Colorado, New Mexico, and New York City have already ended QI, and Connecticut severely limited it, but since QI had been established at the federal level by the Supreme Court, it only applies to state law claims, not federal constitution claims. The same would apply for Ohio.
Just means they will settle all suits look at Colorado Montana new Mexico and Nevada it has changed nothing they need to be prosecuted qi never covered them from criminal charges they just never get charged
@@papajon62 Es gibt eine Ausweispflicht, d.h. man muss die Wahrheit sagen in Bezug auf seine Daten. Es gibt keine Mitführungspflicht. Daher ist "Ihre Papiere bitte" total dumm.
@@MrGerdbrecht The problem is the imbalance between cops, whom are allowed to lie about the law to your face, sometimes legally, and the private citizens who have done nothing illegal and aren't being suspected of a crime having their 4th amendment rights violated.
Right. And they always say that even on cops on TV and I believe they require government issued ID to enter government buildings and court houses etc At least they've had it posted there
vote your way out of tyranny? first time for everything... almost like the socialist who think communism will work if they try it one more time. get used to your chains boys
It is an incredibly low bar. They've got plenty of time to make some shit up and tell it to judge by the time the case makes it to court, if it ever does.
The people shouldn't have to sct like legal robots in order to function in a free society. The burden should be heavy on the government as the constitution requires according to Supreme Court Justice William o'Dougles
It's so horribly ironic that the courts assume that all citizens know every law and hold them accountable for them all ("ignorance of the law is no defense") but turn around and allow the actual officers of the law to use their ignorance of those same laws as a defense of their unlawful actions.
The problem is that police don't care if they have R.A.S or not. No one is going to hold them liable for unlawful detention nor would any lawyer take a case of simple unlawful detention, just too little money to be made.
ROGER THAT. "R.A.S" can simply mean the cop doesn't LIKE you and wants a reason to screw with you. After all, WHO will punish him/her if (s)he's WRONG?
I am a retired police offiecer in pa, and i had to correct so many younger officers over this they would stop someone ask for id and then want to take them back to the station to check digital fingerprints! I would ask them why and the only answer they had was he has no id. For some reason they are being mis trained on and think having no id is illegal, its a shame they are good officers getting bad training
Good officers getting bad training, or complacent officers being complacent? If someone is becoming a police officer, they should take it upon themselves to brush up on the law and correct their peers, not just rely on the very basic information from the academy for the rest of their career. No excuse.
My brother just graduated from a LEO academy and we were having a discussion about this. He believed that if he had reasonable suspicion of a crime to detain someone that he also had the ability to take them to the station for fingerprinting if they didnt have id or refused to identify themselves. I had to correct him and remind him that reasonable suspicion and probable cause for an arrest are different things and that according to the supreme court reasonable suspicion is not enough to force someone to give fingerprints. You must have one of these three things: 1) Probable cause for an arrest, 2) a warrant, or 3) consent. And also that transporting someone to the police station is a de facto arrest, even if you try to just call it a "detention".
It's not always training. Our police department has a policy of arresting all who refuse to produce a government issued photo ID upon demand. They will lock you up if you do not. They will fingerprint you to find out if you are in the system. If you are not then now you are because they will input your fingerprints to the FBI data base and the FBI saves everything. So if it comes back clean they will consider that as evidence of your high level of skill in avoiding arrest for your crimes. They will NEVER assume you are innocent of anything. Once they do this they will watch your every move. This is usually done through the network of thousands of traffic cameras throughout the state. Every last intersection in our county and many other counties have multiple traffic cameras and at least one for every 500 feet of road without an intersection and this is not just big intersections. if it has a stop sign or lights it counts as an intersection and so every stop sign has a camera as well. It is the stated goal of the county commissioners to have camera on every utility pole in the county by 2030. They then use their AI programs to track your every move in your life. You cannot leave your house without having hours of video made of you and they never erase it. They have billions of petabytes of video already and the state's law enforcement servers spread throughout the state have been getting upgraded to double capacity every year for the last twenty years and for the foreseeable future. It is literally a million times the capacity it had in 2004. They don't need to see your ID to know who you are. The ask to see your ID to trap you. If you refuse they will arrest and search you to see if they can charge you with a crime. If you show it they usually just hand it back without actually looking at it. The AI tells them who you are when they ask it who the driver is in the car in front of them. The AI tells them and then informs the officer if there are any warrants. But starting in a couple of years the cruisers will have smart windshields that will double as computer monitors and as the officer is driving the AI will notify the officer of the whereabouts of anyone with a warrant if they are one of the five closest cruisers. The information will pop up on their windshield in a 3 D overlay and will outline the wanted person with a flashing red glow if it's a felon, flashing orange if it's a misdemeanor and flashing yellow if the person has over a certain threshold of traffic violations. Within five years the 4th and 5th amendments will have no further meaning.
Good people don't take civilians that aren't suspected of wrong doing and take away their freedom to forcibly steal their biometric data. You're describing evil, regardless if it's their individual discretion to be evil or they're trained to be evil by an evil system.
In Texas, there is penal code 38.02 which basically says that until they LEGALLY arrest you, you do not have to show ID. NEVER give your ID. Force them to assault you. Take them to court. They can MAKE UP laws.
Since cops can lie to us. Even telling me I am under arrest will not qualify I am lawfully arrested. They want my ID they need to have a judge issue a warrant for it.
Don't need an attorney - File a for ( record release under freedom of information )... File a chapter 83 notice of intent to sue... Then a motion of discovery tru the court by a judge. Build your case an attorney will then smell blood
Reasonable articulate suspicion. SCOTUS stated it's a violation of rights to require identification where no crime was committed nor suspected. This is why SCOTUS extended it to reasonable articulate suspicion.
@@mrhope2914 you may want to re read the case. That case mostly pertain Ed the constitutionally of stop & frisk & detaining a person for questioning. Not about IDs.
Texas does have a state law about carrying ID/ driver's license. It is a misdemeanor ($100 fine 1st offense) not to have one, doesn't mean not in possession of one- left it at home, etc. As long as you know your ID/ DL number, usually you'll be ok. Texas wants to have a number to reference you in their data base.
