These Cops Are A HUGE Liability! INSANE Stop!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 фев 2024
- Second Channel: / @johnlang6593
Spotify: spoti.fi/439TpHT
Patreon: / audittheaudit
Twitter: / audittheaudit
Submit your videos here: auditheaudit@gmail.com
Sponsorship inquiries: audit@ellify.com
Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. Help us grow and educate more citizens and officers on the proper officer interaction conduct by liking this video and/or subscribing.
This video is for educational purposes and is in no way intended to provoke, incite, or shock the viewer. This video was created to educate citizens on constitutionally protected activities and emphasize the importance that legal action plays in constitutional activism.
Bear in mind that the facts presented in my videos are not indicative of my personal opinion, and I do not always agree with the outcome, people, or judgements of any interaction. My videos should not be construed as legal advice, they are merely a presentation of facts as I understand them.
FAIR USE
This video falls under fair use protection as it has been manipulated for educational purposes with the addition of commentary. This video is complementary to illustrate the educational value of the information being delivered through the commentary and has inherently changed the value, audience and intention of the original video.
Original video: • Aggressive Sgt gets ID...
LAC AUDIT’s Channel: / @lawabidingcitizen2023
Sources:
Fifth Amendment- bit.ly/3vZ3D21
Terry v. Ohio- bit.ly/2SFAnK9
Berkemer v. McCarty- bit.ly/3gcm7B9
Obiter dictum- bit.ly/4bwT4DJ
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada- bit.ly/3nYdxIV
Brown v. Texas- bit.ly/3p1SKDr
75 Pa. C.S. § 6308- bit.ly/49aBELz
Commonwealth v. Singletary- bit.ly/3udRe9S
75 Pa. C.S. § 1511- bit.ly/3u47ieo
75 Pa. C.S. § 102- bit.ly/42n8RRl
Delaware v. Prouse- bit.ly/3iz7lV3
Be sure to check out my second channel if you haven't yet: ruclips.net/channel/UClTjur-9cx8Bb4MW8r0K6xw
They never articulated a crime. Not even close.
If you don't already know about this guy, you WILL WANT to know about him 😂 rayrayz camera, çops seem to fear him 😊
Can you please do Dolton, IL and Dolton Police it will go viral!!!!!!!
It's a great recruiting tactic hey if you become a cop you can do whatever you want😂😮😅🐷💩🤡s until you come up against the knowledgeable citizen who knows the law😮
Cop can't decide whether he is asking or commanding you to ID 😂😂😂 the black man in the car knows the law better than the old white guy who was a cop for probably years what an as ho😮
A person needs a law degree to live free in the land of freedom.
Not at all. You need to know and stand up for the Legal/Lawful Definition of; Inalienable/Unalienable and what constitutes a Human Right. As long as you're willing to challenge these members of their Cult of Authority on such matters then they are obligated/bound to respect them or become Criminal by their own same set of Rules. Coercion is a Crime no matter whom is committing it. I'm looking at you Police Officers...
Even if you do, the fuzz will tell you that your degree is worthless, inaccurate, and lacks qualified immunity.
Remember that they say ignorance of the law is no excuse
Except cops, they are not required to have to know all the laws
I THINK YOU MEANT TO SAY THE LAND OF FEIFDOM CITIZENS ARE PEASANTS , YOU KNOW .
Problem is police don't and they have qualified stupidity.
Always remember and never forget, the police are legally allowed to lie to you. Let me clarify something...In the midst of an officers investigation,whether it's a murder investigation,or if you're pulled over for a traffic violation...that makes it to court before a judge... "yes your honor,but he lied about that in his investigation when questioning me."
Judge - "that may be true,but he's allowed to lie to you in an investigatory capacity...so I can't help you there." That's what I mean,when I say they can "legally" lie to you. You can't use it as a defense against a police officer. Now if he lies to the court,that's where their lying is not legal or allowed.
And they will even when they don't need too.
And I'm legally allowed to ignore them and answer none of their questions or assist their investigation whatsoever.
This isn't entirely true. Unless you somehow make it clear that you're exercising your 5th Amendment right, you can still land in trouble in unlucky situations (fit a description, etc) @@innocentbystander3317
But they aren't allowed to make issuance of threats of violence, threats of arrest without actual probable cause to do a arrest are threats of violence
@@innocentbystander3317ding ding: that's the correct answer, the cops aren't interested in making friends or interacting with the community LMFAO you can't lose that one if you don't play
So wait, if an unlicensed teenager decided they wanted to wait in the car and listen to the radio while their parents are shopping or whatever, they could get in trouble if they jump in the driver seat pretending to drive while they are waiting? Cuz I used to do that..
