higher risk of cops than non-autistic people are. I can drive like the non-autistics, but one thing I heard is that autism tends to get mistaken for intoxication, and so it's true I can get arrested just for being autistic. So when I see a police cruiser, I get nervous, I would just turn one way if able to and go where they wouldn't be going and move on.
I'm saddened to see what he had to go through but happy he fought for his rights!
I love how they always ask "are you a lawyer" as if that changes the law,smh
He sounds tired not drunk
He sounds like he's intentionally speaking abnormally just to create this situation. I'm not saying the cop is right, but the guy is baiting.
Even if he was there is no reason to arrest a sober man for DUI
You can be so tired and sound drunk.
Tae Kwando I'm not sure on the laws in the U.S., but in Canada, being tired and admitting it can lead to a DUI charge. Here, a DUI(or a DWI) of any kind is illegal.
Driving while tired is dangerous as hell, the cop said he had bloodshot eyes. The dude sounded like he just took nyquil or something, either that or he's a good baiter/actor
THIS IS THE "POLICE REFORM" WE NEED...
Fire this sob officer
Taxpayers pay for his stupidity.
Earth exactly!
Can we appreciate the exchange...
"where did you learn that from" - cop
"that's the law" - law abiding citizen
well that is stupid...
you could end the situation by just following plain and simple...
instead he goes to jail and underwent all of it just to prove he is innocent
which by the way he can do by doing the test...
unless that was his real plan,
to get money from the settlement that is
@@NeykongTV the 'test' they wanted to do was a field sobriety test, it requires you to do actions that the police offer tells you to do and he will decide if you look drunk or not. It is completely subjective to the police officers view.
@@gmskong i know what the test is....
if your not drunk then surely you can do it with ease....
with dealing with situations like this its important to avoid raising further suspicion...
not complying and playing smart cause you know the law will only make your situation worst....
in youtube alone almost 90% of cobfrontation gone wrong is cause by "i dont want to cause i know the law" type of shit
@@NeykongTV or they could just use a breathalyzer which tests your breath for any traces of alcohol. Completely negating the subjectivity of a FST.
Yes there will still be some false positives, but a lot less than FST's.
@@gmskong what ever be the case
compliance is the answer....
im a firefighter but whenever im off duty or in a different city I just follow the ones on duty.....
i don't brag that "i know the law so i have the right to refuse"
i don't even need to verify myself to them that im in the service
i just follow and off I go....
i might as well comply for a few minutes than go thru a lot just because of the "i know the law" mentality
" are you a lawyer?"
"Are you a doctor?"
"Are you able to prove that you aren't drunk without me giving you a simple test?"
@@radioactivedynamite A test designed that you will fail.
Are you Jesus?
If I cost my Security Agency that amount of money and court cases, I would be fired. I guess being a Blue Boy Gang Sovereign Citizen has its' perks.
Strong union.
Well the cop isn't going to learn til the money comes out of his own pocket. Tax payers covering the tab isn't going to teach them anything
Stephanie Sanders I agree cops should be put on a ballot every few years and let the citizens vote on keeping them if they prove honourable. Otherwise they subject to firing and public exposure.
THAT COP SHOULD BE PAYING FROM HIS PAYCHECK NOT THE TEXPAYER PERIOD
Good on the judge for applying the law correctly and by not shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff like many do 👏👏
The burden is on the plaintiff. In a civil case the plaintiff has to show by a preponderance of the evidence that every element of their civil action complaint has been met. Defendants can present evidence of an affirmative defense that they would have to prove but the plaintiff always bears the initial burden.
I always laugh when a cop says "so you're a lawyer?!?!" Like 6 months at a community college makes him a lawyer.
You can not make an arrest based on assumptions!!
Happens all the time
If the person refuses do do a simple sobriety test, YES.
THAT'S WHAT THE SOBRIETY TEST IS FOR
settlements don't stop police from abusing authority. its not their money it is taxpayers money. if they don't care about the citizens do people really think they care about the lawsuits their employer pays out...
Jason Roberts if its our money that these fuckers are playing with, then the public should be able to fire his sorry ass!!
