Reasonable Suspicion - Prosecutor Explains
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 фев 2021
- Reasonable suspicion seems straight forward but it can actually be quite complex. In this episode I discuss my 3-step approach to determining whether or not reasonable suspicion exists to support an investigatory detention.
Cases Cited:
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981)
supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...
United States V. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002)
supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...
City of Roswell v. Hudson, 2007 NMCA 34 (2007)
caselaw.findlaw.com/nm-court-...
Podcast available on iTunes, Spotify and all major podcast apps. You can also follow the podcast on Spreaker here: www.spreaker.com/show/tactica...
Erik Scramlin is a former Chief Deputy District Attorney and owner of Tactical Legal Solutions, LLC. Courses for law enforcement and prosecutors available at tacticalattorney.com
DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice. This content and all of Tactical Attorney's content is for informational purposes only. You should contact your attorney to obtain legal advice with respect to any particular issue. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship of any kind.
![Remble - Colors (ft. Mozzy & Stoneda5th) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KF-3AU9g9xg/mqdefault.jpg)
When police say “you’re acting suspicious”
You say: “it’s acting suspicious a misdemeanor or a felony?”
As someone who worked 2nd shift for ten years, my 11pm-3am is your 5pm-9pm. If we are hanging out in a car or just got back from grocery shopping or late movie or shooting pool and a friend is dropping me off, we’re gonna BS in the car for upwards of an hour sometimes. I’ve been stared down by so many cops going back and forth watching us like we’re about to commit a crime. We’re just trying to live our crappy lives.
❤
I worked 2nd for 10 yrs, so true I would get followed by cops pulled over more than 3 times. I loved getting my groceries after midnight cause it was less crowded , always was followed around really world like I was stealing.
@@crowsister1 Oh yes, the grocery shopping!!! That's happened a bunch too.
You’re in public so
@@elifield7149 and breathing
Judges rapidly grow suspicious” of of our conclusions of suspicious behavior. “Suspicion” is often in the eye of the beholder.
Absolutely, the key is to articulate the facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe criminal activity is a foot. Thanks for the comment!
As you describe it, the "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" standards are actually quite clear in the sense that an officer must be able to articulate a reason why this person is engaged in suspicious or criminal behavior. Far too often, officers seem to have "hunch" and then try to find a reason justifying the detention or investigation *after* the detention or investigation starts. That's ass backwards. Another way to put it is that someone not doing anything wrong is likely to be puzzled about why you are detaining them and may ask an officer why. Any officer engaged in a lawful stop or investigation should be able to immediately answer that question. If they can't, what they're doing is unlawful. Thank you for the great video!
Thanks! I agree. If an officer detains someone they must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion prior to the seizure. Hunches and gut feelings are never lawful.
You were talking about civil rights lawsuits...
If you do not have thousands of dollars to hire a civil rights attorney, you have no rights.
If you cannot find a civil rights attorney that will take your case, you have no rights.
The video is excellent and gives great insight into how to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists. Thank you for making it. I think this video needs to make its way to every LE department in the country. Good stuff.
Thank you for the comment. I appreciate the kind words.
Personally I love to learn and I appreciate you helping educate me as a citizen, understand more how law enforcement operates. As an officer if you are watching these videos you are one of my top hero’s. Thank you all for your time and effort 7:23
Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad the videos are providing some value not only for law enforcement but for the general public as well.
I respect a Pro who respects their obligation within the justice arm of this Republic. (IMO, Unfortunately, in this day and age, too few and far between; as well as the fermented bunch of the barrel.
I really enjoy watching and learning from you brother. I am grateful that you do this for the LEO's.
Thank you, I sincerely appreciate it. Thanks for subscribing, I'm happy that the channel provides some value.
I don't know about LE's. This kind of information is extremely valuable to civilians in order protect their rights
@@gilbertgarcia2418 if both LEOs and citizens understand these legal precedents, it creates a situation where both parties understand their rights, responsibilities, and the limitations of both.
I’m not a cop. But I can certainly see that every cop should watch this video!
Thanks for the comment. I'm glad it was informative for you.
They are trained that. It’s the fact they aren’t usually held accountable by those who can check them when they violate that is the problem
Also every person should realize how complicated the law can be. That a person not trained should simply comply.
@@nonyabizwax5892medical experts kill more people everyday vs cops. Nice try
and have their rights violated......that makes sense?!@@lt4753
I just retired after 26 years of law enf and full time state academy instructor. I always hammered the cadets hard that being creepy is not against the law...plus you have to be able to 'articulate' your suspicions...'feelings' do not matter and do not justify LE actions. LE has to justify and articulate ALL of their actions according to law and court rulings.
Excellent point! Thank you for your years of service.
Excellent advice for vehicle stops. My problem is that I was arrested on my own premises, just retrieving a paper from my parked vehicle. (I was not asked for license or insurance.) This arrest was based on an anonymous call that gave no specific details on driver, car, plates, vehicle type, time of alleged crime -- I was alleged to have attempted vehicular homicide at an undefined place and time -- and the "exigency" was that I might drive again. The homicidal intent -- conclusion and not fact based on any threat -- was stated in the report. The police officers hunted around for "witnesses" and after an hour indicated the name of a person watching TV who was on oxygen, tethered to a couch -- it was a totally false allegation. The judge threw out this case but that caller certainly caused me expense and humiliation. Police also refused to tell me who made the 911 complaint...