Absolutely. I had exactly that happen to me. I was EIGHT years old, hopped into the front seat to fiddle with the radio and a police officer approached the window. He was kind to me and asked if I had a driver's license then explained that because I was 'operating a motor vehicle' I was required to wear a seatbelt etc. The car was not running, just the radio- but the key WAS in the ignition as the officer pointed out. Again, I was a child and this interaction was meant to create awareness. I did not get into any trouble and (I think) the officer left before my family returned to the car. No threats, no arrests, no problem. But this was in 🇨🇦 in the 90's. I was raised to be polite and respectful to those in uniform.
Yup, know what you mean.
Yep. And if you leave the bar, get to the parking lot, and decide you're too drunk to go home so you sleep it off in your car, you can be arrested for dui.
@@sarahtar what if someone decided sleep it off and they are the only person in the car but they are in the passenger seat, with the engine running, could they still get in trouble?
@@jestinnawelch35
It depends on which state they're living in.
Some will bust you if your keys are anywhere in the vehicle.
I saw a case about fifteen years ago where, this dude was drunk, he refused the request of his friend to drive him home because he didn't want to leave his car overnight.
His friend let him stay in the car, but took his keys, and told him he'd be back in the morning to return the keys.
The guy was crashed out in the drivers seat when a cop busted him for DUI. Cops couldn't find his keys, the guy couldn't remember his keys were taken by his friend.
Since he didn't remember his keys were confiscated by his friend, the cop argued that his intent was to drive drunk, and busted him for that.
He beat the case in court, and the judge admonished the police for having the audacity to jail a guy on intent, when there was no such legislation.
He should have never mentioned that he didn't know where his keys were, because that opened the door for the cop to argue, that he could have easily thought they were there in the car. That's why you limit conversation with them. They're always looking for an angle to pad their numbers.
A C- ? WTF? That’s such an injustice in itself!
Need room for the real bad ones
These officers didn't "misunderstand" or "misinterpret" the 4th amendment. They knew full well what they were doing. They've just been trained that lying and pressuring citizens usually gets their compliance. This isn't an ignorance problem, it's a maliciousness problem.
Yep. These jokers have been around for a long time. They know exactly what they are “trying” to do.
It's "accepted"
The behavior of these two make me fear for their potential behavior toward their families behind closed doors
The real question is why is ID ike crack to them ??
They misrepresented it
"We ID everyone we come into contact with" sounds a lot like "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!"
It's different. It's worse.
In the Germany of "that certain time", there was a legal justification for identifying people. That's just a statement, not a defense. But there were legal reasons for the police to want to know who (and what) you were, where you lived, if you had the right to be where they met you...
With a few exceptions, such reasons do no longer exist in our law. It's true that every German citizen is legally required to _own_ a "Personalausweis" - the state-issued ID. But (again, with a few exceptions), we are not required to show them on request. Or even have them on us.
Similar to the U.S. regulations, there are these situations where the police can demand you to identify. When you are suspected of a crime, or are considered a witness to a crime.
But mostly, you are not required to "show your papers"... and our police would ask just anyone to do so.
That's the difference. U.S. police does that _even when they don't have the legal right to do so_. It's an intimidation tactics... just like in our brown past. _"We know you now. We know where you live. We have an eye on you. Don't do anything we might not like!"_
And it's worse. Because our police back then was legally allowed to do that. Yours is not... and they still do it.
My mind is blown reading someone saying any police policy in America is worse than what nazi Germany did. Unreal
@@Groffili sad , but true .
@Groffili Don't need to go to Germany for that. Black Americans needed "walking papers" upon demand all the way until the 1970s. In some areas still do. Doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional when LE has local judges as buddies.
If you did nothing wrong, you got nothing to fear. All I read in the comments are whiny Karens who are definitely hiding sonmething.
Always remember when saying they demonstrated a false understanding, they might know what it truely is. They are absolutely 10000% allowed and encouraged to lie to you.
They are so power hungry. That first cop was SO furious he wouldn't yield to his demands
How the hell do you give the cop a C for lying and attempting to violate this man's rights repeatedly?
because thats the minimum standard apparently
Threats of violence too you forgot
As long as the cop doesn't beat the man within an inch of his life, they'll get a passing grade on this channel
@@BabomomebeoNot true.
Because it’s legal for the police to do those things 🤷♂️
"I don't consent to any searches, seizures, or questions...so either arrest me for whatever crime you think I have committed or leave me alone."
He even asked him WHAT CRIME he's "suspected" of, but of course, the cop had no answer because the caller didn't have an answer. That's why he kept grasping at every straw he could think of and pivoting faster than an ice-skater. 🙄
Yeah you going to jail 😂
Love it!
Mic drop
Just dont drop said mic infront said cop, or its littering! 😂@user-fm2iw3um3u
"C-"? This "supervisor" doesn't know basic law, and became argumentative,combative, and threatening when confronted with a citizen asserting their civil rights.