Its actually comes from an insurance account.
field sobriety test you can refuse. they should just go straight to breathalyzer test.
sean pitts
you only have to do a breath test after you have been arrested. not before
+Steven Roberts true, but one would think that instead of playing tidly winks, one could ask to just have a breathalyzer.
you may be right,,,,, I dunno because I don't drive after drinking.
words of a true statist.
Question: have I ever seen you in another video chanting " USA, USA, USA?"
You can fool a FST any day but u can't fool a breathalyzer or blood test.
Which can only be administered after they have arrested you. Not before
"...People come up and they're intoxicated and sometimes they end up going to jail because they are too intoxicated" - The fool has learned absolutely nothing and are still putting innocent people in jail.
Damn, that cop really sent those dogs to doggy jail 🤦♂️
Sadly in some areas that can also get the poor dogs kill (which is why I did not understand why someone can't be called to pick them up.)
at 0:16 the officer asked "No or NO?" WTF?????
C Wu I think No? gives consent. And No does not
This is why police should have to obtain some form of insurance should they wrongfully arrest or otherwise do unjust harm to a citizen....
why not just get rid of all police department and save the tax payers a ton of $$$$...leave the sheriff because elected and they only show up to issue warrants for an arrest for an actual crime..
cops forgot somewhere along the line that their Job is to protect and serve the public.
not harass and intimidate and browbeat.
They are not constitutionally required to take any action that would result in the prevention of a crime. (SEE several supreme court rulings.)
They do not protect.
They have been summoned each and every fucking time the citizens want change in this country, which they express through protest, soley to intimidate, taze, water hose, pepper spray and terrorize the citizens into standing down.
They do not serve.
Their primary function is to serve the state and protect ITS property.
Not you.
I wish all ppl who exercise their right like this guy get treated fairly, instead of the old “he should have just complied” bs!! Congrats on winning ur case!
I love it when a cop poses the question, "are you a lawyer?" without even recognizing the paradox of their question. The implicit statement behind the "are you a lawyer?" challenge is you're not smart enough to know the law. But if the law is so esoteric that only lawyers can understand it, how are laymen expected to understand and comply with it?
In most states you do not have to perform a roadside field sobriety test--and there is no penalty for refusing to do so. You may have to, under implied consent, do a breath test under threat of loss of license. Taking a field sobriety test is a trap....the cop can just say that you failed....even if you didn't. Always, always, record.
You can refuse a breathalyzer if you’re not arrested. If the officer arrests you for driving under the influence and asks you to take a breathalyzer test and you refuse then it’s an irreversible suspension of your driving license.
Abdulziz, so you can refuse the sobriety test, then get arrested (likely for doing so) then have to take the breathalyzer (isn't it apart of the sobriety test) or is the sobriety test the backwards alphabet/walk a straight line.
which I have trouble with after sitting for long periods of time.
so get arrested and due later?
Yes, you can refuse both field sobriety tests & breathalyzers as long as you're not under arrest. If the officer tells you that you're under arrest for DUI (Driving under the influence) and asks you to take a breathalyzer test, in which you refuse, then it's an irreversible suspension of your driving license. A field sobriety test isn't a part of the breathalyzer. The officer won't necessarily arrest you for refusing either, however, if you do and he arrests you, they're going to use that against you in the court of law. When you appear in court they will most likely use that against you and argue that if you weren't driving under the influence that you wouldn't had refused the tests. If you have any type of impairment that might make you fail the field sobriety test then you should inform the officer before he starts his test.
Field sobriety tests usually consist of three parts: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmu, One-Leg Stand and the Walk and Turn part.
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmu: An officer will hold a pen and ask you to keep your eyes on the pen, if your eyes jerk around while you try to keep with the pen (or object he's using), then it might indicate that you're driving the influence.
Walk and Turn: The officer will ask you to walk in a straight line then turn, if you stumble/fall when you're doing the task, it might indicate that you're driving under the influence.
One-Leg Stand: The officer will ask you to stand on one of your legs for 30 seconds, if you sway around, use your arms to balance yourself or stumble, it might indicate that you're driving under the influence.
