Cops in here - video of kid getting pulled over

[LANTIRN]

Yeah, I was just doing some digging, and it isn't against the law to refuse ID in Texas, unless you are under arrest. Though giving false ID is a punishable offense.

I could be wrong, but I do believe it is law to have ID on you at all times in Texas, but they must have a valid reason to ask you for it; ie just walking into a coffee shop is not reason to be asked for ID and detained. Of course I have never had this happen so I don't know that actual outcome would be if you refused in that situation.

[LANTIRN]

Welcome to the Police State of America.
He had every right to question the cop, he did nothing wrong and the cop admitted he (cop) made a mistake.
I applaud the kid for standing up for his rights, more people need to do the same.

Saw a video of 2 guys who walked acrossed America with a couple of signs. They were stopped over and over in every state and were asked to show id. They refused and had every right to, every cop except one pulled the same crap as this cop. Never did they get arrested or had to show id.


Heck my blood started pumping too, people get nervous, it's part of being human.

Last statement by the cop was, "Remain in your vehicle".


The whole search your vehicle, unconstitutional.
Same as check points on our roadways, unconstitutional.
Same as TSA feeling you up at the airport and football games, unconstitutional.

4th Ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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 persons or things to be seized.

I agree completely, though I honestly cannot remember ever having an officer ask to search my vehicle. They either give me a ticket or warning and let me go; guess I am just lucky I have only dealt with reasonable officers. And I have always had them give me a reason for being stopped, I gave ID, they ran it in the computer, and 90% of the time that was it. Even at one of the I10 checkpoints they never asked to see inside my car; they pulled me over, walked a dog around, and then waved me through.

Airports are an entirely different issue and there is a reason why I refuse to fly now unless my job or family depends on it.

[Big A]

Welcome to the Police State of America.
He had every right to question the cop, he did nothing wrong and the cop admitted he (cop) made a mistake.
I applaud the kid for standing up for his rights, more people need to do the same.

Saw a video of 2 guys who walked acrossed America with a couple of signs. They were stopped over and over in every state and were asked to show id. They refused and had every right to, every cop except one pulled the same crap as this cop. Never did they get arrested or had to show id.


Heck my blood started pumping too, people get nervous, it's part of being human.

Last statement by the cop was, "Remain in your vehicle".


The whole search your vehicle, unconstitutional.
Same as check points on our roadways, unconstitutional.
Same as TSA feeling you up at the airport and football games, unconstitutional.

4th Ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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 persons or things to be seized.

There are states with laws on the books requiring to show ID, and it could be argued that simply showing ID is not considered unreasonable. The supreme court tends to agree.

Within reason I also see no problem with checkpoints or at least the intent of the TSA. Criminals and terrorists shouldn't be able to hide behind the 4th ammendment, an amendment that was written for a much simpler society over 200 years ago.

[stevo]

Yeah, I was just doing some digging, and it isn't against the law to refuse ID in Texas, unless you are under arrest. Though giving false ID is a punishable offense.

I was 'detained' when I was a 15, and actually was what I would consider a victim of police brutality in the process (forced face down handcuffed on the hood of a very hot highway patrol Chevy Impala mid-day in mid-summer heat, I suffered burns, water blisters and still have scars from it) and was held there until my brother found out and came to the jail and ID'd me. The asshats wouldn't let me call someone to come ID me, a person in the truck I was riding in walked to my brother's house and told him.

Stevo

[LANTIRN]

There are states with laws on the books requiring to show ID, and it could be argued that simply showing ID is not considered unreasonable. The supreme court tends to agree.

Within reason I also see no problem with checkpoints or at least the intent of the TSA. Criminals and terrorists shouldn't be able to hide behind the 4th ammendment, an amendment that was written for a much simpler society over 200 years ago.

I don't care the reason they ask; fuck the TSA. They have been the worst violators of the 4th amendment in our history except MAYBE McCarthy and his band of idiots. There are a few cops / police departments that try to abuse it, but most of them want to let you know what you did wrong, ticket you if needed, and let you go. They don't want to be held up any more than you do. With all the media and youtube vids popping up sometimes I REALLY have to make myself realize that most cops are decent people doing their job, but it really is true. I have only ever had one bad encounter with law enforcement; the reset have been totally respectful of me and the law so long as I showed the same respect. But fuck the TSA; that agency could not be shut down fast enough.

[stevo]

There are states with laws on the books requiring to show ID, and it could be argued that simply showing ID is not considered unreasonable. The supreme court tends to agree.

Within reason I also see no problem with checkpoints or at least the intent of the TSA. Criminals and terrorists shouldn't be able to hide behind the 4th ammendment, an amendment that was written for a much simpler society over 200 years ago.

I agree, 200 years ago the population was so low and condensed that people of authority actually knew people and each other by face and name, it isn't possible these days.

Stevo

[hustleman]

As a fellow LEO, I have stopped individuals over for registration/inspection violation that I was incorrect in seeing. I usually walk up and let them know why I stopped them and apologize and send them on their way unless I see something else in plain view.

Now in regards to this officer, there is a good faith clause for Probable Cause for stopping a vehicle or detaining individuals. For instance he thought there was a registration violation so he initiated a traffic stop. That is where the good faith clause comes into effect, meaning in good faith the officer thought he observed a violation. Due to the individual not yielding to an emergency vehicle imediately, he now has another traffic violation (probable cause) to identify the offender of the violation. So when he realizes the registation is valid (in good faith) he still has an offense for not yielding to an emergency vehicle. So he can explain that to the driver and identify him and complete his investigation.

Now unless an officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause of an offense an individual does not have to identify him/herself in Texas. So the driver is correct, but the officer pretty much froze when challenged and didn't know where to go with his investigation. He had PC for not yielding to an emergency vehicle violation but got tied up with the individual challenging his authority.