So everytime my 5yo climbs up into the drivers seat after parking and unbuckling him, he is in command and control for just sitting in the drivers seat after the vehicle is legally parked?
called the cops to report suspicious people in my neighbors garden and when the cops got there they realized it was just garden gnomes my neighbor placed there, but the sad part was the cops spent 15 minutes trying to I.D. the gnomes in hopes of an arrest
😂👌🤣😂🤣
They were trying to determine what name the g was an abbreviation of; finally put Goober on the report.
Flamingos, on the other hand, would have been really suspicious.
I'm just curious how seeing my ID tells a cop if I have broken the law or not.
🤣🤣🤣
so the officer failed to investigate the caller... as usual. Threatening false arrest should be grounds for firing.
Their jobs would be so much easier if they actually did their jobs and respected people's civil rights
Haircut is scary. This cop is going fishing. Hope this man sued this township.
If you think about what arrest entails, threatening components of it outside legal backing (assault, battery, kidnapping, etc) is actually illegal. I'm unaware of the legal theory of such threats being tested in the case of police, my guess is no court would allow it, but I do hold that this makes such a threat actually illegal.
I bet there was no caller
Definitely should be. @@admthrawnuru
Drives me crazy how many times an officer will threaten but never follow through implying they know the threat is empty and they cannot legally follow through because they are in the wrong.
Hily shit! This episode is DENSE!!!😳❤️❤️❤️
I could use this video as inspiration for an entire semester of criminal justice!❤
Thank you for your service, my muse.🥰
"Suspicion of being aware of his rights."
It is beyond disturbing how many officers lack even a basic understanding regarding ID laws, especially considering how vital it is to their duties.
They don't need to know anything when the system is on their side and turns a blind eye to their wrongful actions.
The majority know the law; they just ignore it.
Cops Lie.
Even he looks away from a suspicious vehicle! He could have been killed. Did they call the plate number in for wants or warrants? Did they genetic mark the car? If they don't they are not in fear for their life!
It’s funny how the police can interpret laws differently for different people.
I was arrested yesterday for cussing while on private property in Kaplan Lousiana. Make that make sense.
Fight it in court then
SUE! It's your first amendment right and city ordanance means nothing.
What crime was the officer investigating? He said there was no crime committed, so what was he investigating?
We investigate crimes. We do not investigate people.
Arrest this cop for nazi haircut. Scary!
The man has been a cop for probably 30+ years and shows that much ignorance of the law.
“We didn’t say you were doing anything illegal.”
Exactly. Which is a violation of my rights.
oversimplification. Police do not need to actually see you doing anything illegal to lawfully detain you. All they need is reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot. They can continue the stop for as long as it takes to extinguish their initial suspicion for the stop, or until they establish probable cause to make an arrest. In this case, the police simply did not have enough reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.
WHAT OTHER JOB CAN YOU PULL THIS SHIT?
Get away from the dog 😂 man they were really clutching at straws!
car*
These police officers failed to investigate whether there was anything suspicious about parking that car in that location. the information provided in the call was worthless until verified. Was there ever a call?
Yeah, all they need to do is park down the street and watch for activity before making contact.
The sergeant's Heinrich Himmler haircut is fitting.
Lol spot on!
lmao
lol, between that and Bert from Bert and Ernie, I agree
no wonder that with cops like that the prison is filled with innocent people .
I was one..60 months for nothing
filled with "innocent people" you are spot on! But most people vote for "tough on crime" politicians that did this to us. Too many people don't really understand the difference between "tough on crime" and "not oppressing the innocent".
@@halkreitman7838 Yep... that is common these days... just remember.... God is going to make everyone that has done that to you pay the price. There is a reason Christ said most people will not be saved. Far too many people are okay with what happened to you.
I remember the first time I heard about privately owned, for profit prisons, I was terrified. Once there's an economic motivation to fill these prisons, we, to be blunt, are fucked.
@@CD-vb9fi
Yes, 'the back the blue til it happens to you,' good ole boy cop suckers.
Yo !!! Nice seeing a local on here . I’m from linwood in lower chi!!! Good work on keeping them boys on their toes !!!
they knew not to generate an incident number because then they'd have to explain, likely in court, why they did.
It's like you go on his walkie-talkie That's 1 inch away from his lying mouth to ask for a number that he does all the time for traffic citations
Not if they simply drop the charges before you go to court. At that point, your only form of recourse is by filing an expensive and time-consuming lawsuit.
The sergeant gets a C-? No, he gets an F+ for not knowing the law and making up Supreme Court ruling. Stuff like that can cause someone their life.