You can refuse the SFST however (and not in this case) there are other identifiers for DUI so even if you refuse the SFST you can still be arrested. Not for refusing but for having the smell of alcohol in you, slurred speech, red eyes, staggering, inability to stand, signs of urinating in self, being incoherent, etc etc
+Ann-Marie Charles so pretty much still the officer can do whatever he wants lol... who's around to prove that you weren't smelling like alcohol? Or does the cop have to prove that with phsyical evidence?
taxpayers are forced to pay to settle suits for the incompetence and crimes of cops without having any say on the hiring, firing and disciplinary actions taken when cops break the law. ISN'T THAT TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION?
the cop only arrested him and lied to him because he dint know he was being recorded,if he knew he was being recorded it would have been different.
"Are you a Lawyer?" WHERE THE FUCK DOES THE LAW SAY YOU HAVE TO BE A LAWYER TO KNOW THE LAW OF YOUR OWN COUNTRY?!
Officer was aggressive and lied about guy being drunk.
Michael Shinault now now let's not point out the futilities of officer fucktard I'm pretty sure it won't be the last time the whole world sees another Piggy's snout whose iq is between a rock and a jar of pickles
Wow 70 k for 1 day in jail. That is pretty awesome.
Anto Anto Took 3 years to settle. He might have even had his license revoked for refusing the initial test
Miles Moore
In Usa is amazing how everything LITERALLY everything can be sorted out with a cash settlement.
Brand new car while being high af
Lawyers usually take a minimum of 33% of settlement so a little less
fukkk jail...it aint worth it not 4a second!!! u must b 1 of them broke cats..smfh
A CHP officer once told me NO ONE passes a field sobriety test
This cop should be behind bars.
lose his badge for sure.
KpopNiDontStop why?
Marco Sartori if I am stopped because I am suspected of driving while intoxicated and I refuse simple tests, then so be it. The thing I am not that stupid. I would quickly and easily submit knowing that I am in no way intoxicated. The kid was dumb and went to jail. The o ly reason he got money was because 1 judge believed the officer arrest partly out of anger. Besides Marco, I simply asked why an officer should be thrown behind bars for a lawful arrest and you wish it on me, Haha. What is worse even is that the poster here highlighted your negative and ignorant comment. Who the heck highlights a comment like that.
Marco Sartori Your not really worth replying to at this point but what the heck. SFST's are valid and still required. There is no violation of rights. If one does not submit, one is open to arrest. Of you drive you are open to this. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Each state is allowing you to drive. You sound like someone that is ignorant of the law and probably most things, but speaks out anyway. I believe they call those people shit disturbers.
Marco Sartori Oh Marco, all you did by posting that was re enforce what I said. They are valid tests, for helping the officer to determine the level or lack thereof, of intoxication. If you decline, you may be legally arrested because you leave the officer with no other choice. He believes you are intoxicated and therefore a danger to yourself and other drivers. He cannot morally and legally let you drive away, and because dwi is a criminal offense, he also cannot let you walk away. Btw, your researching skills are lacking much the same as your communication skills. SFST's are fully backed by NHTSA as of 2015 through 2018. They are all over the DWI section of their website, and other places. Plus I am certified and know they are supported. Fail.
Officer Koby Arnold is a $160,000.00 liability to the city of San Monica, California.
Damm
This case is 3 years old so I'm sure he has cost the city at least 300k by now
Why don't they make the police learn the laws better than they do.
Randy Hamblin as I was just mentioning in another reply police officers should be mandated to go to law school the same way that attorneys do. Usually they just go to a police academy for a couple of months and band they graduate and their cops now I wonder if they go through any type of law study.
Tina Cole Texas yeah pretty much that's all they do it should require them to go to law school but apparently they don't being a cop is easy you just have to get through the academy and that's it I've always stopped and wonder just how well do they know the laws.