I haven't read the law but, IMO, you do not need a driver license to walk in public so that i.d requirement cannot be put upon people not operating a motor vehicle.
@tanucci733 the law in a nutshell says if you do not have a DL, then you must have a state issued ID of some sorts after age 18. A school is badge will work if you're under 18. A TDCJ ID card is valid (for a certain time) until you get a DL/ ID from the state. Even if you never applied for either, you can still be in trouble.
Here's what you do... don't provide them with anything and don't answer any questions. They'll either arrest you or leave you alone. If they arrest you, they'll have to show that they did indeed have reasonable suspicion to detain you in the first place. If they do that, then you catch a minor misdemeanor charge that's no big deal. If they can't show that they had reasonable suspicion then the charge gets tossed and you have a lawsuit. Since the entire system is crooked, the only way to break their unlawful behavior is to hit their bosses in the pocketbook.
Naw. Asking if you are being detained or free to go, is without a doubt better. If you record it. If they detain you without RAS, and you can show it, it amounts to the same thing without a misdemeanor, and grounds for Civil Suit. Because Violation of Civil Rights is by definition Harm, you are likely to be able to take it from them, provided you know your stuff beforehand. Police rely on the ego boost. Loss in the Courtroom matters.
@chickenmonger123 that's one way to go, but whether or not it's better is arguable. They can tell you you're being detained whether they have reasonable suspicion or not, and they don't have to articulate their suspicion to you at the time. Assuming you'll be able to have the entire interaction recorded, or even enough to establish the context of the situation is pretty lofty; most people don't record every interaction and if you aren't recording when you're confronted by police then oftentimes they won't allow you to start recording by telling you not to reach for anything for their safety. And while an unlawful detainment is technically enough for action, there's not a very good chance you'll find an attorney to take that case and the damages would be considered so minimal that the odds of anything coming from it are slim. The longer you give them to make up a lie, or the more you do in terms of talking or recording or questioning them, the more likely they'll be to twist the situation and use your own actions to their benefit. It's all situationally dependent and up to the individual, but if you're not willing to play the game then you might as well just stay off the field and provide them with your ID from the beginning.
If the officers ARRESTS you, then (s)he must have PROBABLE CAUSE, not merely "reasonable suspicion". Then again, people get wrongfully arrested ALL the time, and RARELY does it end up with a successful lawsuit against that officer and/or his/her department.
They did not. Idk what unhinged history you’re reading but they fought over the eradication of an entire population of people. Not presenting an ID so they know who they are talking to while MORE THAN LIKELY said person has committed an offense.
No ID required in the USA!!! The police academy needs to read Kolender v Lawson and teach the law in the academies. Ask the police officer to show you their driver's license for citizen safety.
requiring the police to know relevant laws? What is this madness, this is the USA not some liberal Eu place, I can alrady hear the whining. maybe a lot of things would be better if we reequired at least baic law course to become a LEO?
It's not the police academy. It's the police departments. In our county all cities have a police of ordering detained individuals to produce a state issued photo ID and failure to do so WILL result in an arrest and getting finger printed. If you have a warrant they keep you. If you don't and they can invent something to charge you with they let you go. But your information and fingerprints go to the FBI data base regardless. Starting in 2026 they will be taking DNA from EVERY person they stop regardless and you won't have the right to say no. They expect to have almost instant DNA identification available by 2027 but meanwhile, while they are waiting for the technology to be available they will be keeping detained people detained until the results of DNA tests come back and that takes about a week which is why our county is working to pass a bond issue so they can increase the jail capacity to six times it's current size for people waiting for DNA identification results. Since AI run software and cameras will be on every utility pole within a couple of years they are expecting a dramatic increase in the number of people arrested for trivial offenses recorded by security cameras. So this includes the two utility poles that the utility companies installed in my yard with easements granted by the previous homeowner and with those cameras they will be able to monitor everything that happens in your back yard. No more skinny dipping in the back yard hot tub behind your ten foot wall. They are already listening to conversations in your home by laser soundwave scanning equipment. it's too expensive to run on every suspect now but the price is expected to come down in a couple of years at which point everything you say in your home will be recorded and analyzed by AI bots and warrants automatically issued to police who are driving past your house. This is why our state legislature passed the rapid response virtual justice act to go into effect in 2026 so the monitors on the utility pole in front of your house can report bad language or bad behavior to the nearest cruiser and have a warrant appear on his cell phone issued by the digital judge as he approaches your home to break down your door and arrest you for role playing with your wife in your bedroom because you said a banned word or phrase to her.
A cop can ASK anyone for their ID at any time. Asking is a request and the nature of a request is that it may be refused. If you don't refuse, then you voluntarily complied with their request. Demanding ID under threat of arrest is what they need RAS for. If they attempt to demand ID under threat of arrest when they do not have RAS, this is called "coercion through force" and it is a violation of one's 4th Amendment Rights. Moreover, because it is reasonable to expect police to know this, by demanding ID under threat of arrest without RAS, they open themselves up to have their qualified immunity forfeited for this Civil Rights violation.
Police do not answer the question "am I being detained?" By remaining silent they can change you with resisting if you try to leave. There is no law requiring an officer to identify themselves or give their badge number. In civil rights violations by the Maricopa county sheriff's department the sheriff said they could not press charges against deputies as the victims failed to provide names or badge numbers of the deputies. It is all about maintaining the pyramid shaped power hierarchy where the officer gets to play God with the lives of the citizen.
Whenever a cop says, "I need to see your ID," if I'm not driving my answer is always the same - "No officer, you WANT to see my ID. But you won't be seeing it today."
When you say reasonable articulable suspicion you forgot the term of a crime even in Georgia now they have to have the IRS which is reasonable articulable suspicion that you are committing a crime
That never works. Even if the cop knows he has no RAS he's gonna force you to stand there until you respect his or her perceived authority. The fact of the matter is they have NO authority over anyone without a crime.
If you're detained on suspicion it's usuallt suspicion that you are, have, or about to commit a crime. Suspicious male peering into vehicles would be an indicator you're about to break into those cars. (Especially if they have had reports recently in the area for the same crime.) See Terry V Ohio
@mrhope2914 so every cop using Plain View Doctrine is a criminal. Got it. Oh, and just video. A Constitutionally-protected activity can NOT be deemed illegal OR even suspicious.