This why I don't subscribe to your channel. Your playing both sides
You mean F- lower than an F
''tuff like that can cause someone their life.'' - already did probably thousands of times, yea... freedom
@@aurelijus1I hate to say this but your country is definitely free when your biggest problem is police not having a 100% understanding of the law.. Wait until you see an actual country that’s not free, where the law doesn’t even matter in some cases, and you are killed or imprisoned for saying something about the leader. America is one of the most free countries on our planet, and it’s not the best, but you definitely don’t understand the conditions anywhere else if you think America isn’t free or is bad
My thoughts exactly lol
I love taking a break from your channel. Whenever I come back there's just so much IRL lore to get me through work
I give the Sargent an F. I do NOT believe he does not know there is no stop and identify statute in the state because he did not arrest him. And based on his attitude it WAS the fact he was a black man (appearance) meant he thought he could make those demands. Racism is not saying a person is black or the N-word, it is treating people differently or having expectations of others not based on actual individualized information. This is a minor example of what black people mean when they say we can “see” cops being racist all the time.
"Blatant misunderstanding" - "Hostile" - "Authoritarian" - "Implying... [false] arrest"
*C-* 😂😂😂
Cops on ATA usually only get Ds or Fs when violence by the police officer is involved
Maybe in this the C stands for a certain 4-letter word that can refer to both cops and a lady part.
It pisses me off how they act like an anonymous call superceded all Your Constitutional Rights.
Yes, on that basis that, any unknown, unvetted individual can make any claim, and that would be taken as gospel by the police over the word of the person they’re “investigating”!!! It’s just ludicrous!
@@cindland "Well then just prove your innocence! If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!"
Do a video on Douglas Slade, LAPD, 10 mil lawsuit
Good to see you dropped on the tube ! I worry about you fam , reading these folks their rights . Old school talk . Keep up the great work and be safe 👊🏾
I think the basic problem is that many citizens think cops have ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, and therefore, cave-in to every demand made by cops. Thanks to COP WATCH and AMENDMENT AUDITOR channels, citizens are learning that there are guidelines and laws the cops MUST follow. THANK YOU ALL! 👍👍
Yep and anyone who stands up for their rights is automatically resisting, obstructing and a criminal in their eyes.
Well we had auditors like the Black Panthers way back in the 60s but too many didn't want to listen thanks to slanted media. Thank god the people can be their own media today.
The bigger problem is most police think they have absolute authority.
They didn't generate a incident number is because they were lying about the phone call!
I’m guessing the guy in the car called himself in
@@adamgrove9198never thought of that
@@adamgrove9198 yep he’s just trolling the cops
Bingo. Cop lies you hear daily: "We got a call", "In this day and age", "Doing this for officer safety", "With all the stuff going on in the news", "Been a lot of recent break ins"....the list of generalizations they substitute for actual evidence of a specific criminal act committed by a specific person, is amazing.
@@adamgrove9198proof of this claim ?
love the way you narrate these videos. Plenty of information to go by pertaining to the state
How do these officers STILL not know that they cant ask for ID unless they have probable cause to suspect you of a crime?
The Sergeant's haircut is hilarious.
This is the comment I was searching for lmao dude needs to let the hair go and just go full bald
You ought to see his taint
He went to the barber and said "I want the 'you can spot that I'm a cop from a mile away' haircut please"
If you watch WWII documentaries, you'll recognize it as Nazi SS chief Heinrich Himmler's haircut. I think the sergeant is a fan.
@@jmmahony oh for sure that is definitely the Unterschnitt style...
It always infuriates me when someone who KNOWS they have to right to remain silent keeps talking to the cops
Exactly
Having and even invoking the right to remain silent doesn’t necessarily mean you need to self-muzzle and not protest unlawful behavior by the cops. The right exists so as not to self-incriminate. What I’ve seen some say is, “I refuse to answer certain questions.”
You still should talk to cops if you haven't done anything wrong. You shouldn't answer questions.
Right to remain silent means I DON'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS!
Seriously.
I had the exact same thing happened to me but I was parked waiting for my cats surgery for one hour.the difference is that the cop told me that the road was a unmarked private road to a mountain rv camp.I didn’t want to deal with the cop and complied 100%
Sgt. Gillmore, in his Investigation 🔎 should have noticed the giant A-hole on the shoulder of that road! 😂
The only illegal activity I saw was the supervisor's haircut
😂 thank you for saying it. I was looking for this
And the shades, what are those things about?
Straight out of an 80s cop show
As a LEO in Pennsylvania, I have a problem with everything that sergeant is trying to do and some of the lies he’s told to the driver. I hope he filed a complaint for harassment and civil rights violations against him.
It's guys like him that make your job harder.
which side of Appalachia are you?
I'm glad you feel that way. Step one is always identifying the real problem, especially when you're in the same field. Now the second step is for you to go to that Sergeant and tell him how wrong he was. Be part of the change
Be the change you wish to see. Speak up, and watch your career trajectory immediately flatten because you're not being a good "team player" anymore.
@@Ld7snake east siiide!!!