Randy Hamblin the officer knew the law. He didn't articulate well enough. He was allowed to arrest him if he denied the FST, but the only difference is having mispoke and having to pay a settlement solely because of that. Police followed procedure and I'm sure he could have more readily explain why you are not allowed to refuse a FST ( which I assume to him is not allowed = able to arrest) ofc he worded it poorly and mispoke, but in all honesty the cop wasn't bad. The dude won on a technicality and imo is a Dick.( the guy that got the settlement is a dick, snowflake) like rly who records that and then refuses to cooperate, only people looking for a payout. I really hate most of the pple in this comment section
Anthony I don't know about winning on a technicality cuz suing the police is not that easy you have to really have some hardcore proof most of the time the cops always win the case anyway unless if you've got strong evidence in a good lawyer then you have a chance of coming out on top. The only thing that irks me is these bad cops that think they're above the law not all cops are like that.
bluetech7753 bad cops? How is this cop bad. Pls
Why is the benefit of doubt always given to a cop??
Benefit of doubt should be given to the citizens!
Always film the criminals
I was pulled over by a cop for speeding, and let's be clear, I WAS DEFINITELY SPEEDING. Idk why, but I believe that around that time, I was extremely stressed abt my divorce and child custody case. So my tolerance level was negative 4.
Anyhoo, when the cop pulled me over, I'll admit, I was HOT. But even though I was sarcastic and extremely snippy, I never screamed, yelled or cursed. I just demanded the ticket so that I could be on my ANGRY way.
Needless to say, later that day, I felt awful about how i acted. I even thought about reaching out to the cop to apologize for being a super bitch. But i figure that i would see him in court, so i waited.
A month later, I hired an attorney because my job wouldn't give me time off. And the day of my court date, my lawyer called me and said, "the judge wants to suspend your license for ONE YEAR,"
I asked my attorney why and he told me that the cop said that I cursed him out and called him obscenities! Needless to say, I was livid. I assured my attorney that I was being rude and short and bitchy BUT I was careful not to curse AT ALL or yell. My attorney told me tht it's bad, and it's my word against the cops. SO, I told my attorney to ask the judge to continue the case and make the police department PULL THE TAPE. I told my attorney to tell the judge that when he sees that I never did those things, that I wanted the lying ass cop fired. Guess what? To avoid being seen as a liar, THE COP DROPPED THE ALLEGATIONS and my case was dismissed.
Victory.
EDIT: For the ones whose first language is idiocy and their second language is English; I still had to pay court costs and take an online driving course, BUT the move to have my L's suspended for a year was dismissed, contingent upon me completing the course. Geez.
UrsTrulyKJ they sure are a narcissisting and fragile bunch of snowflakes
Victory and the cop is still on the job...
you should have still went with the case to get that cop fired. you could have been like pull the tape and get him fired, and if he drops the case because he lied then get him fired too.
This is the most bullshit I've ever heard. Did you really just make up this dumbass story to look cool on RUclips??
The punishments for speeding tickets are set. They can't just "decide they want to suspend your license for a year"
If they were going to suspend your license it's because you had previous tickets and too many points. A judge also can't just decide to suspend your license because you supposedly yelled at a cop. That's not how any of that works, AT ALL...
Glad it worked out, you could've tried the pretty woman stressed over divorce and child cryed got him too take you too dinner too get his buddies too LEAN on your future X, solved all your worries on the cheap and in one stop
I work in a warehouse, if I dropped a $5 product I'm I'm facking fired
george otieno haahha stop your making me laugh 😂 .
That cop should be in jail he was the one breaking the law !!!!
a simple audio recording won 70 K...This kid knows how to make money hihihihi Congrats
I'm supposed to feel safe around people like this guy? Protected? Comftorable? LMAO
I hope he got his dogs back poor dogs
He wanted to have the car towed rather than have it safely parked. He wouldn't let him call a family member to retrieve the car or the dogs. He insisted on having the dogs be placed in the pound to potentially be adopted, against the owners wishes.
And his response to the initial question of whether he had taken drugs, prescription drugs can give the appearance of being drunk.
Idiot cop through and through.
Yeah that's what I was worried about too
@@Jimbob1337 I agree on his initial response...and to me he did sound intoxicated his speech wasn't slurred so much as lazy which is common with opiates. I think the cop could have at least let him call someone for the dogs tho.
The only reason why the judge drop the charges is because this corrupt police officer was audio recorded. If it wasn’t for this, it goes back to the saying, police have the judges in there pocket because whatever the police write on there arrest complaint is what the judge goes by. This judge would of been lied to with a good morning smile and a hand shake but thanks for the audio recording it set this man free not the judge.