Cops in here - video of kid getting pulled over

[Blakeski]

Passenger looks completely Non suspicious riding in a car at night wearing sunglasses and holding a camera....also mumbling about a badge number.

This are teenagers, these guys are twin brothers, complete goofball kids, and never get into trouble...their just smartass little shits, that's all.

[Rreemo]

keep up with the direction they're going and I'm betting they'll end up in some trouble eventually....either by the type that needs a lawyer to get out of, or maybe just the good old fashion ass-kicking attitude-adjustment type.

[majorownage]

keep up with the direction they're going and I'm betting they'll end up in some trouble eventually....either by the type that needs a lawyer to get out of, or maybe just the good old fashion ass-kicking attitude-adjustment type.

questioning authority grows wisdom

[racrguy]

Did you even read the thread? If you operate a motorized vehicle on public roads, you must provide proof that you're legal to do so.

Did you read the thread? The supreme court case cited above clearly states that the police can't pull you over just to check your license without probable cause.

[03trubluGT]

Incorrect. The cop needs probable cause and/or the victim is detained before the law requires to show ID.

Lol it's funny to watch a pig's authority get challenged. They HATE that.

A cop cannot pull anybody over on the road. They first need some sort of probable cause. Usually the probable cause is speeding, expired tags, etc. There MUST be probable cause before the officer demands a license.

If this was not required, an officer could pull over a car just because he feels like it. If there is no probable cause, the officer cannot demand proof of valid license.

The PC is enforcing the statute:

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall 1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200

[Rreemo]

questioning authority grows wisdom

Perhaps at times...but simple compliance when one has nothing to hide is a quicker way to gain trust and respect.

Kids like these are simply looking for any reason to challenge authority....the same type that will likely grow up to be a continual sore on the ass of the system.

[grove rat]

this thread needs some lulz

[95DRGT]

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.

The last two times I've been pulled over:
1. On the highway right before an exit, I exited and pulled off the service road into a strip mall parking lot
2. Far left lane (fast lane) on 4 lane I20, he pulled behind me in the left lane and I could have pulled immediately to the left stopping on the bridge (narrow shoulder)- instead I went a about another 1/4 mile to where I could pull into median on left and provide more shoulder.

Both times the LEO thanked me for pulling off into a safe area.

[racrguy]

The PC is enforcing the statute:

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall 1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200

Except, according to the Supreme Court stopping someone under subsection 2b is a violation of the 4th amendment, or do you choose to ignore the SCotUS?

2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

That seems pretty cut and dry to me. Unless you have some other reason for pulling me over, I will not be showing you my DL, and I'll get away with it every time.

[Superwho]

Except, according to the Supreme Court stopping someone under subsection 2b is a violation of the 4th amendment, or do you choose to ignore the SCotUS?



That seems pretty cut and dry to me. Unless you have some other reason for pulling me over, I will not be showing you my DL, and I'll get away with it every time.

And that, ends the thread.

[racrguy]

And that, ends the thread.

Unfortunately it didn't end the thread the second post into this page. The person that originally posted it got a

I just read your link, and different courts have different opinions.

And failing to realize that what the other courts say doesn't make a hill of beans difference. The Supreme Court says it's a violation of the 4th, and no other court has the authority to overturn that ruling.

[LANTIRN]

Except, according to the Supreme Court stopping someone under subsection 2b is a violation of the 4th amendment, or do you choose to ignore the SCotUS?



That seems pretty cut and dry to me. Unless you have some other reason for pulling me over, I will not be showing you my DL, and I'll get away with it every time.

Then how is a DWI checkpoint legal? Not saying I agree with them, but they damn sure seem to get get away with them, at least when I lived in AZ.

Speaking of AZ, I was living in Phoenix and got turned around one morning while downtown. I was trying to get back to the highway and was looking down other streets trying to see highway signs (though I could see I10 in the distance). Apparently I ran a red light right in front of a cop; he pulled me over and told me why. I said I was sorry and honestly didn't see it because I was not paying attention. He asked why, and after I told him he said "Oh, well go down 3 streets and make a right, take you right to I10." Didn't even ask for ID or insurance, and I had AZ tags with a Texas inspection sticker on the windshield. I probably should have gotten a ticket, but he was understanding as hell.

Course on the other hand I have also been pulled over by TX DPS doing almost 90 in a 70 and was promptly given a ticket with zero discussion on the issue, which of course I deserved for doing 90mph in a 70... Oh well.

[racrguy]

Then how is a DWI checkpoint legal? Not saying I agree with them, but they damn sure seem to get get away with them, at least when I lived in AZ.

Speaking of AZ, I was living in Phoenix and got turned around one morning while downtown. I was trying to get back to the highway and was looking down other streets trying to see highway signs (though I could see I10 in the distance). Apparently I ran a red light right in front of a cop; he pulled me over and told me why. I said I was sorry and honestly didn't see it because I was not paying attention. He asked why, and after I told him he said "Oh, well go down 3 streets and make a right, take you right to I10." Didn't even ask for ID or insurance, and I had AZ tags with a Texas inspection sticker on the windshield. I probably should have gotten a ticket, but he was understanding as hell.

Course on the other hand I have also been pulled over by TX DPS doing almost 90 in a 70 and was promptly given a ticket with zero discussion on the issue, which of course I deserved for doing 90mph in a 70... Oh well.

IIRC Texas has said already that checkpoints are against the law, but I haven't done the research to say that with any certainty. And the SC decision that I quoted earlier says that if you've been stopped at a checkpoint to check DL's and whatnot, that is kosher, because you aren't being singled out, everyone is having the check done that's going through the checkpoint.

[Blakeski]

keep up with the direction they're going and I'm betting they'll end up in some trouble eventually....either by the type that needs a lawyer to get out of, or maybe just the good old fashion ass-kicking attitude-adjustment type.

Yeah the one in the passenger seat could use an ole ass whippin, but the kid in the driver seat isn't that bad.

[jewozzy]

i didn't watch the video but legally as a driver in texas you can be stopped just to ask if you have a license. nothing further can come of the stop though so in the event you have one. you could have a dead body in the vehicle with you and the pc wouldn't be there for the stop once the magistrate has to sign off on the charge...