When does the 6th amendment come into play “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”? I would ask to speak to the caller.
What is that clip with the lawyer in the court room they always use from? Ive been unable to figure it out tia
Dispatch NEEDS to ask callers what the 'suspect'is doing or has done. If nothing, the tell the caller what's going on is NOT ILLEGAL.
Most cops don't even know the law. What makes you think any dispatchers do?
Dispatchers have no right to do that.
There may not have been a call. The cop. Could have lied as an excuse for approaching the car.
C- seems particularly generous. That implies that the officer was at least partially right, which he absolutely wasn't. He was entirely wrong in every way. The only thing he didn't do was act on his wrong assertions or outright lies.
Their ratings suck a lot lately
I think if the officer arrested the man, ATA would have given him an F. But since he officer did not, he gave him the C-. That's kinda been ATA's MO on these things.
Personally, I think the moment a cop lies, they should get an F. But I get it. If lying is an F, then what do you give to a cop who assaults someone? ATA should probably change to a 1 to 10 system, where10 is a cop performed well, friendly and within the law. And a 1 where a cops just fails miserably, being aggressive and breaking every law possible.
if you give them all an F, it takes away the significance of when the officers go completely bat shit crazy and beat/arrest the individual.
So the C- makes sense if you consider that
Another thing to keep in mind as well, is the fact that a good portion of police are horribly trained. Unless they take it upon one's self to further their education they behave the way they were trained.
How do these cops not know this by now?
you know you're fucked when the supervisor walks up and he looks like that lmao. bros got the gunner glasses, he's got the stache, he's got the turkey neck poppin out of his collar. beautiful
C- ? And then you go on to list the sergeants' multiple failures. At least he did not follow through with an arrest. I would score him no higher than a D.
Yep, just because a playground bully doesn't follow through and actually take your lunch money doesn't make him any less a bully for having demanded it.
its the minimum standard apparently
I’m still waiting for ATA to implement a sorely-needed “F-minus” grade
@brad30three yes. I have often asked, "What's lower than an F ?"
@@gotherecomNo the argument here is the bully ASKED for the lunch money. Of course physical threats or physically forcing someone to do something are going to be objectively more severe under law.
You’re being generous giving the Sargent a C-. He totally failed.
What if one called and reported suspicious activity in the mayors office? Bet they won’t push so hard.
This channel often narrates legal myths/falsehoods, or at least legal claims that are not solidly established (such as assertions about Pennsylvania v Mimms), but as of 7:15 of this video, they are nailing it dead on correct.
falsehoods such as?
@@bigchooch4434 I will use the Mimms example. The channel often cites Mimms as giving LEOs absolute, unfettered authority to remove anyone they want from a vehicle during a traffic stop. Mimms doesn't say that. IN THE SITUATION THAT OCCURRED WHEN MIMMS WAS STOPPED, it was ruled that MIMMS was legally removed from HIS vehicle. It doesn't say LEOs can universally remove whoever they want from a stopped vehicle. In reality, the rationale the court used was two-pronged.
1. The justification of "safety" was invoked. This means that any time a cop offers any other reason for the removal, such as the ridiculous nonsense, "So we can talk," Mimms doesn't apply.
2. The removal in the Mimms situation was also justified by the believed-by-the-court claim from the officer that the officer ALWAYS pulled people out of the car during EVERY traffic stop he conducted.
It is laughable that the cop always pulled people out of the car during stops. It just isn't true. No cop has ever or will ever do that EVERY time. To the point, a cop having not pulled someone out of a car a single time would invalidate the Mimms ruling under the "always does it" premise for any stop in which the cop pulled someone out of a car.
NOTE: That does NOT mean that the cop would never have justification for removing someone from a car during a stop. That is not what I am saying. I am specifically talking about the erroneous nature in which AtA continues to claim that Mimms specifically gives LEOs unfettered authority to remove people. There might be many reasons that DO justify legally removing someone from a vehicle, but the Mimms ruling only gives that authority when "safety" is invoked as the justification, and only in the situation that the officer involved always does it, during every stop he/she conducts. AtA misstates what Mimms actually says. In key part to the court's rationale for the ruling, when referring to the "safety" issue it accepted, it said:
"It was apparently his (the officer in Mimms) practice to order all drivers out of their vehicles as a matter of course whenever they had been stopped for a traffic violation. The State argues that this practice was adopted as a precautionary measure to afford a degree of protection to the officer and that it may be justified on that ground."