@mrhope2914, how wrong are you. Looking into cars is not suspicion. It is called the plain view doctrine. Better to better research than prove you are an id10t.
You know, I've never had a problem answering a few questions from a police officer. Never got arrested, never got beaten, never got yelled at. I'll stick with how I'm getting things done rather than listening to you
Usually it wouldn't even be Gestapo, but normal Wehrmacht soldiers, and from what my mother told me, they were usually more polite than many of the US cops.
A tip for police officers in the US, if you stop someone demand their ID and they happen to be a BRIT and they respond with "I beg your Pardon" seriously reconsider your course of action because that BRIT will bugger up your whole day if they have even the slightest suspicion that you are on a fishing expedition.
This is a secondary law and conflict to the Constitution's right to privacy. The right to be safe and secure within your property papers and essentials then it would be null and void.
I've watched most of Trumps and Harris's speaches/interviews and I've never heard either candidate say anything like that. Maybe you can enlighten me. By the way. Even federal immunity/amnesty does not dismiss, override, outweigh or negate the Constitution. The Constitution is the last word. End of story.
Our state has a new law going in effect next year limiting lawsuits against law enforcement agencies to $25,000 lifetime limit and the plaintiff has to pay all court costs and lawyer fees for both parties. individual officers can't be sued for anything they do while on the clock and some departments are now making all officers salaried workers so they are on the clock 24/7 making it illegal to sue any police officer for any reason even for crashing their personal vehicle into your home while drunk on their day off. They are also expanding qualified immunity to include state prosecutors, state employed officers of any court even the janitor who keeps the police station clean can't be arrested for committing a crime against a citizen starting next year. The legislature wants to expand this to all government employees so if your mailman burglarizes your home it will be a felony to try to stop him.
That cutie should NOT be out on the streets. She is going to be CONSTANTLY in fear of what someone might do to her, even if they wont & she cannot defend herself except with overuse of force. This is why women should not serve in the front lines of the military either.
I had a Waupaca County wi deputy shoot at me during the deer hunting season because I was too close to the property line. He approached me two years earlier and threatened me telling me I should hunt farther into the woods. Slugs were whizzing by my head and ricocheting off the ground right next to me. I'm sure it was him.
As others have said record your interactions. I am curious would the best way to handle these interactions be to do the following: 1) Film the interaction 2) Ask if you are free to go or being detained 3) Ask for the reason they are wanting your ID, and what crime you are being detained for (Establishing a record of what they think is reasonable suspicion) so you have a record for your lawyer later. 4) You hold your ID in your hand, and tell them that you do not consent to them taking it and cannot give it to them, however, you will not provide any resistance other than a verbal repeating that I do not consent to you taking it, if they decide take it from your hand. Doing this I feel records the polices reason for taking your ID and makes it clear that you are not doing so voluntarily which should give your lawyer ammunition if it was illegal.
In South Carolina, if you're not carrying identification with you, whether it be a state ID or driver's license, you will go to jail so you can be fingerprinted
Don't ask a double question. Either ask if you're free to go or ask if you were being detained... Don't ask both at once. I have seen videos where the officer answers yes... But when he says yes is he answering yes that you were being detained or yes that you were free to go? Only ask one question. If he says that you are detained then by default you are not free to go So there is no reason to ask both questions. Another aspect is ask them why they are detaining you instead of if they are detaining you. Start off the encounter with the premise that you feel that you are being detained right off the bat.
They don't need to have reasonable suspicion. They need to have reasonable, articulable suspicion. One way to determine is to ask them what their reasonable suspicion is.
Reasonable articulable suspicion! They can’t just say they “have it”, they have to produce it… with words. Rationally and coherently, explain in detail what crime they suspect you of. Remember that they are professional liars, so video them during interactions.
In Michigan, if we have a concealed pistol license, and are carrying, we must declare that and submit to an ID check. Just one more infringement on our 2nd Amendment rights.
Maryland laws generally do not require you to produce ID to police on request outside of car stops and receiving citation. Montgomery County has a rule that allows police to detain you and requires you to truthfully identify yourself on request, even if you aren't driving or getting a citation.
As a lawyer, I would advise clients to provide the minimum amount of information to avoid detention. If a cop has probable cause they can hold you for 2-3 days without charging you. Standing on principle by now showing an ID or answering simple questions is just wasting your own time. However, there are a BUNCH of questions you don't have to answer. If a cop pulls you over and asks "do you know why I pulled you over," "where are you going," "where are you coming from," etc. you don't have to answer. Cops will fish for probably cause in the hopes of getting you to say something that will give them a reason to detain you.
Key word: "Reasonable".... assuming a cop is stopping you to be "reasonable" is going to lead to a lot of pain. They're only job is to enforce policy, but no private man or woman is actually required to listen to the policies... we're just forced to under threat and duress. Modern "justice" doesn't exist.
Bad advice dude. There are COUNTLESS times when I knew cops were stretching their authority. I could argue... lose 6-hrs at a police station. Or.... give the cop ID ... and be on my way... 😊 This dude never heard the expression, "You can be DEAD right...... and still DEAD!"
It is always better for you as a smart and wise person just to cooperate with law enforcement! You have the right to remain silent once you're Miranda rights are read to you. When you go to jail lawyer up immediately.
Then in the 99% of cases when they say you can't leave you are detained. Ask what you're being detained for, what crime do they suspect you of committing. Then sue for improper detainment or more when they likely escalate cause you're not bowing down to their intimidation
JOHN DOE: Am I free to go? OFFICER MIRANDA: I cannot comment on an active investigation. Not to mention that the police are allowed to lie to you as long it's an "active investigation" You will never hear any attorney tell you this nor will you ever hear it asked to a police officer on the stand having been duly sworn in. I did ask that question when I was 18 and decided to represent myself on a speeding ticket in Lincoln County Oklahoma in 1988. My point was to show if the OHP officer was allowed to deceive, mislead or lie to a suspect as long as it was an active investigation then he could not be trusted to tell the truth about my speeding. The DA threw a fit and the judge told me to keep my questions on my defense and not guess at police procedure.