The only thing I can defend about the behavior of the police you've articulated is that, depending on state law in your area, they may not legally be allowed to tell you/the public, the identity of whoever made the 911 call.
This restriction in some states can actually be in place for some actually logical and pretty valid reasons, like the potential for people who have had 911 called on them to be angry enough to harm or otherwise take some kind of retributive action against the caller, who even in your case, might have been acting in good faith and were just mistaken or confused.
But, in any case, if you live in a state that doesn't allow divulging identities of 911 callers, you may need to obtain a court order from a judge to get that information.
Also, it is legal for 911 callers to remain anonymous and not give their identity to the police at all. So it's possible the police in your case didn't have that information.
And these public servants don't care if they cost you money, time and jail, they only care about getting your money, go to jail, pay to bond out, time is money, these public servants get paid while they violate people and cost the person money and time along with the humiliation of being arrested, fingerprinted photo taken then contacting a bondsman to get out of jail, they don't care:
Sorry for sounding disgusted, but i am disgusted by our whole judicial system, there is no justice in our justice system.
Good luck.
If u were on your property and car was on private property they need a warrant to arrest. Only exception is hot pursuit of a felony. Misdemeanors even in hot pursuit require a warrant. Supreme court recently ruled this. You should contact someone about suing for wrongful arrest. Burden of proof is on them to prove it was exigent. They could of easily looked up your name by address and done background check quickly to find claim was bogus. They cant just take a tip from an anonymous person with no character reliability. This kind of hearsay is a common problem within usa and a waste of resources. Theres been a string of sniping pranks past years, where callers claim a hostage situation at a gamers house and cops send out swat teams with no evidence. A man died a a result of wrong address and a trigger happy cop. Tips should warrant a inquisition at most Not an arrest. I would so run for mayor of that town if I were u to change laws and funding for police require training etc. there or hassle town hall weekly going to all the board meetings until they apologize and repay losses. I made a mistake not to file a suit on wrongful arrest, n is too late but u might have time still.
Then sue the caller and all officers involved including the prosecutor personally and officially in a federal court under 42 1983,1985 and press charges against them under title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection 5, title 18 U.S.C. section 1918 for conspiring against and depriving you of your constitutionally protected rights(liberties, privileges, immunities) and for kidnapping. the statue of limitations of 241,242 is 7 years,if death results from the acts committed in violation of 241,242 there is no statute of limitations.
And law enforcement must tell you who called,it is against the law to violate the 6th amendment confrontation clause.
@@munstrumridcullywrong it is against the law,a crime to violate the 6th amendment confrontation clause,all citizens have the right to know and face their accusers to preserve the sanctity of the rule of law.
Very helpful thanks for taking the time to share your experience
Thanks. Glad it was helpful.
Excellent, thank you.
great video. thank you for explaining something that is very challenging to understand.
I am glad to see an officer of the court, put forth this type of educational material for the benefit of law enforcement officers in the field. One of the biggest problems that leads to bad policing in this country is the fact that officers are often under or misinformed about the scope of their authority; any officer who takes the time to review and digest this explanation will be a much better officer in my opinion.
THIS WAS AN AMAZING VIDEO. THANK YOU. THIS JUST HELPED ME FURTHER REALIZE I SHOULD WIN MY APPEAL . I WISH YOU COULD LOOK AT MY CASE.
I am a jamaican very informative I appreciate I,ll surely look up these case law Thank u sir
Outstanding. Thank you for checking out the channel. I'm happy to hear you are taking some value from the course.
Great work. Keep it up!
Thank you!
Not a cop but I appreciate your education to not only law enforcement but the public. It will help limit civil rights violations and save taxpayer dollars. Cops aren't concerned about taxpayer dollars as they continue to be incoherent to the law they have sworn to uphold.Just my 2 cents. Cheers
Thanks for the comment, I'm glad I can provide some value. I work with a lot of police agencies and the overwhelming majority of officers want to do the right thing, legal education just isn't a priority unfortunately, we are working to change that.
@@tacticalattorneythis statement is a oxymoron
@@user-gs1lz2pw9vno, it isn't.
Good presentation. You are well educated. How many LEO's have college educations and law degrees? Your presentation speaks to your education.
Thank you! Although typically not required, some agencies require at least some college education and a lot of agencies give incentives to officers who have/get degrees. I'm a big proponent of continuing education for law enforcement officers.
Awesome. Glad that I found this.
I'm currently in a NM matter from the civilian perspective. I'm surprised how NM police command feel that if their officers weren't "brutal" then they've survived the Law/Legal and Policy smell test.
They don't appear to grasp the concept of gradual or incremental obtaining of reasonable articulable facts of a crime afoot. THEN... detention and identification of citizens.
It's simply that their officers were polite and acted on "hunches" based on an emotional path, to justify detention and identification of citizens.
