State v Strawn 2018 Oklahoma was stop that had probable cause - speeding (73 in a 70). After the stop was extended for suspicion of DUI.Drugs were found. This case reversed the order that granted suppression of evidence. 4th amendment not in play as Strawn gave admission of evidence. That case does NOT address pulling a car over without cause based on suspicion. Why did you give that case to that officer claiming it support that he could pull over for suspicion alone?
You have to have a legal justification for the stop, a violation of law. Reasonable suspicion of a VIOLATION OF LAW. Undefined suspicion or acting suspiciously” is NOT sufficient justification for a stop, to conduct a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, period. Articulation is key and that articulation must happen at the stop, not later at the keyboard when you’re trying to justify your actions after the fact. Tomorrow is another day, develop your cause, make notes. Stammering your way through a motion to suppress unable to articulate your justification and being found not credible is a careerender.
How about states like Texas where you have to be legally arrested before being required to produce ID ? If you are stopped for RAS you aren't, of course, arrested so you would not have to ID or answer any questions so it seems that all a cop could do is look around and try to find enough for PC. Maybe I'm missing the point.
So, you make an RS stop, you "Ask" the driver for license and registration. Driver asks for the reason for the stop, can you tell them you'll tell them after they provide license and registration? Can you tell them they must provide ID on a traffic stop or be subject to arrest? (Even this is not a traffic stop) If a citizen is stopped and a cop behaves like this, what can they ask to know if they MUST provide driver's license? If they ask, can they believe the Officer who can LIE "As part of their investigation"?
If you are in a state without an ID on "Terry stop alone" law on the books you need to be very careful regarding asking, and demanding. If you have RAS you can detain, but to demand, without an ID law on the books, you are flexing authority you don't have. Regarding lying, you can lie to them about the objective facts, but don't lie about the law, and the legal authority you do or do not have. So no don't call it a traffic stop, you don't have to tell them why they are stopped(just the court), and you can let them bring their own assumptions. You also don't have to correct them if they think it is a traffic stop. But be very careful making demands. I guess the best workaround, and I hate doing this, would be to say I paced you speeding, or didn't signal in time, or something very minor, but don't push it. If they refuse, and you can't tell a judge they actually committed some offense then you have violated them and abused your authority under color of law.
Guys I know make RS stops all day. No doubt it will be challenged more at a court suppression motion, but nevertheless,. If your RS is well articulated, you're good ALL DAY.
@@jonathanhantke6314Agree. He could clearly establish RAS if he had more experience in articulating. I think this is adding to his problem with supervisor. Well, the supervisor also not knowing stops on RS are legal. He knows it’s a high traffic area. An individual jumps into a car, then exits after a period of time. Then the car leaves. If the officer knew how to use his training and experience, he could articulate that this appeared to be a hand to hand. Conduct an investigative stop, and if nothing came of it, then nothing comes of it.
Stopping for RS should only be allowed if a supervisor acknowledged it over the radio. There has to be a balance of accountability and practicality. This officer just admitted he was willing to violate citizens rights when his supervisors felt there was not RAS to do so. Flip forward to all the new pro police laws aiding them in identifying drivers like in Texas. Badically, now an officer can ask for ID anytime he pulls you over, regardless of the legality of the dentention. Because officers are not required to state the reason for a stop they will get the ID then invent PC from that ID. Example person has prior theft charges. Now all the sudden its justified? I have no issue with an officer telling me hey look this is why we stopped you, if he is readonable the odds are he will see very quickly that his ras is not valid. Being in a high crime area.. ok whats the crime in that? Observe, build your pc.
I agree with the Oklahoma cops superiors, there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause in which the officer described. Just an officer with a hunch and some suspicion of his own compiled with some opinions of own. People are tired of being infringed upon or having cops play around in grey areas of the Law. If you see an actual crime do something about it. If not leave the Citizens alone.
Nonsense. First of all, RS must be objective. Cannot be based on a hunch or gray area. Training and experience vary from cop to cop. RS allows a cop to detain a person and investigate a possible crime and eventually build that probable cause to arrest, otherwise they must be let free to leave. Law student.
State v Strawn 2018 Oklahoma was stop that had probable cause - speeding (73 in a 70). After the stop was extended for suspicion of DUI.Drugs were found. This case reversed the order that granted suppression of evidence. 4th amendment not in play as Strawn gave admission of evidence. That case does NOT address pulling a car over without cause based on suspicion. Why did you give that case to that officer claiming it support that he could pull over for suspicion alone?
What this officer described was not a investigatory stop? What crime was he investigating?