Kind of brief explanation but I hope everyone gets the idea.

[Big A]

I was 'detained' when I was a 15, and actually was what I would consider a victim of police brutality in the process (forced face down handcuffed on the hood of a very hot highway patrol Chevy Impala mid-day in mid-summer heat, I suffered burns, water blisters and still have scars from it) and was held there until my brother found out and came to the jail and ID'd me. The asshats wouldn't let me call someone to come ID me, a person in the truck I was riding in walked to my brother's house and told him.

Stevo

I am guessing that you weren't detained and slammed onto the hood of a police cruiser for simply walking down the sidewalk in the middle of the day. What were you doing that led to the confrontation?

[LANTIRN]

I agree, 200 years ago the population was so low and condensed that people of authority actually knew people and each other by face and name, it isn't possible these days.

Stevo

Correct, but not knowing you is no reason to stop you and ask for ID. Innocent until proven guilty, and if they don't have reason to think you have done anything wrong then there is no reason to stop you. An increase in population does not mean I have to surrender my rights for "safety".

[Blakeski]

Anyone know what the cop said on the radio before he walked off?

[JC316]

Cop screwed up and was being a dick about it. Should have just said, whoops, my mistake, go about your business. The kid wasn't out trying to get a cop to pull him over, or purposely seeking trouble, so yeah the cop was out of line IMO.

I have been pulled over twice, both times the officers have told me why they pulled me over and just gave me a warning. Also had cops question me while I was dumpster diving, nearly every time they were completely cool about it.

[jnobles06]

As a fellow LEO, I have stopped individuals over for registration/inspection violation that I was incorrect in seeing. I usually walk up and let them know why I stopped them and apologize and send them on their way unless I see something else in plain view.

Now in regards to this officer, there is a good faith clause for Probable Cause for stopping a vehicle or detaining individuals. For instance he thought there was a registration violation so he initiated a traffic stop. That is where the good faith clause comes into effect, meaning in good faith the officer thought he observed a violation. Due to the individual not yielding to an emergency vehicle imediately, he now has another traffic violation (probable cause) to identify the offender of the violation. So when he realizes the registation is valid (in good faith) he still has an offense for not yielding to an emergency vehicle. So he can explain that to the driver and identify him and complete his investigation.

Now unless an officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause of an offense an individual does not have to identify him/herself in Texas. So the driver is correct, but the officer pretty much froze when challenged and didn't know where to go with his investigation. He had PC for not yielding to an emergency vehicle violation but got tied up with the individual challenging his authority.

Kind of brief explanation but I hope everyone gets the idea.

i thought the driver was allowed to continue to drive to a place where they thought was a safe place to stop, like out of traffic, or something like that.

[stevo]

Correct, but not knowing you is no reason to stop you and ask for ID. Innocent until proven guilty, and if they don't have reason to think you have done anything wrong then there is no reason to stop you. An increase in population does not mean I have to surrender my rights for "safety".

I agree about being stopped without due reason, and as I think the bullshit of "while I have you pulled over, I'm going to search you and your car, etc". And I disagree with the bullshit of "I thought your inspection was expired but isn't, but now I am going to take you to jail for something in the car that was made observable due to my mistaken stop".

But saying all this, I agree with the ID check. Pretty soon when visual photographic recognition gets advanced enough, they will be able to ID you just by making you look at the camera. You won't have to carry it, and they still get to know who you are.

Stevo

[hustleman]

i thought the driver was allowed to continue to drive to a place where they thought was a safe place to stop, like out of traffic, or something like that.

Negative. The law states immediately pull to the right. Most officers prefer that you pull out of traffic but not if you have to travel a long distance to do so. When an individual travels for a while it starts throwing red flags up, like they are trying to hide things in the vehicle. Law is written immediately but it is up to officer discretion whether to write the citation.

[LANTIRN]

As a fellow LEO, I have stopped individuals over for registration/inspection violation that I was incorrect in seeing. I usually walk up and let them know why I stopped them and apologize and send them on their way unless I see something else in plain view.

Now in regards to this officer, there is a good faith clause for Probable Cause for stopping a vehicle or detaining individuals. For instance he thought there was a registration violation so he initiated a traffic stop. That is where the good faith clause comes into effect, meaning in good faith the officer thought he observed a violation. Due to the individual not yielding to an emergency vehicle imediately, he now has another traffic violation (probable cause) to identify the offender of the violation. So when he realizes the registation is valid (in good faith) he still has an offense for not yielding to an emergency vehicle. So he can explain that to the driver and identify him and complete his investigation.

Now unless an officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause of an offense an individual does not have to identify him/herself in Texas. So the driver is correct, but the officer pretty much froze when challenged and didn't know where to go with his investigation. He had PC for not yielding to an emergency vehicle violation but got tied up with the individual challenging his authority.

Kind of brief explanation but I hope everyone gets the idea.

The only real problem I have is we did not see if the kid really kept driving or not; both parties made a different claim so I really don't want to comment on if the kid was right or wrong in that respect.

That being said, several times when I have been signaled to pull over on a busy street I kept driving (slowly) to a nearby parking lot or side street that was safer for myself and the officer. I always signal that I am pulling over, and I have never been confronted about it. I think officer are generally thankful that you pull over where they are least likely to be run over by an idiot. I don't know if that is a law or not but if you do it with some common sense most officers seem to be understanding and grateful about it.

As for the Good Faith explanation; I think that is a very common sense law when applied correctly. People make mistakes and I have nothing wrong with being stopped as either as a case of mistaken identity or mistaken wrong doing so long as the officer is respectful about it; tells me why he is stopping me (even if he is wrong), and lets me go as soon as he realizes he made a mistake. With me it's not a big deal as long as they don't make it a big deal.