So, "safety" is the basis for allowing the removal of drivers, and by extension, the basis being invoked is displayed by the officer always removing people from pulled over vehicles, i.e. "I always pull people out of the car, no matter who it is, because there is always a safety issue." Well, if you don't always do it, it not only grants the possibility of bigoted, vindictive, spiteful, retaliatory, arrogant, arbitrary displays/impositions of authority, but it also demonstrates that the stated justification/need to ensure "safety" is NOT the universal/inherent necessity implied by the premise of always removing people from stopped vehicles. So, all a person would have to do is expose a single instance in which a driver wasn't removed from a vehicle when that officer, or conceptually perhaps ANY officer, conducted a traffic stop, in order to reveal that the supposedly inherent/universal concern of "safety" is NOT actually universal/inherent. That would immediately disintegrate any legal merit of a Mimms argument. The point being, there should be individualized, reasonable, articulable bases for removing people from vehicles, which was largely what the case was about in the first place. If you dig into the actual content of what the ruling says, as I just explained it, the ruling, for the most part, if not entirely, ACTUALLY says the opposite of what AtA (and others) mistakenly declare about Mimms. Yes, if the officer invokes safety and always removes all people from all stopped vehicles, then PERHAPS Mimms would apply. In any other circumstance, it would NOT.
---------------------
Example A... Covered under Mimms: "Hello. I am officer John Doe of the Anywhere USA Police Department. I am stopping you for speeding. For safety reasons, please exit the vehicle." (perhaps without even saying "For safety reasons," if the demand for the person to exit the vehicle was immediate and always done during every stop)
Example B... Not covered under Mimms: "Hello. I am officer John Doe of the Anywhere USA Police Department. I need your license, registration, and proof of insurance. Do you know why I stopped you?"
Driver: "I invoke my right to not answer questions."
Doe: "Step out of the vehicle."
------------------------
In example A, it would be difficult to get around the Mimms ruling.
In example B the cop is just being a butt hurt, arrogant, power hungry dick who isn't operating under the rationale of Mimms. No invocation of safety occurred. Plus, he clearly doesn't always worry about safety or make people exit the vehicle, or he wouldn't have waited for the driver to give the answer that Doe didn't like. He simply did it because the driver didn't sufficiently kiss Doe's ass. There was no safety concern that results in Doe always pulling all drivers from pulled over vehicles. There was only a juvenile, pathetic act of imposing his will on the driver to teach him a lesson. It is self evident in such situations. Mimms could easily be defeated in court in such a situation. Of course, it would depend on the judge(s), as some are sensible, while others are authoritarian freaks who blindly side with the state as a matter of practice, regardless of whether or not their actions are reasonable and their arguments stand up to scrutiny.
Imagine living in a country where you can’t even sit in a car without people thinking you’re suspicious and cops wanting to arrest you 🤦🏾♂️
TBF, he was parked under power lines in an area where people do not usually park, with the intent of provoking the reaction ghat he got.
It depends if you belong in that neighborhood or not.
@@andrewvelonis5940what is CRIMINAL about what you said? What do cops have authority over? Crime? Sounds like an investigation outside their scope of authority to me. That'd be like me, a pleb, walking up to the podium of a professional speaker in a professional field and just taking over.....I have no business being there. A better solution would be to talk to the caller first. If no crime can be articulated tell that carrier THEY ARE MISUSE OF 911, A CRIME.
@@timb7775 incorrect. The Constitution EXPLICITLY says citizens have ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE SEVERAL STATES. If you can sit on a PUBLIC ROAD in your state you can do it in one you don't live in too. What crime is he committing? Cops deal with CRIME specifically correct?
@@andrewvelonis5940go ahead mate, explain away your rights some more, maybe another false flag operation needs to take place so they can steal some more. Suppose it’s not necessary if you’re willing to hand them over anyways.
"Stay away from my dog" what's he gonna do? Phase through the car and take it? 💀
I really enjoyed this episode of ATA-it's probably my favorite one yet. It's easy to think we'd know how to handle the situations shown on screen, but honestly, if I were asked to provide ID while sitting in a parked car on an unfamiliar road, I'm not sure how I would've reacted. However, having watched the episode, I feel better prepared for what I might do if I ever find myself in a similar situation.
Mr LAC was polite, articulate, calm, sensible, and Right. Great job dude!
Blatant F!!!! They should have moved on once there was zero reasonable suspicion.
Every cop on ATA can’t get an F. It takes away the mystery of the grade.
Agreed! Sic Semper Evello Mortem Tyrannis!
Fs are for arrests.
Don't forget he also issue threats of violence towards the citizen which is a crime
These videos are amazingly revealing. The cop's lecture about "our city, our streets" reveals a lot about their mentality. Thank God for the ubiquity of cameras.
Yes as if to say they know the man isn’t even from the area. The audacity feels criminal in and of itself.
It just amazes me how these cops get a badge and a gun but not even rudimentary understanding of the law.
I need to make a correction here; the 5A is not a “privilege”, it’s a right.
In my opinion, demanding ID as a matter of investigation makes no sense. If the cops are investigating a “crime.” how is obtaining the ID going to help the investigation? For example, is this guy’s ID going to provide evidence that he was committing the crime of being parked on the power line?