Usually their reasonable suspicion is that you’re being suspicious. They don’t seem to have read the part where it says reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed
Several years ago, I walked from my apartment down to the Post Office. When I got there, I decided to photograph a vacant field next door. As I walked back home, a police cruiser pulled up alongside me and the officer got out. He asked to see my driver license. Why would I have my driver license when I was walking? However, I had it. The officer took it back to his car to check if any warrants were issued for me. Apparently, they are for many people in Texas. The officer stopped me (and a second officer arrived after several minutes) because a man had seen me shooting photos of the vacant field, and reported that I was shooting photos of the bank that was on the other side of the vacant field.
They can ask you to identify yourself, they can require you to have an ID. You can tell them your name and DOB, you're not required to do anything beyond that.
If in a "stop and ID state", never give them your DL (unless driving), provide them only what's legally required (name and date of birth) and tell them clearly that other than what's required by law, under threat of arrest, you won't answer any questions or assist in their investigation and CLEARLY invoke your right to remain silent
Ohio is working on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that removes qualified immunity.
Ohio is doing a great service to its people
I'm down
Great way to lose good officers. On your way to the CA LEO crisis
Colorado, New Mexico, and New York City have already ended QI, and Connecticut severely limited it, but since QI had been established at the federal level by the Supreme Court, it only applies to state law claims, not federal constitution claims. The same would apply for Ohio.
Just means they will settle all suits look at Colorado Montana new Mexico and Nevada it has changed nothing they need to be prosecuted qi never covered them from criminal charges they just never get charged
Why does law-enforcement treat our bill of rights like an obstacle?!!!
Because Armed "government" "workers" are evil. Fortunately, they are also very stupid. (Google "Too Smart to be a Cop") Evil and stupid, what a mix.
they are a gang and dont like laws
Because it makes their job more difficult. I thought that might be obvious.
It's an assault to their ego, not just cops. Anyone who has power or control and your rights take that away from them.
Because the People allow it!
Reasonable Articulable Suspicion, which means they need a FACT of a crime, not just a hunch.
No they need that to arrest you. Not to talk to you.
@matthewm4020 hello idiot. We're talking about demanding someone identify themselves. Obviously anyone can talk to anyone. Are you special? 😂
Reasonable suspicion doesn't exist in law. It a legal term created much like the titles people unwittingly accept to their detriment.
@@matthewm4020
WRONG...
@@matthewm4020 Incorrect. They need RAS to detain. They need PC (probable cause) to arrest.
Critical thinking and situational awareness with respect go a long way.
@@jamessaville5766 those are things 99% of cops don’t have
Film every interaction
Never answer questions
Call a lawyer
Does this sounds familiar: "PAPERS PLEASE!?"
I came here to make this comment
I need a papyrus.
It’s “Ihre Papiere, bitte!”
@@papajon62 Es gibt eine Ausweispflicht, d.h. man muss die Wahrheit sagen in Bezug auf seine Daten. Es gibt keine Mitführungspflicht. Daher ist "Ihre Papiere bitte" total dumm.
@@MrGerdbrecht The problem is the imbalance between cops, whom are allowed to lie about the law to your face, sometimes legally, and the private citizens who have done nothing illegal and aren't being suspected of a crime having their 4th amendment rights violated.
Please amend your video..show a Scroll of those 25 states SO WE ARE AWARE - WHERE WE STAND
Ooooor you could use the power of the internet and look it up?
No state in America requires you to ID simply because a cop demands it. Not even in so called stop and ID states.
Right. And they always say that even on cops on TV and I believe they require government issued ID to enter government buildings and court houses etc At least they've had it posted there
Or you could just, oh I don’t know, look it up for yourself like most people that want to know about the laws in their own state.
@@Julie-p5y you don’t have to ID to enter a government building.
Maybe we as taxpayers should vote out these laws
LOL, the taxpayers just elected their best buddy as President. It's only gonna get worse.
sadly voting makes no difference. The masses will just do what they're told to by the media/government.
What? Are you saying people should not blindly vote for the UniParty pretending to be "different"?
vote your way out of tyranny? first time for everything... almost like the socialist who think communism will work if they try it one more time. get used to your chains boys
@@CD-vb9fi Vote for PEOPLE who say they will end qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture -- if you can find any.
They don’t have reasonable suspicion.
They never do.
Reasonable suspicion was invented as a way to violate people’s rights.
It is an incredibly low bar. They've got plenty of time to make some shit up and tell it to judge by the time the case makes it to court, if it ever does.
I could have reasonable suspicion that the officer is committing a crime.
Couldn’t have said it better myself !!
What is "reasonable suspicion"? You were there, you existed in a time period?
It’s not reasonable suspicion it’s reasonable articulable suspicion which is a much higher standard
It's past time we end qualified immunity
Never gonna happen with the incoming administration. They're gonna let cops run wild.
If you only knew how dumb that is.
ASAP
Is it possible to end it in a particular city with a ballot initiative?
It’s disturbing how you people have no clue why qualified immunity exists and why it’s necessary for policing.
The people shouldn't have to sct like legal robots in order to function in a free society. The burden should be heavy on the government as the constitution requires according to Supreme Court Justice William o'Dougles
It's so horribly ironic that the courts assume that all citizens know every law and hold them accountable for them all ("ignorance of the law is no defense") but turn around and allow the actual officers of the law to use their ignorance of those same laws as a defense of their unlawful actions.
No such thing as free society. It's so ironic Americans haven't figured this out yet
The problem is that police don't care if they have R.A.S or not. No one is going to hold them liable for unlawful detention nor would any lawyer take a case of simple unlawful detention, just too little money to be made.
ROGER THAT. "R.A.S" can simply mean the cop doesn't LIKE you and wants a reason to screw with you. After all, WHO will punish him/her if (s)he's WRONG?
Then do it yourself and take their bonds and pensions.
It's called the common lore. The highest court on American soil is a common lore court of record. Evoke the common law by way of notice.
@@thomasspringer5187Common "lore?" Too funny! 😅
In America you have all the rights you can afford.
