Oy!
I was about to make some uncalled-for regional insult about cops in the US SouthâŚwhen I took a breath and realized that this happens right here in my New England community.
Itâs a growing problem. Everyone â cops, civic leaders, advocates, lawyers, law makers â need to sit back and talk about it rationally. I donât really blame the cops for being edgy in these situations, but they clearly seem to understand that they are not-so-cleverly skirting the laws regarding constitutional rights. Theyâve got to cut it out.
That was a well-made video.
Iâm curious if anyone has information about these bogus K9 searches:
What percentage of vehicles searched by dogs have a positive result?
What percentage of those positive dog results end up with actual contraband found in the search?
Warrant, plz.
No warrant?
Helmet, plz.
Now.
Yo, Police State, People Are Tired Of Your Shit, Man(s)!
Prepare.
For you are fukked long term if you donât acclimateâŚ
Letâs go love some more, shall we?
Now.
copyright
I agree, well made video, and he stayed very calm and sounds like he did nothing improper or beyond what was required. But if he had just rolled down his window, he wouldnât have acted in what the police might construe as a potentially suspicious manner, and they might have just let him go. Way too many times police are overstepping their bounds, they might have been technically tiptoeing over the law in the beginning, if he had agreed to just use some basic common sense and politeness might have had a different outcome.
Not trying to start a flame war, I promise! : )
Hats. Off.
Well, our faith can be restored by the officer who says âHe is perfectly innocent and knows his rightsâŚâ!!!
Would any lawyers or learned folk care to comment on the points in the video? Is it true that you do not have to give your ID to an officer?
When will the bullshit end? Repeal the laws, gut the budgets, and fire these animals. If this was a sensible country the politicians and the two party system would not last a single term.
Guy was being a douche, and so were the cops. The difference is when the Cops are douches, itâs an actual problem. IANAL but the guy made several errors in law though, keep in mind that the police can request your license any time you are upon the road, as long as theyâre not behaving in a discriminatory manner.
i am in no mood to watch this tonight. i just do not want to be depressed by it. i do not want to have to suffer through watching it, not tonight. iâll look at it tomorrow, probably.
i am so going to go pay attention to something else for now.
Generally you donât need to produce ID on demand in the US just because a cop wants it. There is whats called a terry stop but a cop would need reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest. in the video you saw how cops can create âreasonable suspicionâ
He was driving a car so the cops could also say they needed to check that he is licensed to drive but thats a little iffy because he didnât commit a traffic violation (also depends on state laws)
IANAL I only play one on the internet
The cops knew it was bogus, and apparently manufactured grounds to search the car. They were obviously hassling him for standing up for his rights.
When everyone knows that itâs a much bigger hassle to stand up for their rights than to simply cave then most people will start abdicating their rights most of the time. Donât think that was the intent of the constitution.
I remember when this first showed up on Reddit. Lots of flames. It was interesting how many people were blaming the guy for âacting suspiciousâ and being a dick. Then there were the people who were attacking the cops.
What I find interesting is the question. Who do you identify with, the cop or the driver? Why?
When I talk to my Canadian friend about torture her comment about it was very revealing. âWhen you hear Americans talking about torture they put themselves in the position of the person doing the torture. Rarely as a possible innocent person being tortured.â Who you identify with in these stories often makes the difference in how you view the interaction.
If you see yourself as the kid, were you polite enough? Would you have rolled down your window? If you see yourself as the cop trying to do your job do you think you could have acted different?
Just curious. I see myself as the kid mostly, but I also think that I might not have gone to that level of confrontation because of my history of knowing and working with people in law enforcement. So thatâs my point of view, for what itâs worth.
What I really find interesting is what the cops say before during and after they find out they are being video taped.
Iâm not actually sure what this mess I just watched is. For a DUI checkpoint (in most places anyhow, particularly ones running checkpoints) you do in fact have to roll your window down so the cop and test your breath or at least smell it. Thatâs⌠sort of the point.
Honestly, the problem begins with calling a dog in and searching the car just because they want to be asshats back to an annoyance - and they severely overstepped their position while skirting inside whatâs technically allowed. It really goes back to these guys being barely educated, hazed into a culture of never contradicting each other in public, and dealing with the public day in and day out. Itâs a cocktail for major abuses with the ability to excuse their abuse with bigotry.
EDIT
I was pulled over two weeks ago. It was one of the weirdest experiences of my life. I sure wish that I had recorded it. But I did write it up for social media as: [âPip and the Fake Copâ][1]. Little good that it does me.
If I had set up my equipment to record at exactly the same angle that the kid in the above video did, then I would have still gotten nothing but a voice. The guy I write about in âPip and the Fake Copâ always stood well back, so that when I tried to look at him, I had to look into his white spotlight from his vehicle. All I ever saw of him was his outline.
Just be aware, any schmoe can put a red light on his vehicle.
[1]: http://pip-r-lagenta.livejournal.com/27535.html
This was a search with consent. The kid could have said ânoâ. Or else it was a search incident to arrest, after all the cops did detain him (while denying that they detained him, but no law requires them to tell the truth). In the alternative, it was a border search - he must have been within 100 nautical miles of the coastline, an international border, or an international airport. Or it was a Terry stop. Or exigent circumstances precluded getting a warrant. In any case, it was reasonable and lawful.
He should account himself fortunate that he wasnât billed for the cost of searching him. After all, he got a benefit from the search: it exonerated him. They found no contraband. (I think thatâs the reason being used for billing patients for police-ordered colonoscopies.)
My understanding is that while in many states you do have to submit to chemical test, you do not have to make it easier for the police to do an âamateurâ breath test. Nor do you have to do a field sobriety test. In order for a checkpoint to be legal in the first place, police have to follow certain very specific rules for it not to be a fourth amendment violation. Among them as an example: They canât come after you for avoiding a checkpoint, unless you commit an infraction in the process. They walk a fine line when doing these. Contrary to popular belief, the SCOTUS didnât issue them carte-blanche.
kennykb: Itâs rather difficult to call it a âsearch with consentâ when he specifically denies consent at 2:34. If they were conducting border searches, then that would have been (judicial, though still unreasonable) grounds for a search, but they were conducting DUI searches. And no reasonable judge would grant exigent circumstances for a nonresisting subject like the one in the video. The search is in blatant violation of his 4th amendment rights.
Iâd be more concerned about having to defend against charges for wiretapping. They were in a public place in the course of performing police duties (which puts him well within his legal rights), but that doesnât mean that court defense of those rights is free.
