Cops Sued After Arresting The Student Who Called Them – Everything Law and Order Blog

Go to https://buyraycon.com/audit for 15% off your order! Brought to you by Raycon.

Second Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClTjur-9cx8Bb4MW8r0K6xw

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/audittheaudit

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuditTheAudit

Submit your videos here: auditheaudit@gmail.com

Sponsorship inquiries: audit@ellify.com

Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. Help us grow and educate more citizens and officers on the proper officer interaction conduct by liking this video and/or subscribing.

This video is for educational purposes and is in no way intended to provoke, incite, or shock the viewer. This video was created to educate citizens on constitutionally protected activities and emphasize the importance that legal action plays in constitutional activism.

Bear in mind that the facts presented in my videos are not indicative of my personal opinion, and I do not always agree with the outcome, people, or judgements of any interaction. My videos should not be construed as legal advice, they are merely a presentation of facts as I understand them.

FAIR USE
This video falls under fair use protection as it has been manipulated for educational purposes with the addition of commentary. This video is complementary to illustrate the educational value of the information being delivered through the commentary and has inherently changed the value, audience and intention of the original video.

Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZoGxP8te0o

The Denver Post’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDlkrCpxEOO1qLwCs_Br_Wg

Sources:

Article: https://dpo.st/3hf4rFf

People v. Zuniga- https://bit.ly/3t1SyrA

People v. McKnight (Court of Appeals)- https://bit.ly/3JIg9EA

People v. McKnight (Supreme Court)- https://bit.ly/3JLr7Jn

State v. Seckinger- https://bit.ly/3p8w7Qn

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-206- https://bit.ly/3JOmuy6

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-901- https://bit.ly/3HbuZ4H

People v. Saltray- https://bit.ly/3LLkBEi

ABA Police Function Standards- https://bit.ly/3saboxC

Denver Police Department Operation Manual- https://bit.ly/3LSumAI

source

23 thoughts on “Cops Sued After Arresting The Student Who Called Them”
  1. its odd.. elsewhere in the world an officer would almost certainly recommend an accident victim seek or be given a medical check at the very least… the effects of adrenalin running through a body can and will mask a serious injury in order to aid in the flight response to danger… every cop knows this.. they are instructed in tense situations especially where a firearm has been discharged in there vicinity to check themselves for wounds as adrenalin can make them unaware of one

  2. It CANNOT be an indication of 'Other Criminal Activities' if the original act (possession) is Legal. If the original act (possession) is Legal, then nothing yet constitutes Probable Cause to begin a search of the vehicle OR the arrest. The 'Smell of marijuana" does not constitute Probable Cause to 'SEE' if it's more than the legal ounce. These cops and the Colorado "Supreme" Court ALL get an 'F' !

  3. The police assumed he was on probation based off what? His skin color, there I said. We all know why. These cops should be fired and pensions forfeited to the victim.

  4. I know this is a while ago, but just to add context. The cop first walked by the victim while he was being treated by the paramedics. He talked to the other occupants (2 white men per reports) of the vehicle involved in the fender bender. They told him their version of events. The officer then went and said to another office "tried to thread the fucking needle between two lanes, dude, and he f*cking side-swipes them, and he's being a d!ck." He also said that Hill "looks like a turd." Remember at that point, he had yet to even speak with Mr. Hill. … Anyways the cops got a "stern talking to" for their language and the city settled the lawsuit for $100K.

  5. If it is legal in a particular state, then the argument that a search is justified due simply to the possibility that there COULD be illegal activity related to any pot in the vehicle would ALSO therefore apply to a VERY large number of items, that could even border on completely subjective.

    For example a baseball bat COULD very well have been used to assault someone, and would therefore easily justify a search and investigation in the very same sense that pot COULD be illegally used, warranting the same search.

    Many things COULD be illegally used, but we can't be justifying searches unless there's specific reason to believe illegal activity is/was taking place. Hence this law is philosophically flawed.

Leave a Reply