I am a retired police offiecer in pa, and i had to correct so many younger officers over this they would stop someone ask for id and then want to take them back to the station to check digital fingerprints! I would ask them why and the only answer they had was he has no id. For some reason they are being mis trained on and think having no id is illegal, its a shame they are good officers getting bad training
That was my original question.
Good officers getting bad training, or complacent officers being complacent? If someone is becoming a police officer, they should take it upon themselves to brush up on the law and correct their peers, not just rely on the very basic information from the academy for the rest of their career. No excuse.
My brother just graduated from a LEO academy and we were having a discussion about this. He believed that if he had reasonable suspicion of a crime to detain someone that he also had the ability to take them to the station for fingerprinting if they didnt have id or refused to identify themselves. I had to correct him and remind him that reasonable suspicion and probable cause for an arrest are different things and that according to the supreme court reasonable suspicion is not enough to force someone to give fingerprints. You must have one of these three things: 1) Probable cause for an arrest, 2) a warrant, or 3) consent. And also that transporting someone to the police station is a de facto arrest, even if you try to just call it a "detention".
It's not always training. Our police department has a policy of arresting all who refuse to produce a government issued photo ID upon demand. They will lock you up if you do not. They will fingerprint you to find out if you are in the system. If you are not then now you are because they will input your fingerprints to the FBI data base and the FBI saves everything. So if it comes back clean they will consider that as evidence of your high level of skill in avoiding arrest for your crimes. They will NEVER assume you are innocent of anything. Once they do this they will watch your every move. This is usually done through the network of thousands of traffic cameras throughout the state. Every last intersection in our county and many other counties have multiple traffic cameras and at least one for every 500 feet of road without an intersection and this is not just big intersections. if it has a stop sign or lights it counts as an intersection and so every stop sign has a camera as well. It is the stated goal of the county commissioners to have camera on every utility pole in the county by 2030. They then use their AI programs to track your every move in your life. You cannot leave your house without having hours of video made of you and they never erase it. They have billions of petabytes of video already and the state's law enforcement servers spread throughout the state have been getting upgraded to double capacity every year for the last twenty years and for the foreseeable future. It is literally a million times the capacity it had in 2004. They don't need to see your ID to know who you are. The ask to see your ID to trap you. If you refuse they will arrest and search you to see if they can charge you with a crime. If you show it they usually just hand it back without actually looking at it. The AI tells them who you are when they ask it who the driver is in the car in front of them. The AI tells them and then informs the officer if there are any warrants. But starting in a couple of years the cruisers will have smart windshields that will double as computer monitors and as the officer is driving the AI will notify the officer of the whereabouts of anyone with a warrant if they are one of the five closest cruisers. The information will pop up on their windshield in a 3 D overlay and will outline the wanted person with a flashing red glow if it's a felon, flashing orange if it's a misdemeanor and flashing yellow if the person has over a certain threshold of traffic violations. Within five years the 4th and 5th amendments will have no further meaning.
Good people don't take civilians that aren't suspected of wrong doing and take away their freedom to forcibly steal their biometric data.
You're describing evil, regardless if it's their individual discretion to be evil or they're trained to be evil by an evil system.
If they are asking you don't have to complly. They are fishing.
In Texas, there is penal code 38.02 which basically says that until they LEGALLY arrest you, you do not have to show ID. NEVER give your ID. Force them to assault you. Take them to court. They can MAKE UP laws.
Since cops can lie to us. Even telling me I am under arrest will not qualify I am lawfully arrested. They want my ID they need to have a judge issue a warrant for it.
Yet just across the state line, NM is a stop and ID state which also has sanctuary cities 🤷🏻
38.02 clearly states that you have to provide ID to a LEO if you are operating a motor vehicle or are carrying a gun, even if they don't arrest you.
It is not required to carry identification, BUT, If they ask for identification, you must produce identification. Perfect.
That officer is very pretty, but her voice is a deal killer.
Too much ink, as noted by the cover sleeve on her arm.
Lmao
You always have your 4th amendment rights and if cops violate them you can sue the cops in federal court.
And generally win nothing, so... Lawyers aren't typically interested.
Don't need an attorney -
File a for ( record release under freedom of information )...
File a chapter 83 notice of intent to sue...
Then a motion of discovery tru the court by a judge.
Build your case an attorney will then smell blood
@@mrnobody8540so waste a bunch of time and money on something you won't win? Sure bud. You go do that
Haha, as if there's gonna be a 4th Amendment in a couple years...
Go look up qualified immunity.
Feels like there's more loopholes than safeguards...
no safeguards, only loopholes.
Reasonable articulate suspicion. SCOTUS stated it's a violation of rights to require identification where no crime was committed nor suspected. This is why SCOTUS extended it to reasonable articulate suspicion.
RAS …. Of a crime. That last part is important
Provide case name plz
@@Voren_Kurn Terry V Ohio
@@mrhope2914 you may want to re read the case. That case mostly pertain Ed the constitutionally of stop & frisk & detaining a person for questioning. Not about IDs.
Texas does have a state law about carrying ID/ driver's license. It is a misdemeanor ($100 fine 1st offense) not to have one, doesn't mean not in possession of one- left it at home, etc. As long as you know your ID/ DL number, usually you'll be ok. Texas wants to have a number to reference you in their data base.
I haven't read the law but, IMO, you do not need a driver license to walk in public so that i.d requirement cannot be put upon people not operating a motor vehicle.
@tanucci733 the law in a nutshell says if you do not have a DL, then you must have a state issued ID of some sorts after age 18. A school is badge will work if you're under 18. A TDCJ ID card is valid (for a certain time) until you get a DL/ ID from the state. Even if you never applied for either, you can still be in trouble.
@@mikemissildine370
That is UnConstitutional and should be challenged.
@@mikemissildine370 What is this? East Germany? Russia?
"Papers, Please!"
@ThomasKent1346 pretty much since jfk was offed, just tightening the noose a little at a time...
Under threat of arrest …. Under stress , duress, and coercion
Here's what you do... don't provide them with anything and don't answer any questions. They'll either arrest you or leave you alone. If they arrest you, they'll have to show that they did indeed have reasonable suspicion to detain you in the first place. If they do that, then you catch a minor misdemeanor charge that's no big deal. If they can't show that they had reasonable suspicion then the charge gets tossed and you have a lawsuit. Since the entire system is crooked, the only way to break their unlawful behavior is to hit their bosses in the pocketbook.