There would already be an incident number if somebody actually "called in a suspicious vehicle," because that would be a call for service. An incident number is automatically generated into the CAD when Dispatch sent the cop to the location. So OBVIOUSLY the cop is lying. There will never be an incident number because the cop will never generate one because if there was ever a complaint, or legal action taken the cop will say it was consensual, even though it wasn't.
This is not how it happens
@adamgrove9198 this is not how it's supposed to happen. There, I fixed it.
We can be 99% sure that the city is using a databae using a database to track their 911 calls and a unique record number would be generated for every single call. That record is probably merged with the report that the officer will file and that record number may stay the same, or a different record or incident number might be generated when the call "clears" as they said. Thay first record number does exist but it's probably not released to the public until later.
@@spasticnapjerk also when people call the non-emergency dispatch number.
No moron, this is not how "incident numbers" happen. The CAD number IS NOT an incident number and that is not and has never been information police are required to inform you of when investigating you. If they issue a citation that citation will have the relevant numbers on it.@@thenatural1759
What is incredible is that a random person can call in anything, not be held accountable, and the police will treat it as absolute fact. So many times on this channel is that apparent. Police should be verifying the validity of the call with the evidence presented when they arrive, until then calls should always be treated as ANECDOTAL evidence and not as ABSOLUTE fact that seems to happen.
Not going to happen. The public has been taught”See something, say something.” This is why people need to know their rights and shut up. If a cop has enough to arrest you, they will. If they don’t, you can inadvertently give them something they need to arrest you.
It's an absolute fact that hypothetically someone somewhere at some time called in and said "something".
What they SAID may be anecdotal but that they called and SAID anything at all is "absolute fact".
It's the thought process of being wilfully ignorant that this could (and does get) abused.
"There was a call."
The content of the call is entirely incidental to the fact that a call was made in the first place. Because no one would ever make a call for a bad or frivolous reason. The details are window dressing for a post facto justification.
Ergo "we got a call about (×)" is not actually about (×) but that "we got a call".
At some point you would think PD’s would get tired of being sued and embarrassed and would want to make sure they people they have patrolling know the most basic of laws
I like that my notifications told me this was new, just to find out it's 6 days old already.
Sergeant has quite the haircut
Barber shop was closed and he did it himself.
12:57 I love that island accent when he says "your tyrants, threatening me!" Guy knows his stuff. Glad he wasn't pulled from his car for no ID like we have seen before on ATA.
Confused. Must I provide I.D. if in a state without a specific law requiring such action? What guidelines, if any, exist for the average citizen? Thank you. Have a blessed day 💖✝✝
They stated they got a call for a suspicious vehicle so if that's the case, there is an event number created by the dispatcher
Whenever a cop says, "Okay," it's NEVER ok. It's a tell that you just did or said something that triggered them. Beware!
Yes I hate the cop okay that I've heard it thousands of times on here. It varies on exactly what it means but one thing is for sure, it never means okay.
It's very worrying how many cops don't know/ignore laws and constitutional rights.
Qualified immunity allows it
What sucks about this situation is that any lazy corrupt officer can say they "detect the odor of marijuana" and search the car and passenger without cause.
The "We got a call (so Imma go ahead and remove some of those civil rights)" scenario.
When the officer finds himself deep in a hole, he should stop digging
I could be a 6 foot tall female named Tim Tom Billy jilly with an address from space. None of that information will tell you if my actions in that moment are criminal or not. 🙄
Fair enough but if you have a warrant for your arrest or you’re wanted that’s worth a lot of kudos during rollcall in the morning
@@muzzledwon1845 sickening how true that is.
@@muzzledwon1845 Key here is how he says it's ACCEPTED that you just give up your ID whenever police ask. Thankfully this guy knew his rights! Never just give up your ID, it feeds this cop's tyrannical case.
If that information is incorrect it is, even without RAS
@@BarterIrving yeah but they aren’t supposed to be able to force that information unless RAS is there so my point still stands.
Sergeant Waldo LMAO looks like where's Waldo
Great work Dan great audit awesome and great representation for the people🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
I invoked my fifth amendment during traffic stop & the officer reported to the court that I was extremely uncooperative & the D.A. Was prepared to handle me as such. My proof on looking into the laws of the reason for the stop proved I was not uncooperative. But the officers like almost made my life hard & expensive.
I think Gilmore 100% knew he was wrong, otherwise he would have taken mr LAC to jail. He also stepped very carefully in his speech and never completely threatened arrest if the ID wasn't given. Seems pretty clear he knew exactly where the line was and how to not cross it.
Right, which is why he gets a C. He at least knows not to cross that line. It that a good thing? No, that is a net-neutral thing. But were this some other officer we have seen on this channel, he may not have hesitated to cross that line as soon as he pulled up. The grading scale is relevant to other police actions and how the interaction could have gone, not how the viewer personally feels about the officer's (or citizen's) conduct.