If any police officer in the United States applied just 15 minutes of your podcast, the country would be a better place for public citizens/police relationships. Save millions if not billions in litigation burden on the taxpayers, and far less medical bills and funerals. 15 minutes!!! A no brainer. Thank you!!
i love when LEO's make legal conclusions! So much fun!
Love the Music for the Intro 🤙💪💯🎶
Thank you. You plainly explained that I was arrested based solely on a hunch and I actually have a real chance at justice. I was worried about ever obtaining justice because the arrest was done with a warrant.
Unfortunately judges have a tendency to give officers a great deal of wiggle room when it comes to RAS. That’s why it’s important to have at least one dash cam (preferably more), record the event from beginning to end, and never, and I mean never answer any questions. Whatever you say, will be used “as” grounds for a continued traffic stop. You can turn a fishing expedition into a quick citation simply by keeping your mouth SHUT! Asking a series of open ended questions is what police are trained to do. However you are under no obligation to answer ANY of them. Invoke your forth and fifth amendment rights immediately, and on video. An officer can NOT compel you to speak. Stay cool, stand your ground, and appear confident. They will threaten and bully you into making statements or answering questions. You have nothing to fear if you’re not breaking the law.
Excellent man.
👍👍👍👍
Many Officers uses regular human acts as means to stop someone scratching of the head, squating to the ground and hands in the pockets and then taking out to rub or shake of the hands, running than stopping ECT. Some them do make bias and impulsive moves to detain others I had to correct some outside going and coming from home.
This is a good video; however, I would like to see more to it.
*Step 1: What crime do I see?*
*Answer: What penal code or statutory code just happened or is happening?* Police cannot make up a crime.
*Step 2: What FACTS do I see to support step 1?*
*Answer: Same as Answer 1, and are the police responding to an actual crime that already happened? If so, then this is not reasonable suspicion. It's a crime scene or a possible crime scene.*
Furthermore, police continually mention, *"I'm investigating."* They leave it right there. Or, they will say, *"I'm investigating a crime."* OK, what crime? *Step 1.*
Police also need to remember the citizen they have stopped/detained does not have to nor is required to answer any questions or help the police in any investigation. This is where the officers' ego comes into play, tossing out your *Step 3 (is this more than a hunch) and the red flags.* It goes directly to *"obstruction of justice."* It is the police informing the detained citizen they must answer their questions and provide the information they want or face arrest. You proved this in your video when the Roswell officer arrested the passenger for not providing ID.
Here's another question to ask the police. *Is this part of your training?* (United States v. Arivizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002)) It appears to be true. How else do they know this and do the same thing that several others did before them? This training is flawed and must be addressed rather than turn the inarticulate hunches into a fool's reality or unsupported intuition. Great video. Keep it up.
Love the basics
Thank you.
Read the details of everything the cop in Terry v Ohio actually observed before approaching to detain. It is WAY MORE than what they call RAS today.
Great video and it’s now easy to see how it’s difficult to explain it. Here’s an example, if police get a call about an assault, police show up and its view the complainant, observe no assault or evidence of assault, never interview the suspect and jump to arrest, was RS established?
Thanks for the comment! I agree with you, it's important that officers never jump to conclusions. Instead, officers should be able to articulate the facts that lead to reasonable suspicion.
Suspicion is a 2 way street. "He was acting in a suspicious manner". "Did you have a SUSPICION that he had committed a crime." The police need to have a suspicion that someone committed a crime. THEY MUST SUSPECT SOMEONE.
Right on. The key is articulable facts not conclusions. Thanks for the comment.
No matter how much suspicion they have they still need a legal lawful search warrant under the warrant clause. No legal lawful search warrant, exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree in the court of law,all evidence they obtained is illegal because they violated the warrant clause therefore all evidence obtained is inadmissible in a court of law and a criminal trial.
Suspicion exists nowhere in the 4th amendment or the 14th amendment section 1 supreme law of the land. And probable cause under the 4th amendment text is only to get a legal lawful search warrant.
outstanding
Thank you much appreciated.
It is very typical for cops to detain you on a mere hunch and then try to fish out the evidence they need for an arrest. They think they have the authority to detain you and demand your identification and purposes without any particular facts or crime. These fishing expeditions occur because of bad training.
Once they fail to be able to arrest you they invariably give authoritarian directives in an effort to cover up their crime of unlawful detention. Then they hold you in contempt for being so compliant as you nervously slink away, relieved the nice officer didn't arrest you.
Fortunately today people are becoming more aware of their rights, no thanks to the police who have sworn to uphold our rights, and so people are pushing back on this habitual and outrageous criminal fraud.
The days of bullying, thuggish policing are coming to an end.
..
Operating a vehicle on a publicly shared roadway is a privilege and an inherently dangerous one at that. There are very well defined exceptions to the 4th amendment as it extends to a person in their vehicle. This is due to the fact that a vehicle is not a domicile, and that anything that can reasonably be seen through windows, let alone visible behaviors as they pertain to the operation of the vehicle, is sufficient enough reasonable suspicion to pull over said vehicle under the reasonable auspices of maintaining a safe roadway.
Great work! I am getting ready to start the police academy and this helped me a lot! Looking forward to more content!
Awesome! I'm glad it helps. Good luck in the academy!