Naw. Asking if you are being detained or free to go, is without a doubt better. If you record it. If they detain you without RAS, and you can show it, it amounts to the same thing without a misdemeanor, and grounds for Civil Suit. Because Violation of Civil Rights is by definition Harm, you are likely to be able to take it from them, provided you know your stuff beforehand. Police rely on the ego boost. Loss in the Courtroom matters.
@chickenmonger123 that's one way to go, but whether or not it's better is arguable. They can tell you you're being detained whether they have reasonable suspicion or not, and they don't have to articulate their suspicion to you at the time. Assuming you'll be able to have the entire interaction recorded, or even enough to establish the context of the situation is pretty lofty; most people don't record every interaction and if you aren't recording when you're confronted by police then oftentimes they won't allow you to start recording by telling you not to reach for anything for their safety. And while an unlawful detainment is technically enough for action, there's not a very good chance you'll find an attorney to take that case and the damages would be considered so minimal that the odds of anything coming from it are slim. The longer you give them to make up a lie, or the more you do in terms of talking or recording or questioning them, the more likely they'll be to twist the situation and use your own actions to their benefit. It's all situationally dependent and up to the individual, but if you're not willing to play the game then you might as well just stay off the field and provide them with your ID from the beginning.
@@vitogriffin8902 so just give the dumb cop your ID and there go's your 4th its all but gone anyway
Totally stupid advise kid
If the officers ARRESTS you, then (s)he must have PROBABLE CAUSE, not merely "reasonable suspicion". Then again, people get wrongfully arrested ALL the time, and RARELY does it end up with a successful lawsuit against that officer and/or his/her department.
I thought WWII vets fought against required identity papers.
.
I'm sure 1930's German is laughing at us to see what we've become.
That's on paper. Reality is different.
They did not. Idk what unhinged history you’re reading but they fought over the eradication of an entire population of people. Not presenting an ID so they know who they are talking to while MORE THAN LIKELY said person has committed an offense.
No ID required in the USA!!! The police academy needs to read Kolender v Lawson and teach the law in the academies. Ask the police officer to show you their driver's license for citizen safety.
requiring the police to know relevant laws? What is this madness, this is the USA not some liberal Eu place, I can alrady hear the whining. maybe a lot of things would be better if we reequired at least baic law course to become a LEO?
They teach it; the problem is that many officers don't care about the laws because they know they can get away with it.
@stephenludlum9746 they teach and tell you after to forget everything they taught you.
It's not the police academy. It's the police departments. In our county all cities have a police of ordering detained individuals to produce a state issued photo ID and failure to do so WILL result in an arrest and getting finger printed. If you have a warrant they keep you. If you don't and they can invent something to charge you with they let you go. But your information and fingerprints go to the FBI data base regardless. Starting in 2026 they will be taking DNA from EVERY person they stop regardless and you won't have the right to say no. They expect to have almost instant DNA identification available by 2027 but meanwhile, while they are waiting for the technology to be available they will be keeping detained people detained until the results of DNA tests come back and that takes about a week which is why our county is working to pass a bond issue so they can increase the jail capacity to six times it's current size for people waiting for DNA identification results. Since AI run software and cameras will be on every utility pole within a couple of years they are expecting a dramatic increase in the number of people arrested for trivial offenses recorded by security cameras. So this includes the two utility poles that the utility companies installed in my yard with easements granted by the previous homeowner and with those cameras they will be able to monitor everything that happens in your back yard. No more skinny dipping in the back yard hot tub behind your ten foot wall. They are already listening to conversations in your home by laser soundwave scanning equipment. it's too expensive to run on every suspect now but the price is expected to come down in a couple of years at which point everything you say in your home will be recorded and analyzed by AI bots and warrants automatically issued to police who are driving past your house. This is why our state legislature passed the rapid response virtual justice act to go into effect in 2026 so the monitors on the utility pole in front of your house can report bad language or bad behavior to the nearest cruiser and have a warrant appear on his cell phone issued by the digital judge as he approaches your home to break down your door and arrest you for role playing with your wife in your bedroom because you said a banned word or phrase to her.
A cop can ASK anyone for their ID at any time. Asking is a request and the nature of a request is that it may be refused. If you don't refuse, then you voluntarily complied with their request. Demanding ID under threat of arrest is what they need RAS for. If they attempt to demand ID under threat of arrest when they do not have RAS, this is called "coercion through force" and it is a violation of one's 4th Amendment Rights. Moreover, because it is reasonable to expect police to know this, by demanding ID under threat of arrest without RAS, they open themselves up to have their qualified immunity forfeited for this Civil Rights violation.
They can ask and we can refuse
Actually that seems like an appropriate response, get the phone out start recording right away and ask them "are you asking for or demanding my ID?"
Police do not answer the question "am I being detained?" By remaining silent they can change you with resisting if you try to leave. There is no law requiring an officer to identify themselves or give their badge number. In civil rights violations by the Maricopa county sheriff's department the sheriff said they could not press charges against deputies as the victims failed to provide names or badge numbers of the deputies. It is all about maintaining the pyramid shaped power hierarchy where the officer gets to play God with the lives of the citizen.
Maricopa county is synonymous with corruption.
Whenever a cop says, "I need to see your ID," if I'm not driving my answer is always the same - "No officer, you WANT to see my ID. But you won't be seeing it today."
Reasonable suspicion of a CRIME
if they can't say refuse to show i.d and plead the fifth,and stop talking and ignore the officer.
As a law abiding U.S. citizen I have no problem producing an I.D. at anytime. Hell I've got four to choose from.
You’re law abiding until they say you aren’t
That first one can have my ID...
It’s funny to think that asking that question will always elicit an honest answer.
When you say reasonable articulable suspicion you forgot the term of a crime even in Georgia now they have to have the IRS which is reasonable articulable suspicion that you are committing a crime
That never works. Even if the cop knows he has no RAS he's gonna force you to stand there until you respect his or her perceived authority. The fact of the matter is they have NO authority over anyone without a crime.
