The Civil Rights Lawyer explains the basic federal constitutional laws pertaining to police performing traffic stops and investigative detentions of pedestrians. Join us live at lunchtime on Thursday, October 22 at noon for Episode 21 of Freedom is Scary, a discussion about federal constitutional law. What are your rights during a traffic stop? What about a pedestrian stop? Do you have to show your ID? Are you free to leave?
Set your reminder and your notifications, and don’t forget to subscribe so that you don’t miss it. Read more, and also subscribe for free email updates at:
thecivilrightslawyer.com
source
Don't miss the LIVE video tonight on traffic stop issues. Tuesday evening at 6pm Eastern: https://youtu.be/Zcpcrrs6AUY
I’m kind of confused about Identifying as a passenger. I thought you didn’t have to if you hadn’t committed a crime
I didn’t give consent to search during a traffic stop. They brought the dog and said the k9 indicated drugs. They searched anyways and no drugs were found. The trooper wrote me a ticket for everything he could. There were all dismissed but still had to take time out of my day to go to court and they wonder why people don’t care for the police
The failure to ID elements don't change because you are a passenger! Unless, If the car was reported stolen or involved in and armed robbery then everyone would be subject to identification. Not simply because the driver did not signal should a passenger have to wave his fourth amendment! That doesn't comport with any other state statutes regarding failure to ID. Like you said states can grant more protections but they can't Grant less than Federal and that is a federal Fourth amendment violation!
One Example pertaining to ID law is in Texas under 38. 02 one does not have to identify until he has been lawfully arrested for an offense. Other states,(including stop and ID) only require reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime occurring to lawfully ID someone.
👍
@1:01:00 new case law protecting passengers from being forced to ID or ordered out of a car without reasonable suspicion or PC, look into it. United States v. Landeros, No. 17-10217 (9th Cir. 2019) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-10217/17-10217-2019-01-11.html Just saying
What about this subject matter concerning the 9th circuit court
k-9s erase our 4th amendments i feel. it is a fools trick if you fall for it. my dog can sit on her back legs when i have beef in hand also
in life i have had about 8 barristers needed for injury. this guy is different for some reason. kinda like the dude but sure wish he would stop the heavy lift. remember i typed the word injury. anyway you do us a great job and again i will go first. peace
I think you missed it he said the passenger what's the rights with the passenger because technically the passenger has done nothing they pulled over the driver in the car
Subscribed.
Great video and session, thanks again! Once you get an answer for the traffic stop….I submit an answer to the unrelated question to the traffic stop is "Officer we both know I do not have to answer that question since it's not related to the stop." I'll have to watch this a few more times because of the many gems in this episode!
Hey did 9 11 2001 start the detainment idea rather than falling under the protection of being arrested?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmjB7TUroyE
based on common knowledge that has been created and fostered by the television and entertainment industry, through shows and movies, of individuals using cameras to surveil a location
for nefarious deeds, it has been engrained in the public's mind that such activities should be considered suspicious, and rise to the level of needing to be investigated.
In fact, the mere act of filming locations and people in plain site would actually be counter-intuitive for such an agenda, as it would create the opportunity of being spotted and possibly
interrogated for the action.
When officers respond to such events and use the justification of "reasonable suspicion", there needs to be an understanding that reasonable does not fall into the order of reasonable merely
because it may be popular suspicion. One should never dismiss mitigating factors that may be present in favor of litigating factors that may dissolve in light of the mitigating factors.
I was reading a thesis on constitutional auditors that a lawyer for police department had written on his study of auditor methods and trying to figure out a way to put prohibitions on auditor actions. I'm seeing more and more that lawyers and officers are relying on judicial language to distort the real meanings. They seem to take the position that when someone says that the reason they can't accept a case is because the sign literature was too ambiguous and broad in it's scope as to confuse a reasonable person, but this doesn't mean that you can thwart the constitution by being more to the point about your prohibitions on your signage. The other thing is that you can't legislate by ommission, in otherwords, you can't say that something is constitutional just because the phrase that would specifically refer to that subject being okay or not wasn't itterated in the document. When the constitution says no it means no, it doesn't mean that you can wiggle into an event that the framers obviously didn't want to happen, by just trying to pry the sides open through the misunderstanding of another statement that the framers made. Everyone knows that that is just sneaky and underhanded and the framers were not interested in giving crooks a way to unlock what they had secured. It is more evident now that some of the justices have been compromised, and have been injecting toxic definitions into our system. A good example is the fact that we use currency other than silver and gold, and the constitution says that it is prohibited for states to use anything other than these metals. The SCOTUS decided that based on some iffy definition of another clause that they could circumvent the prohibition of anything other than silver and gold coin, even though the constitution specifically says not to. There was a very good reason for this distinction, one where james madison and abraham lincoln both were able to communicate extremely well, that it would cause the ability to overcome us and overpower us through the ability to control and steal our properties through inflation and deflation of our money supply. I've also seen it accepted as constitutional that something that would seem blatantly unconstitutonal was applied merely because it had been applied evenly to everyone that it regarded. This is just like saying that 25 lashings in the street is perfectly constitutional as long as the law is applied evenly among the citizens, and everyone received the 25 lashings regardless of their age, race, sexual preferrence, or medical condition.
