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

Spotify: https://spoti.fi/439TpHT

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=FTUMZYFZNII

1 love Ent’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/@1loveent125

Sources:

Whren v. United States- https://bit.ly/3gX0kyJ

Utah v. Strieff- https://bit.ly/3prr7cY

United States v. Rusher- https://bit.ly/3CNilsV

United States v. Place- https://bit.ly/3dYJ7Sd

Indianapolis v. Edmond- https://bit.ly/3rpswOz

Illinois v. Caballes- https://bit.ly/3aYrksV

Rodriguez v. United States- https://bit.ly/2LS1sqc

Partlow v. State- https://bit.ly/3Pt5L9J

Steck v. State- https://bit.ly/43WDAEP

source

By elboriyorker

HOSTING BY PHILLYFINESTSERVERSTAT | ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2024 | ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. POST QUESTION OR INQUIRIES SEND ME AN EMAIL TO elboriyorkeratgmailcom (www.phillyfinest369.com)

26 thoughts on “Guy FORCES Cops To Give Up And Leave!”
  1. They prolonged the stop for the dog search. Then miraculously after the dog fails to alert, the cop with the dog comes back and says you know just to make sure that my dog's doing his job, can you confirm whether there is or isn't narcotics in the car! 🤣🤣🤣

  2. A traffic violation on private property is unconstitutional. Das y they didn’t use force. They know a judge somewhere along da way wuld have just deemed da traffic law unconstitutional which means da force used wuld have been unconstitutional. Just like da stop signs in a Walmart parking lot. Da only thing u can do is trespass me from da Walmart for not obeying da signs.

  3. Motivation might not count, but probable cause does. Cops have to prove the traffic violation, because we are all innocent until proven guilty. A dog sniff might not be unconstitutional but waiting for one is.

  4. So funny how cops go, “if you did nothing wrong youll let us search the vehicle” they really mean, “if you did nothing wrong let us violate your rights”

  5. The only thing the police and the guy agreed on is, they love fishing. 🐟 🎣 🚔 🚓 👮‍♂️

  6. We need to work to over turn the dog sniff nonsense. The fact is that most of the time these are just pets that have been trained to "alert." There is no comprehensive testing or training for these dogs. The number of false positives is concerning.

  7. I don't understand how they can demand someone step out for a dog sniff. Why does someone have to do a certain thing for them to do their sniff?

  8. These grades are crazy. How do you give them a “C” for clear, racial profiling, violation of rights, and unprofessionalism?

  9. Driving while black is a minefield! I’m glad we have cameras so they can try to keep the cops honest. Can you imagine how this stop would have gone down 50 years ago?!😮

  10. Double the penalty for cops who knowingly or unknowingly break the law. In Court IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE! They are PAID and TRAINED to uphold the laws they violate!

  11. Maryland cops should know not to fuck around after Baltimores whole department was found to be majorly corrupt after stealing from drug dealers and taking bribes

  12. I firmly believe if a dog which is truly properly trained to sniff out contraband. It should be able to compete the task with no coaxing from the handler. Meaning free, no leash, no following by handler. No verbal commands, no hand commands. Etc……

  13. Police should be REQUIRED to keep records of how often there dogs supposedly alert vs how often there are no drugs, pointing to false alerts by the dog or cop.

  14. I DON'T agree that sniffer dogs ARE less intrusive because:

    a) Police almost ALWAYS illegally detain the person MUCH longer than necessary, and LEGAL, to force them to wait for the drug sniffing dogs (people should fight on THAT basis), and

    b) Police can (and I think, do) LIE about dogs alerting, so they can illegally bypass the Constitution. The subject needs to be allowed to record the dog signals, and dog signals SHOULD have to be CLEAR and the same across the board, such as sitting, or preferably barking, as EVERYONE can hear that.

Comments are closed.