Just remember you’re taking an oath the constitution. Don’t abuse your authority.
Start academy in 3 weeks. Subscribed. ✅ Great content 👌🏾
Awesome! Good luck at the academy.
If you use a case specifically in this case Terry vs Ohio you should use that case to show what three steps the officers used in that case to better explain your three steps. I think there would be less confusion, and a better explanation of your steps. (my opinion)
Terry vs ohio cant be used as usual in the 27 states that allow constitutional carry.
I believe in the “country boy” definition for PC…did he commit a crime, is he committing a crime or is he fixing’ to commit a crime.
Within 2 minutes into this video I subscribed. Thank you for this awesome video.
My question is.... shouldn't step one be "Is there a crime?" then Step 2: What crime do I see?
I apologize for the tardy reply. Yes, I think the two terms would work interchangeably. If an officer lacks the specific facts to articulate a crime, it should lead them to the conclusion that either no crime is taking place or they are operating on a hunch.
Then step in three get a legal lawful search warrant.
I see a lot of cop getting sued for arrested people for take pictures can do a show on that
I did go to LS. This guy is an asset to this community. Thanks for the refresher. I will keep listening. Wow, Michigan, me too!!
Thank you, much appreciated! Let's go Lions!
I've been trying to figure this out for soo long... question.. At time marker 13:45, you say the officer needs AS to demand ID. What case law is that? I can not find that literature anywhere. Officers seem to think that's the case is NJ also, but there's no Statute that says that. I have not found the case law in any court.
Excellent question, the case law will vary depending on how each state lists the elements of their concealing ID or resisting a lawful order of an officer statute. At its most basic form you can look to Terry v. Ohio. If an officer is going to give a command or exhibit a show of authority or demand an ID the person is seized for purposes of the 4th Amendment, if the person is seized the 4th Amendment requires that it be "reasonable", the Courts have held reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot to be reasonable. So at a bare minimum an officer must have reasonable suspicion or the command is unlawful.
Great video! Perhaps I can get your opinion on something, if an officer stops someone for a window tint violation, and the driver has a tint exemption would the stop be invalidated at that point? / would the driver still need to produce a DL after showing the exemption? - Stacking on top of that, while talking with the driver they refuse to answer any questions outside the traffic stop (where they are going etc.) if a K9 was then called merely on "suspicion" or a "hunch" since they aren't answering questions, what are the chances anything found would be admissible in court? -- In New Mexico
I'm not familiar with the window tint exception. However, you would be correct. Once the reason for the stop ends, the officer's justification for detaining the person ends, unless the officer develops additional reasonable suspicion for a new crime. Good question, thanks.
@@tacticalattorney Thanks! I came across something similar recently, seems to be becoming more popular - here's the SS about the tint NM Stat § 66-3-846.1 (e)
@@ChrisS-bp2rr excellent, thank you!
Good stuff
Thanks. Glad you liked it.
Good video. The people who hate bad cops the most are the good cops. They know the law and don't go fishing. This video helps the public educate those bad cops whenever they are stopped. Hopefully they are open to your lesson sir. Again good video.
If so...how many "good cops" actually stop and/or turn in bad cops. Point out 5 of these "good cops" taking action this year.
@@joehannah1343 Go over to Lackluster or Audit the Audit. You'll find a couple of videos where a cop pulls over a drunk cop. Some get off and others the cop does the right thing and arrests them for DUI.
@joehannah1343 happens all the time pal. I'd assume you, like literally millions of others, operate under a massively biased opinion on police officers, making wild assumptions ans subsequent accusations, conflating the novice antics of your small town department with that of every department everywhere. When was the last time that you listened to police dispatch for 8 hours?
I am a smart, knowledgeable older law abiding man that is shaken by what I have learned about the cop who may talk to me on the street or side of the road. What is the truth about them, about you? The police, troopers, deputies, cops are they dangerous thugs in a crisp uniform with a kit that a Navy Seal would love to have or they truly dedicated to defend, protect and serve the people as their oath demands. It doesn’t seem to be the latter, as we have found out about the FBI and nearly any local or federal “justice department”. I use to legally carry but not so much anymore because of the risk of cops and DAs working to send me to prison for even having a gun outside my home or going 6MPH over the limit or for anything they can’t prove.
Yea it did ty
Question. Is an ATM machine , non damaged in office area of house with an auction sticker on it fall under reasonable suspicion. 🤔 I repair and operate Atm' s?
And the niebor on adjoining Street has one camper in thier yard./ driveway can I just tag it as abandon ethier of them so I can tow them away because I feel like it
You mean the "undercover" surveillance RV's ?
Can always try to speak with them. If they tell you to get lost ok then.
"Government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely, anyone who takes an oath of office knows - or should know - that much."~McCurdy v Montgomery County, Ohio, 240 F.3d 512(6th Cir. 2001)
I understand you may not be able give a definitive answer, but I have a question.
Would an officers reasonable suspicion be justified IF
a person recently moved into a home that was unkept and had been vacant the past year or so, other than some trespassers who vandalized the home
And
officer sees tenant inside the home, officer meets tenant in front yard and demans I.D..
this is in Texas.