All the documents police require can be used against you in court. We have to prove ourselvelves innocent with presenting these documents which is a due proocess violation. That is every state except California where transportation stop is civil Not criminal in prosecution.
Or when they stalk you at work and break in your house and still stuff when they should have never been there in the first place they were watching us and they knew we were doing nothing got that on a monitor tape you know those police scanners they think they're safe by going to channel 5 and all that they're not Good old State of Michigan county of St Clair in the city of Port Huron nothing but punky junkie thieves liars assholes and murderers and that goes for the prosecutor's office here in Michigan St Clair county and the state of Michigan government along with the corrupt city of Port Huron please department oh and then the manufactured and fabricated and crime against me and stuff to keep me from suing them and they told the attorneys just to keep my money and I want them all charred with criminal under Rico and under tit 18 USC section 241 and 242 and you might want to look up 18 us code chapter 47 fraud and false statements and you might want to look up humanity act 2009-2010 what's coincides with international law declaration of human Rights 1948
IT"S ALL ABOUT THE CONTRACTS…. Drivers License = CONTRACT registration = CONTRACT. The state can only regulate COMMERCE. if you read and where it says IF YOU ARE REQUIRED and continue reading
This is the problem with police officers today; They do not understand the law or their job or their limitations or boundaries. And guess what? – They DO NOT CARE! This is why there is such disrespect for the profession.
some cops will turn their dogs loose to roam and seek dope. the cops mark the cars the dogs spot for them and later on wait till they catch them on the road and pullem over then tellem they got pulled over cause someone snitched…………………. but actually the dogs pointed it out. so if you catch a strange dog hanging around…………………………………………
46:25 officer safety is the cry of cowards. I miss cops that were real heroes, would not hide from an active shooter (likemcoward county florida). And would not feel the need to arrest or kill those shooting (with cameras)
Can You clarify that there still has to be reasonable suspicion to ID the passenger not just because they want to?
How does reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause attain to passengers in a car? The passengers did not drive the car over the yellow line or whatever the traffic violation was.This is tantamount to my neighbor murdering someone in their home and the police ordering me out of my house and forcing ID. This is just plain damn not right.
Passengers can be ordered out of car, but requiring ID from passenger is a violation of the 4th. Seems people in the 4th circuit are screwed. Forget "officer safety", the officer assumes all manner of risks by taking the job of police officer. The higher priority should be the "safety" of the civil rights of the citizen. If I sense that I can't assert my 4th or 5th amendment rights in a police encounter, I may choose to identify, but I'm not EVER ever answering any questions or granting consent to search, and asserting these rights must NEVER factor into triggering RAS or probable cause in the brain of the police officer. Police frequently attempt to convert a right into a crime. Disgusting.
In general, people don't get how the police have absolute power, invoked by claiming jaywalking, disorderly, or the very common universal crime, TRESPASS. The power of arrest is absolute, an arrest can be lawful or unlawful.
Police everywhere are retaliating against people video recording in public, this is when police pull the "trespass" card and other bogus "contempt of cop" charges.
Excellent video, thank you. Please consider doing a video on civil rights (1983, 241 & 242) lawsuits, how common or uncommon they are, what they cost, length of time, success rate.
#INSIGHIISFREE
#BLINDJUSTICE
PLEASE check this out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a43zSj0CSQ&list=WL&index=1&t=14s
Keep Pressing!!!
what you guys dont realize is this is a guise when they pull you over. they have uv dust on their hands and are in the process of marking targets for other cops. by touching the targets vehicle. so when other cops use uv lights theyll know its a target. and they will follow him or her and the target never ever realizes this.
Thank you very much for your valuable time.
FLORIDA v. JARDINES
FYI – I currently have a case on appeal to the TENTH CIRCUIT
addressing a Fourth Amendment violation by a City Code Enforcer.
—
If the officer is there to search and exceeds the "implicit license" (See Jardines) then a Fourth Amendment violation occurs.
RIGHT TO RECORD . . . in public meaning 'traditional public fora'
—
Fields v. City of Philadelphia, No. 16-1651 (3rd Cir. 2017)
"was on a public sidewalk" <– traditional public forum
—
Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017)
"Turner was video recording a Fort Worth police station from a public sidewalk across the street" <– traditional public forum
—
Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014)
"Gericke attempted to film Sergeant Joseph Kelley as he was conducting a late-night traffic stop." <– traditional public forum
—
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
"walking past the Boston Common" <– traditional public forum
—
Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995
"arrested Fordyce when he attempted to videotape some sidewalk bystanders against their wishes" <– traditional public forum
–ALSO
Seventh Circuit addressed the issue somewhat
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/11-1286/11-1286-2012-05-08.html
ACLU v. Alvarez