I like that this channel is cops telling on themselves.
Tell me more!
This is likely one of the most important videos I've seen you do. Stops of nogoodniks is such a large part of working higher crime areas.
Bad administrations and poor policy are a criminal's best friend.
This man should never be a JUDGE!!!
United States Vs. Sharpe applies here.
You have to have a legal justification for the stop, a violation of law. Reasonable suspicion of a VIOLATION OF LAW. Undefined suspicion or acting suspiciously” is NOT sufficient justification for a stop, to conduct a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, period. Articulation is key and that articulation must happen at the stop, not later at the keyboard when you’re trying to justify your actions after the fact. Tomorrow is another day, develop your cause, make notes. Stammering your way through a motion to suppress unable to articulate your justification and being found not credible is a careerender.
How about states like Texas where you have to be legally arrested before being required to produce ID ? If you are stopped for RAS you aren't, of course, arrested so you would not have to ID or answer any questions so it seems that all a cop could do is look around and try to find enough for PC. Maybe I'm missing the point.
I can think of a lot. Crime suspect flees in a vehicle, you see one matching description. You do a field elimination and a witness IDs.
There really should be a video on a R.S. stop vs P.C. stop.
Stop using Occam's Razor to establish R.S.
So, you make an RS stop, you "Ask" the driver for license and registration. Driver asks for the reason for the stop, can you tell them you'll tell them after they provide license and registration? Can you tell them they must provide ID on a traffic stop or be subject to arrest? (Even this is not a traffic stop)
If a citizen is stopped and a cop behaves like this, what can they ask to know if they MUST provide driver's license? If they ask, can they believe the Officer who can LIE "As part of their investigation"?
If you are in a state without an ID on "Terry stop alone" law on the books you need to be very careful regarding asking, and demanding. If you have RAS you can detain, but to demand, without an ID law on the books, you are flexing authority you don't have. Regarding lying, you can lie to them about the objective facts, but don't lie about the law, and the legal authority you do or do not have. So no don't call it a traffic stop, you don't have to tell them why they are stopped(just the court), and you can let them bring their own assumptions. You also don't have to correct them if they think it is a traffic stop. But be very careful making demands.
I guess the best workaround, and I hate doing this, would be to say I paced you speeding, or didn't signal in time, or something very minor, but don't push it. If they refuse, and you can't tell a judge they actually committed some offense then you have violated them and abused your authority under color of law.
Guys I know make RS stops all day. No doubt it will be challenged more at a court suppression motion, but nevertheless,. If your RS is well articulated, you're good ALL DAY.
@@jonathanhantke6314Agree. He could clearly establish RAS if he had more experience in articulating. I think this is adding to his problem with supervisor. Well, the supervisor also not knowing stops on RS are legal.
He knows it’s a high traffic area. An individual jumps into a car, then exits after a period of time. Then the car leaves. If the officer knew how to use his training and experience, he could articulate that this appeared to be a hand to hand. Conduct an investigative stop, and if nothing came of it, then nothing comes of it.
Need a Bill to remove qualified immunity.
can you at least learn to say "SUSPICION" its not "Reasonable Spicion"
Stopping for RS should only be allowed if a supervisor acknowledged it over the radio.
There has to be a balance of accountability and practicality.
This officer just admitted he was willing to violate citizens rights when his supervisors felt there was not RAS to do so.
Flip forward to all the new pro police laws aiding them in identifying drivers like in Texas.
Badically, now an officer can ask for ID anytime he pulls you over, regardless of the legality of the dentention. Because officers are not required to state the reason for a stop they will get the ID then invent PC from that ID. Example person has prior theft charges.
Now all the sudden its justified?
I have no issue with an officer telling me hey look this is why we stopped you, if he is readonable the odds are he will see very quickly that his ras is not valid.
Being in a high crime area.. ok whats the crime in that? Observe, build your pc.
I agree with the Oklahoma cops superiors, there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause in which the officer described. Just an officer with a hunch and some suspicion of his own compiled with some opinions of own. People are tired of being infringed upon or having cops play around in grey areas of the Law. If you see an actual crime do something about it. If not leave the Citizens alone.
Stay in your lane
@@bulldogscch and what lane is That?
@@bulldogscch typical arrogant cop response
Nonsense.
First of all, RS must be objective. Cannot be based on a hunch or gray area.
Training and experience vary from cop to cop.
RS allows a cop to detain a person and investigate a possible crime and eventually build that probable cause to arrest, otherwise they must be let free to leave.
Law student.
Technically a car weaving in its lane is an RS stop. Perfectly legally.