Please offer your best opinion, for it is appreciated and useful.
Thanks
Wow.
What crime do I see, or what crime do I suspect?
What crime do you see that has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed are the questions you will want to ask. The key is to be specific and articulate facts. Thanks for the question. Hopefully that helps.
Needed this information for my civil rights claim
Use title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection 5, title 18 U.S.C. section 1918 against them in the court in your lawsuit as well. Make sure to sue them personally and officially in a federal court not a state court,in a federal court they cannot legally claim qualified immunity for civil rights violations under 42 1983,1985.
@@dragonf1092Bingo!
So would driving late at night going to a casino which is open 24hours mind you with plates from one County and now you are in another County be suspicious? And grounds for pulling a vehicle over?
It may be suspicious but that sounds like a hunch to me. Without any articulable facts of a crime that would likely not hold up.
@@tacticalattorney yup so after he follows me closely blinding me with his new HID LED headlamps I do what the IOWA DOT manual says and pull off and let him pass. At this point he starts to follow me off into the shoulder but decides to keep on going. At this point I see it's a deputy sheriff. Ok so I turn around in this private drive and get back on the road almost to the casino. Well there is that dumb butt sheriff waiting with all his lights off in opposite lane facing me. This is where he would have seen a fog lamp out on my vehicle.. so again he's tailing me and I can't see and really irritated a sheriff Is playing some cat and mouse game so I see another driveway ahead and attempt to pull into this one and let the ahold pass. This is where the traffic stop gets initiated. Me not happy am than accused of dui he smells alcohol which is not the case. This now turns into me Even more pissed he just blinded me now he's accusing me of drinking...now what would you.say to this ?
No
The officer had a search warrant for my son for sale charge for marijuana and when they arrived it was no one at the house so they kicked the door down. I was on vacation when I received the call that the police was at my home. They found marijuana inside of the house, The investigation was for only 1 month. They wanted to take everyone that lived in the house to jail. Can they do this in GA? We all end up going to jail
First of all, great video. Thanks for this. But I've got a question for you: When you say, "What crime do I see?" do you mean "What crime do I *think* I see?" In other words, does the office actually need to see or witness a crime? For example, let's say that a police officer gets called to a mall parking lot after a report of shoplifting. The store owner tells police that an individual came into the store, took a shirt off the rack, stuffed it into a bag, and left without paying. There is no video footage, but there is an eyewitness statement from the shop owner. In addition, the police officer can see that the individual identified has a bag with what appears to be aluminum foil curled over the top of it. The officer knows that aluminum-lined bags aka "booster bags" are often used for shoplifting. Now, nothing about having a bag, or even having a bag lined with aluminum foil, is a crime. Can the officer go through the steps: 1.) I think I see the crime of shoplifting. 2.) I have an eyewitness; I have the suspect matching the shop owner's description; I have a bag that resembles one commonly used for shoplifting. 3.) It is more than a hunch. What do you think?
Absolutely the officer can make a lawful detention in this case. Firstly, officers are entitled to investigate any crime that their dispatched to, within reason. However in this case, you have a first hand witness, a solid description of suspect, a reasonable, linear time line ( insofar as arriving to the seen within a reasonable response time, only to find an individual matching a description in the area of the crime ), and lastly effective intelligence on criminal behavioral patterns, relevant to the circumstance. The things you listed comprise the totality of the circumstances, which in this case, very adequately and reasonably suggest that there is a high likelihood that the subject is in fact involved in the crime the officer is entitled to investigate. Key word investigate.
@@408lurks Thanks for the reply! This was exactly the explanation I was looking for.
Is a traffic violation, such as speeding, working under RS or PC?
Usually a stop for a traffic violation such as speeding would be supported by probable cause because it is a strict liability crime and the offense happens in the officer's presence.
@@tacticalattorney So traffic violations are working under PC, that makes sense, yet are limited in the same way as RS, because I can’t arrest or search on a traffic infraction, warrant exceptions aside.
I have worked in Colorado and never had anyone explain this in a way that makes sense.
@@user-jw4vw3xc3e So you like have both. If you radar someone going 55 in a 25 then you have RS to make the stop. Because you have the radar reading before the encounter you also have PC. Now depending on your state law, you may or may not be limited in what questions you can ask. Under federal law, you can ask whatever you want as long as you do not extend the stop past the time it would take a reasonable officer to write a ticket (unless you develop RS of a new crime). Some states like New Mexico give far greater protections under their own State Constitution however. In New Mexico an officer is strictly limited to only asking questions related to the reason for the stop. Hope this helps. Thank you for the comment and question.
“Based on my ‘training and experience’, I can deduce any crime anywhere in any circumstance.” -- Current state of policing and ’reasonable suspicion’
Thanks for the comment. Your assessment certainly has not been my experience. Judges require specific articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion. Training and experience as a basis for reasonable suspicion is very narrow and only one factor in a totality of circumstances analysis (see US v . Arvizu).