What about they say "You are suspicious" doing what ever he thinks you doing is wrong.
Suspicion in not a crime, neither a felony or Misdemeanor.
@@Hawaiibohntr "suspicious" is also subjective. They cannot (lawfully) act on a hunch.
If you're detained on suspicion it's usuallt suspicion that you are, have, or about to commit a crime. Suspicious male peering into vehicles would be an indicator you're about to break into those cars. (Especially if they have had reports recently in the area for the same crime.) See Terry V Ohio
@mrhope2914 so every cop using Plain View Doctrine is a criminal. Got it. Oh, and just video. A Constitutionally-protected activity can NOT be deemed illegal OR even suspicious.
@mrhope2914, how wrong are you. Looking into cars is not suspicion. It is called the plain view doctrine. Better to better research than prove you are an id10t.
You know, I've never had a problem answering a few questions from a police officer. Never got arrested, never got beaten, never got yelled at. I'll stick with how I'm getting things done rather than listening to you
Can you give us an example of a time when you were doing nothing illegal and some cops nonetheless detained you and demanded to see your ID?
I used to feel the same way. Now I wish I had listened.
1941 German Gestapo: Give me your papers."
2024 American Law Enforcement Officer: "Give me your I.D."
Usually it wouldn't even be Gestapo, but normal Wehrmacht soldiers, and from what my mother told me, they were usually more polite than many of the US cops.
To compare that is absolutely disgusting. Wow.
Maybe read some history books
Hate crimes a savage hypocrisy❤
A tip for police officers in the US, if you stop someone demand their ID and they happen to be a BRIT and they respond with "I beg your Pardon" seriously reconsider your course of action because that BRIT will bugger up your whole day if they have even the slightest suspicion that you are on a fishing expedition.
Now the big question is if they even know what "bugger up" means.
This is a secondary law and conflict to the Constitution's right to privacy. The right to be safe and secure within your property papers and essentials then it would be null and void.
What if I don't have my ID on me at the time? No law requires that I carry an ID unless when I drive.
Usually it says you can provide Legal Name, DoB, and Address. Though you aren’t required to have an Address by Law, so one wonders how that’d go.
They will ask if you have a license or ID issued by the state, even if it's not on you. They will need your full name and date of birth to confirm.
@@mikehigbee2320
They can ASK..
@@chickenmonger123if you get charged bail is likely easier with a local address.
Long island audit is the goat 😂🐐🎉
When trump gets in office he's going to give all law enforcement federal immunity / amnesty from prosecution and that should not happen
I've watched most of Trumps and Harris's speaches/interviews and I've never heard either candidate say anything like that. Maybe you can enlighten me. By the way. Even federal immunity/amnesty does not dismiss, override, outweigh or negate the Constitution. The Constitution is the last word. End of story.
@s.hooper5667 just Google it it comes right up all kinds of articles on it he made that promise in his campaign
@s.hooper5667 and true about the constitution that protects the citizens but it does nothing to prosecute a wrong doing officer
Federal immunity works just like diplomatic immunity. It boils down to duh nuh nuh nuh Can't touch this!
It’s best to just always sue cops whenever you can
Our state has a new law going in effect next year limiting lawsuits against law enforcement agencies to $25,000 lifetime limit and the plaintiff has to pay all court costs and lawyer fees for both parties. individual officers can't be sued for anything they do while on the clock and some departments are now making all officers salaried workers so they are on the clock 24/7 making it illegal to sue any police officer for any reason even for crashing their personal vehicle into your home while drunk on their day off. They are also expanding qualified immunity to include state prosecutors, state employed officers of any court even the janitor who keeps the police station clean can't be arrested for committing a crime against a citizen starting next year. The legislature wants to expand this to all government employees so if your mailman burglarizes your home it will be a felony to try to stop him.
@@nunyabiznez6381 which state is that?
That cutie should NOT be out on the streets. She is going to be CONSTANTLY in fear of what someone might do to her, even if they wont & she cannot defend herself except with overuse of force.
This is why women should not serve in the front lines of the military either.
Provide ID.. except when voting.
They ask for ID when voting in many states
Thanks for all your explainations amd insight.
Let me correct this so called Lawyer. If youre driving a car on a public roadway, you are required to carry an ID.
Ok but he’s not talking about a traffic stop. He’s talking about if you’re on foot.
I don’t minds at all if the police officers asked me for my ID !! I don’t care wish states ! 🙏💙🇺🇸🇺🇸💙💙 O support our law enforcement officers 💯
They just lie,they have a lifetime of practice at it,they are good at it.
What you said, really makes no sense, there is no law,then check your state laws, that is like saying is May rain and it may not;😊
A law coming, against these people acting up
I had a Waupaca County wi deputy shoot at me during the deer hunting season because I was too close to the property line. He approached me two years earlier and threatened me telling me I should hunt farther into the woods. Slugs were whizzing by my head and ricocheting off the ground right next to me. I'm sure it was him.
The cops are just going to lie about everything 😮😮😮😮
Officer I have you on 8 cams right now. You have 1. I can show the court all your issues in 8 angles.
Great video by this lawyer….. to summarize check your states laws. Thanks for the tip.
Glad it was helpful!
She looks 12, she shouldn't be hirable as a Cop.
"i have reasonable suspicion because you asked what i had for reasonable suspicion"
Like if you have been through this scenario....
I love the “you’re detained for being suspicious”. lol.
They lie. The Badged-Brethren R.I.C.O is NOT your friend.
I showed the officer my fishing licence..
He said do you have anything with your photo on it.
I showed him a picture of me holding a fish.😂
The 'Right to remain silent' is Sacrasant. Continue your activities until arrested.
Here in Indiana if a Cop asks you for an ID you must provide it no matter what. Crazy I know but, you can get arrested for it if you don’t.
What if you actually don't have it on your person and you're not at home? (Not referring to traffic stops)
False. There’s no state in America that requires you to ID simply because a cop demands ID. Not one.
Claiming and actually having is two different things.
If that officer asks for my details she can definitely have them!