That start of the interaction could’ve been the start and end of it right then and there, they explained they got a call, came to investigate, confirmed it was there, and then got a 5th amendment statement where they could’ve said “okay.” And then sat back and just watched the vehicle for a minute if they genuinely had any suspicions.
Everything was calm.
4:40 the reason the agent is constantly looking away is because he knows he is lying and maintaining eye contact is very uncomfortable while lying
Reasonable suspicion has to be specific: evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime is being or is about to be committed. Not just generalized suspicion which amounts to "I don't know what you're doing."
I would certainly ask exactly what it was that made my legally parked vehicle appear suspicious. Be specific.
But it's not a reasonable person, it's reasonable cop. We all know cops are held to a much much lower standard.
@@georgejones3526Exactly. "Suspicious of what?" At the very least you'll know what to avoid
Cops are held to a much lower standard by the courts? Lmao. What an ignorant thing to say. Prosecutors, lawyers and judges hold their police to an extremely high standard or else any evidence they collect would be suppressed by the exclusionary rule @@timb7775
Ugh right off the bat, they think someone making a “call” can just violate someone’s rights. I wonder if there was even a call and it was just nosy bored cops?
Unfortunately there are many people who just call the police for practically anything which makes the situation worse.
@@AnalogWolfGiven how out of line many cops are, calling the police on someone who is not an immediate threat should b considered attempted murder.
“We got a call” is one of their magic terms.
No they got a call shouldn't be grounds for the police to do squat if when they show up there's no other indications of any legal violations\crimes present. Look how often not only do ppl call whine one one for feelings enforcement. But also look at how often what gets dispatched to the officers enroute. Wasn't what the caller actually said and reported at all. Instead it's what that dispatchers own mind filled the gaps in the callers irrational (because it's feelings driven) story with.
The cops lie with every word they mutter. It's impossible to know if there was ever a call
When they hand you a ticket and ask you to sign, saying it’s not an admission of guilt, but just says you agree to take care of it - that is a contract you’re being asked to sign. It’s a contract with the government that says you agree to be extorted
I love how these cops "Investigation" is never anything orher than standing around demanding ID.
A supervisor that knows nothing about the law. Absolutely ridiculous. There is no complainant so there is no RAS. This cop is escalating the situation because there is no violation being committed. He doesn’t like anyone telling him no!
Now the threat of walking next to a car because of a dog. What? I definitely would not have gotten out of my car.
You do not need to have a "complainant" for reasonable articulable suspicion to exist. In Terry v. Ohio, there was no complainant at all. What constitutes RAS depends on the totality of the circumstances. I am not defending what the cops did here, they did not have RAS, but I find it funny that you complain about people not knowing the law while also spreading misinformation about the law in the same comment.
The only problem is that they don't about being sued because the people pays for it instead of the department paying, like make law enforcement pay. Take away their pension
I always find it hard to believe the assumption being made that courts would likely find in the favor of the defendant when RAS hasn't been met. We have seen countless court cases where judges don't seem to give a crud about law and tend to favor officers in whatever they do with these types of investigations.
These officers are complete and total clowns. This is just insane.
Asking for ID is the laziest form of policing. They are just fishing for warrants as they assume everyone has one. I doubt there was even a call
Serious question, I’ve known a few people who got a dui sleeping in a car that’s off, if they had suspicion that he was under the influence, they could give him a dui still? Even if operating an automobile is not being operated under the statute?
The cops must think they are living in Germany WW2 as they always ask everyone for ID where are you coming from and where are you going to anyone who does that is a true Tyrant always best not to say anything to them how can you be driving when you're parked up it shows you should always listen to what they are saying to catch the Tyrants. I love the silent audit's when there's two auditor's and are talking to each other when the police are asking questions the look on the cops faces when that happens is priceless i would love to see more of that.
Even if it could be argued that the stop was consensual, the PA Supreme Court in Comm. v. Cost said that during a police-citizen interaction (“mere encounter”) when officers retain an individual’s ID to check for warrants and ask if there was anything the officer needs to know, it escalates the mere encounter into an investigation detention.
“Investigatory detention” 😂😂😂 ole boy pulling out all the tricks
Here in Montana they have 46-5-401 mca. It desperately needs to be rewritten to align with the 4thA. All the jackals have to do is declare an "investigatory stop", and they think they may obtain your ID. Someone should ask the stupid jackals how an ID will finalize an investigation where no law is being broken.
How is it that so many PD departments think that "we got a call" somehow voids the US CONSTITUTION?
If a man is not driving for commerce then no permission slip / license is necessary, and furthermore is 100% unconstitutional. 🛑
Winning hearts and minds. We got a call is right up there with "office safety"