@@tacticalattorney Correct. JUDGES do you require specific articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion of a specific crime. However, the police themselves believe they only need to be suspicious in general. There are hundreds if not thousands of videos on RUclips where you can literally watch the police in action doing exactly that. Many of them have ended in lawsuits. I’ve witnessed it many times myself. And even in Terry versus Ohio, The police officer had very good reasonable suspicion that was observed directly by the officer himself. However, the dissenting judge William Douglas pointed out that the decision gives police officers higher authority than a judge who would not be allowed to issue a warrant based on the same circumstances. Just to be clear I am pro law-enforcement. But keep in mind that the Constitution is a HIGHER law than local municipal law and should be #1 concern in enforcing laws.
@@i-primeproductions1517 Absolutely, I totally agree. As a prosecutor, I had to dismiss a lot of cases where reasonable suspicion was lacking. There is a lack of good legal training for officers and a big part of the reason I started this company was to help provide that training. Every officer must know and understand the law. As you mentioned, bad policing results in lawsuits and bad community relations. Thanks again for commenting, I really appreciate your input.
YOU SIR ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I am an avid LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORTER. However I have seen so many LEO'S,...not follow the CONSTITUTION,...and many of the LEO'S, I have spoken to don’t have any knowledge of the CONSTITUTION or Supreme Court case law,...and blatantly violate individuals rights. People cannot afford afford an Attorney to defend them, and agree to a plea bargain to end the situation.
@@i-primeproductions1517your quote of the judge regarding warrant issuance is irrelevant when the context is.regarding any behavior.hapoening in a public space, including that of your vehicle. Perhaps this dude needs to make a video on 4th amendment exceptions because that is clearly where so many people are confused. We as a people have been maligned with such a sense of entitlement and that hubris alone gets so many people in trouble.
Is “criminal activity” or “of a crime” definition play?
What is the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
A lot to unpack with that question. In short, reasonable suspicion is when an officer can articulate specific facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe criminal activity is a foot. Probable cause requires more, PC requires facts to indicate a crime has definitely taken place and there is some evidence to show that the defendant committed it. RS is the standard for a Terry stop, while PC is the standard for arrest. I would encourage you to read Terry v Ohio and some of the cases that followed for a better understanding. Hope this helps.
@tacticalattorney thanks for your answer, love your videos.
Can a sign at park "vehicles subject to search" mean I can be pulled over in parking lot for no reason
Generally speaking, no. The 4th amendment doesn't allow random searches. Searches must be subject to a warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. However, there are some limited exceptions where random searches are considered reasonable. Places such as ports of entry, border patrol checkpoints, prisons, government installations etc.
@@tacticalattorney i was at a park that had a sign posted "vehicles subject to search by pd" as I was exiting the park i was pulled over as an "park bathroom vandilizer" because cop said there been lots of vandalism recently and that I was there "suspiciously late" gave him enough reason even tho it was 6:30pm and park doesn't close until 8
I was never in or 30ft near the bathrooms, ended up searching my car finding weed. Would the cop of needed more reasonable suspicion I was the bathroom vandalizer I have court tmrw n ima have to talk to public defender. That sign is his only chance at no reason needed to search me
He didn't smell it until he had me roll down my window and I didn't smoke it there
Just an ordinary free park to visit
Terry V. Ohio doesn't override or overrule the 4th amendment of the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.
Body and dash cam help eliminate reasonable suspicion
You left out an important aspect of rule #2 in your guide: what MITIGATING facts exist that argue AGAINST reasonable suspicion? As you point out, we are concerned with the TOTALITY of the circumstances. I'm involved in a case in Georgia right now where a deputy conflated a couple of facts to come to a conclusion about a crime, and made an arrest, all the while ignoring a dozen (literally) other factors suggesting that the victim was lying. Bad police work and a waste of resources all around, resulting in a bad arrest and imprisonment. Sad.
It's interesting that yiou reference the Terry Case, which was the case that defined reasonable suspicion , because that was all hunch.
ALSO, define the elements of a crime...
Let's talk reasonable suspicion & code enforcment.home burns in a state that has spoilage statue but a camper close proximity.behind a home between two privacy fences & a no trespassing sign nit visible from front of house can I just go take it and spoil thier insurances claim.?
Cause I was in swat raid in house went to buy purse off guy I just meant , I was searched 2x held in handcuffs for 3-4 hours I found out later the guy had. Complaint warrant & probale cause on the raid they found meth & i’m assuming that’s why they put me in handcuffs and search me two times I told the police I had only been there for five minutes and I didn’t know the guy and I’m sure the guy said the same thing he didn’t even know my last name knew what kind of car I drive and then the result of that I had two AK-47’s on my eye and my cheek pressed against my cheek. It was an awful ordeal, and I’m upset about the two searches, because I felt like I was so violated, especially when they went in my purse 2×1st, it was males that searched me and then I had to wait three more hours for a female to come search me and she was just after my pocketbook, because she didn’t barely searched my private areas she just went right from my purse and I had a very tiny pocketbook on the size of a clutch. It was awful experience and I wanted to know if they had and I wanted to know if they had reasonable suspicion to search me
If i get Uber eats at 2 am. Its in a brown bag is that reasonable suspicion for a drug deal.
Should not be at all, especially if it's at your home because that's actually where the 4th amendment truly exists with 0 exceptions.
Sun Tsu! Noice.