As others have said record your interactions. I am curious would the best way to handle these interactions be to do the following:
1) Film the interaction
2) Ask if you are free to go or being detained
3) Ask for the reason they are wanting your ID, and what crime you are being detained for (Establishing a record of what they think is reasonable suspicion) so you have a record for your lawyer later.
4) You hold your ID in your hand, and tell them that you do not consent to them taking it and cannot give it to them, however, you will not provide any resistance other than a verbal repeating that I do not consent to you taking it, if they decide take it from your hand.
Doing this I feel records the polices reason for taking your ID and makes it clear that you are not doing so voluntarily which should give your lawyer ammunition if it was illegal.
In South Carolina, if you're not carrying identification with you, whether it be a state ID or driver's license, you will go to jail so you can be fingerprinted
Reasonable articulable suspicion
Officer Johnson, please arrest me :D
Don't ask a double question. Either ask if you're free to go or ask if you were being detained... Don't ask both at once. I have seen videos where the officer answers yes... But when he says yes is he answering yes that you were being detained or yes that you were free to go? Only ask one question. If he says that you are detained then by default you are not free to go So there is no reason to ask both questions. Another aspect is ask them why they are detaining you instead of if they are detaining you. Start off the encounter with the premise that you feel that you are being detained right off the bat.
And then the person gets an answer and immediately asks the question the cop just answered again. I hate those videos
You have the right to remain silent. How do you go about this properly, silently?
Arizona it is required to show id when asked it’s called HP1070
I don't have ID .. I have a license to drive and only show it when it pertains to me operating a vehicle
Except a DL is one form of ID.
@@randyhendrickson4021
How many forms of i.d are there that the gov't will accept?
They need to articulate it!
Ask for the reason too. If they don't give you a reason or it's a dumb reason you can get the whole case dismissed in court. I did it in Illinois.
What a beautiful cop she is!
Oh, what was the guy talking about?
they need to ARTICULATE reasonable suspicion. so they need to explain clearly what they are claiming they saw, with their own eyes.
They don't need to have reasonable suspicion.
They need to have reasonable, articulable suspicion.
One way to determine is to ask them what their reasonable suspicion is.
She'd get 11 digits from me, she'd call me back too. 😂😂😂
Reasonable articulable suspicion! They can’t just say they “have it”, they have to produce it… with words. Rationally and coherently, explain in detail what crime they suspect you of. Remember that they are professional liars, so video them during interactions.
In Michigan, if we have a concealed pistol license, and are carrying, we must declare that and submit to an ID check.
Just one more infringement on our 2nd Amendment rights.
Reasonable suspicion OF A CRIME. They have to articulate the crime.
If it was that first officer in your video, not only would I be happy to show her my ID, but I'll give her my cell number too 😉
Simply "comply". Be nice and they'll be cool with you.
Maryland laws generally do not require you to produce ID to police on request outside of car stops and receiving citation. Montgomery County has a rule that allows police to detain you and requires you to truthfully identify yourself on request, even if you aren't driving or getting a citation.
If they don't tell me I'm being Detained, I'm going to keep moving.
And they better have RAS !
As a lawyer, I would advise clients to provide the minimum amount of information to avoid detention. If a cop has probable cause they can hold you for 2-3 days without charging you. Standing on principle by now showing an ID or answering simple questions is just wasting your own time.
However, there are a BUNCH of questions you don't have to answer. If a cop pulls you over and asks "do you know why I pulled you over," "where are you going," "where are you coming from," etc. you don't have to answer. Cops will fish for probably cause in the hopes of getting you to say something that will give them a reason to detain you.
Key word: "Reasonable".... assuming a cop is stopping you to be "reasonable" is going to lead to a lot of pain.
They're only job is to enforce policy, but no private man or woman is actually required to listen to the policies... we're just forced to under threat and duress.
Modern "justice" doesn't exist.
I’m free to go?
I’m free to stay!
Bad advice dude. There are COUNTLESS times when I knew cops were stretching their authority. I could argue... lose 6-hrs at a police station. Or.... give the cop ID ... and be on my way... 😊
This dude never heard the expression, "You can be DEAD right...... and still DEAD!"
It is always better for you as a smart and wise person just to cooperate with law enforcement! You have the right to remain silent once you're Miranda rights are read to you. When you go to jail lawyer up immediately.
Let me see your papers!!🤦🇺🇸
Then in the 99% of cases when they say you can't leave you are detained. Ask what you're being detained for, what crime do they suspect you of committing. Then sue for improper detainment or more when they likely escalate cause you're not bowing down to their intimidation
JOHN DOE: Am I free to go?
OFFICER MIRANDA: I cannot comment on an active investigation.
Not to mention that the police are allowed to lie to you as long it's an "active investigation" You will never hear any attorney tell you this nor will you ever hear it asked to a police officer on the stand having been duly sworn in. I did ask that question when I was 18 and decided to represent myself on a speeding ticket in Lincoln County Oklahoma in 1988. My point was to show if the OHP officer was allowed to deceive, mislead or lie to a suspect as long as it was an active investigation then he could not be trusted to tell the truth about my speeding. The DA threw a fit and the judge told me to keep my questions on my defense and not guess at police procedure.
Usually their reasonable suspicion is that you’re being suspicious. They don’t seem to have read the part where it says reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed
It is on the law books in California that you must carry identification
Several years ago, I walked from my apartment down to the Post Office. When I got there, I decided to photograph a vacant field next door. As I walked back home, a police cruiser pulled up alongside me and the officer got out. He asked to see my driver license. Why would I have my driver license when I was walking? However, I had it. The officer took it back to his car to check if any warrants were issued for me. Apparently, they are for many people in Texas.
The officer stopped me (and a second officer arrived after several minutes) because a man had seen me shooting photos of the vacant field, and reported that I was shooting photos of the bank that was on the other side of the vacant field.
They can ask you to identify yourself, they can require you to have an ID. You can tell them your name and DOB, you're not required to do anything beyond that.
If in a "stop and ID state", never give them your DL (unless driving), provide them only what's legally required (name and date of birth) and tell them clearly that other than what's required by law, under threat of arrest, you won't answer any questions or assist in their investigation and CLEARLY invoke your right to remain silent
The best way to determine is if you actually did something wrong...