This is exactly why REASONABLE SUSPICION needs to be eradicated from these laws and from policing policies.
Laws cannot be vague and yet Reasonable Suspicion goes well beyond vague and is, as the supreme courts have admitted, UNDEFINABLE!!!
How can we allow for something that's IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFINE to be in our laws?!?!?!
And this is why/how it's being abused by police officers all around the country/world.
Without officer discretion, and an ability to articulate nuance in general, than the only two binary options would be pure anarchy or extreme totalitarian fascism. Your in essence arguing for abolishing the tenants of due process. Terrible take.
when does one man gain standing to place his hands upon another man?
is standing gained by putting on a costume with a badge and a gun?
Also, it's 2024. It's a dangerous police hunch with guns and badges, implementing the old, "don't recognize/place this car/automobile in this area." This isn't the 1960"s where farmer Joe has the same pickup truck for 23 years. We are cycling in and out of new whips CONSTANTLY! Changing cars like underwear. Rentals, leases. Not to mention you arrive home or plan to leave your residence of 10 years in an ride sharing service?! Yellow Cabs ?!? Nope!
So let's go easy and not break leather on a car you don't recognize as "every day".
Please and thank you!
Can an officer have reasonable suspicion to initiate a terry stop in the 27 states where state legislature gave its citizens the right to constitutional carry either open or concealed? Being armed by state legislative enactment neutralizes the armed portion of armed and dangerous in terry. Terry used armed AND dangerous not armed or dangerous. One who carries open or concealed by legislative act is not in the act of comitting a crime by carrying, not to mention absent the status of mens rey[ the guilty mind ]
1965 was a long time ago. Let's get with modernization In the hear and the now.imlo.
Now I’m not an attorney, but the way I interpreted was extremely unconstitutional
Murdock v penn no state shall convert a liberty into a privilege license it, and attach a fee to it
Miranda v Arizona we’re right, secured by the constitution are involved there can be no rule making our legislation which would abrogate then
Considering that carrying (arms) weapons is protected everywhere in the united states of America under the constitution of the united states supreme law of the land therefore they shouldn't be searching for any weapons. The only thing they should be searching for is either stolen property or something that is illegal and only with a legal lawful search warrant.
Deputy sheriffs do WELFARE CHECk on me nodding in my friend's car parked (for over an hour) in nice residential area, legally parked in front of house. I was under dentist care, not feeling well. DP taps window. I tell them ok. 2 of them grab my wrists and yank me out of car and force me to do 2 DUI tests. I pass tho tell them I'm sick, have diarrhea, and need bathroom. They ignore me, force 3rd test & during I soil myself. They ask to search my car, I say NO, it is my friend's car. They search anyway and among pile of clothes find drugs (not mine) then I'm arrested & jailed for possession. Can you please comment on this. Thank you.
You should speak with an attorney in your state regarding these issues.
Sue the cops. Every chance you get they are not your friend.
The legal system has become a football game. It’s all strategy to win cases for the prosecution with no regard for whether the person is innocent. Your motivation In sure as a prosecutor was to win every case that crossed your desk without a thought of maybe the cops got the wrong guy or there was no crime. The rich guilty get off and the poor innocent always get convicted.
Thanks for the comment. You raise an issue that is a common misconception amongst the public. All attorneys are held to a high ethical standard. The prosecutor however, is held to the highest standard of any attorney in the profession. A prosecutors job is not to win cases or send people to jail. A prosecutor is a minister of justice. For example, a prosecutor is ethically required to dismiss a charge that is not supported by legally obtained and admissible evidence irregardless of guilt or innocence. I assure you it is not a game and it is always a difficult decision, especially when a victim is involved. When a case is supported by the evidence, it is the prosecutors ethical duty to zealously prosecute the defendant. Because it's the prosecutors ethical duty, the prosecutor must use effective trial strategies, within the bounds of the ethics rules to ensure that justice is done. The defendants status plays no role in this analysis. I created this channel to give information to law enforcement precisely because of the need to have the best trained officers. A well trained officer who understands the law is a benefit to her community.
Buzz - EXACTLY !!! Cops don't give a DAMN whether you are innocent or guilty !!!
The ONLY thing that matters is whether they can find, plant, manufacture enough to arrest and convict. Career advancement is their goal.
@@tacticalattorney That YOU take ethics seriously is not at issue. If you think prosecutors in general function on your level... that's reckless.
@@tacticalattorney very wrong, you go to Henry Co.Al. assistant prosecutor doesn't have an oath of office on file with the court or the Secretary of state, the saying is this prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, i could tell more bad on this prosecutor but i will leave it at that.
@@tacticalattorneyIf only other county attorney's,...and cops,...throughout the country, had even a very small portion of your commitment and integrity to the OATH of office,...and Candor to the OATH,...there would not be so much distant, and disrespect for modern day policing. You have my respect.
Can a citizen perform a terry stop on police?
I wouldn't recommend it.
Here's an example of what makes my blood boil.
My wife, a great grand mother, was a passenger in a car that was stopped because the driver didn't signal a turn. The officer made everyone ID. He didn't say my wife was under arrest for not having an ID on her person, but he made her feel that it was going to happen. Everyone in the car was her offspring and pleaded as to her name.
The officer said "having a picture ID was needed" but finally let everyone go after an extended amount of time.
The town the officer works at is Rector, Arkansas.
I'm not going to "just let this go" I called the police department, and they said it was policy. I then sent a message to the sheriff and he didn't respond. It pisses me off and the next step is protesting on the steps of city hall.
Get over it or move out of that shit hole town jesus christ
In your "years as a prosecutor" have you ever brought an officer before a grand jury for "arresting" someone without probable cause? Assuming there is no PC, there is no reason to arrest. In other words, an officer touched someone without their wanting said touch ie going in handcuffs (assuming the arrestee isn't into that kind of thing) and kidnapping (assuming the arrestee didn't want to go to jail.
If you've never done so, why not? Did you consider a badge a license to commit battery and kidnapping?
Contempt of Cop is not a crime in any lawbook that I've seen.
Everyone should know that the police are not your friend
Traffic stop is made on probable cause not reasonable suspicion. The officer 👮♂️ personally witnessed the infractions. So that’s wrong .
I find it hilarious when someone uses a pop cover on a dynamic microphone. It appears to be a Shure SM-58 or clone. Yes. While, it makes perfect sense on a condenser microphone, it serves no practical purpose here. So, why do you use it?
lol yeah it didn't make a huge difference, but I was having some issues with the P's popping. The screen helped with that. I replaced the 58 with an SM7B and the built in filter negates the need for any external pop screen. Just trying to get the best audio. On a side note, the SM-58 is a great mic for the price.
Actually, it’s not that difficult. You must be able to ARTICULATE what the crime is.
That's the key.
You keep saying that you have years of experience, You look like a twenty six year old.Thanks for your time😁
Thank you! Glad to hear I still look 26!
"How To Evade The Law" ... here's a blueprint for professional thugs. What lies can you tell, and still get away with them?
Fortunately, as a prosecutor, I never saw a criminal who was very good at their job.
@@tacticalattorney Evidently, you never worked on Wall Street, or dealt with White Collar Criminals. The very biggest Corporate thieves walk ... always. Look at Rick Scott, now a US Senator from Florida. His company scammed Medicaid for hundreds of millions, made him fabulously wealthy, and he got away with a slap on the wrist.
You don't realise how lucky you are in America. In Australia the police have a right to perform Random Breath Test stops. These require no reason or suspicion at all, they can just flick on the lights and you must pull over or you'll be changed with failing to pull over and as you've commited that crime by not pulling over quick enough you are already under arrest and subject to all that follows including information, proof of I'd, search and arrest.
This applies even if you're sitting in your vehicle with the keys out of the ignition.
The Lucky Country...
Thank you for the perspective. It is remarkable that our constitution provides so many rights. It is also remarkable that it is entirely possible for police in America to effectively enforce the law while maintaining those civil rights. The key is training and education. Thank you for the comment and perspective.
An officer commits Treason Felony when utilizing emergency lights to incur a seizure and custodial arrest. Moreover, the officer loses all power in doing so and has zero authority.
"An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government."~Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.Supp. 94. No qualified immunity protection.
Word vomit
Word vomit
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA supreme law of the land. Amendment 14 section 1
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states
14th amendment section 1
Nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th amendment section 1
All person's born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
9th amendment
The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
4th amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their PERSON'S, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS against unreasonable searches and seizures SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.
Felons are citizens of the united states of America therefore the courts and local, state, federal government cannot deny them their rights (liberties, privileges, immunities) secured to them and protected under the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.
To the point please
Maybe y'all should just follow the law and quit violating the Constitutional Rights of Americans?
Your training isn’t going to change anything, cops are still going to do what they want.
I like the content. But a lot of fluff to get to the actual content. Cops have short attention spans.
Point well taken. Since this video, I have continued to try and cover the key takeaways as quickly as possible.
No suspicion nothing but racial profiling.
Still doesn't fix bad officers...they still ruin lives, when they charge with stuff and it gets tossed out at court...waste of time and embarrassment....dummy cops only
WTF is this 'what crime do *I* see'??? How about what specific behaviors/actions would lead a REASONABLE person to believe criminal activity is afoot? Cops run afoul of this crap ROUTINELY.
Does anyone listening to this guy believe that he considers any person who has been charges is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law??????????? If you don't have reasonable suspicion of what crime might have (or have not) been committed then an officer should search his mind what other "visual evidence" exists to justify charging him with some crime (any will do) so long as it can be part of the totality of the circumstances even if not what was originally suspected that resulted in the stop. Build your case for something that will "stand up" in court. Never let a perp escape justice - even if it has to be creatively composed after the fact. Justice or revenge?
It's sad as of why these kind of vlog's are out here. The reasonable conclusion is deficient education at the minimum. On top of the educational aspect and too short training time, the lack of screening a prospective officer's character/personality. Too many 'bad' cops out there, 'bad in the sense of lacking knowledge and/or character to be a law enforcement officer.
The police or not your friend invoke the fifth amendment, right to remain silent do not help them with their investigation they are not there to help you. You’re there to make you poor, put you in a cage or worse.
Are*
@@laughjok6461 grammar 🚔