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

Facebook: https://bit.ly/3fKIZF8

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuditTheAudit

Audit the Audit 2: http://bit.ly/2CD2b6j

Submit your videos here: auditheaudit@gmail.com

Sponsorship inquiries: audit@ellifyagency.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 videos:
Part 1:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fAx5OzOhks&t=1s
Part 2:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehPotfQfkek&
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfAeU2AOS4U

The Battousai’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdiRpq3iPQqlicPX38G5AbQ

Sources:

South Dakota v. Opperman – http://bit.ly/3oMhu2k

Cardwell v. Lewis – http://bit.ly/2MCXke6

Texas Penal Code § 38.02 – http://bit.ly/3cJLl9a

Ohio Revised Code § 2921.29 – http://bit.ly/2LmHqDW

Stein v. New York – http://bit.ly/3joeckx

18 U.S. Code § 3144 – http://bit.ly/3jmrYEl

Federal Justice Statistics, 2016 – https://bit.ly/2OaSLYV

Louisiana Revised Statutes Tit. 15, § 257 – http://bit.ly/3tyAqVE

Gitlow v. New York – http://bit.ly/3azQ4Yw

State Action Requirement – http://bit.ly/36Hd4nd

Texas Penal Code § 30.05 – http://bit.ly/2LmJjk0

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)

37 thoughts on “Sergeant Corrects Deputies After Listening to Citizen”
  1. Not a perfect solution but every jurisdiction with a "law enforcement" agency needs a Civilian Review Board. Agencies with the power of life and death over the people they allegedly 'protect and serve' can not be allowed to exclusively investigate and exonerate themselves.
    Check and Balances discourage corruption.

    And RECORD EVERY INTERACTION WITH POLICE 🤳

  2. Sorry, no one can be ordered to testify against another person. Laws that allow it are blatantly unconstitutional. No one has a duty to assist the cops. Period. Don’t be intimidated. Threat of arrest is pure intimidation and is illegal.

  3. The worst thing about this video,, the officers will face no discipline,, and they will be free to violate other peoples rights,, and unfortunately, that violation will be at the taxpayers expense

  4. These morons just try to make it up as they go and hope you’ll take them at their word. They think whatever they say is the law. This is one of the many many reasons they’re hated so much.

  5. I live in Comal County. I'm rather embarrassed at the incompetence and lack of basic constitutional knowledge on display by these deputies.

  6. there is no expectation of privacy in public That's why its called public. Tell dumbass to shut his truck door. End on conversation

  7. Let’s be real, the first two cops were hassling Mr. Turner because he’s a POC. It took another POC that outranks the first guys to deescalate the situation.

  8. He was a witness to a crime but he has no idea what they did, so he was not a witness. These cops should be fired.

  9. One key thing to take away here deals with seizing phones or cameras for evidence. Police can only seize your camera if they reasonably believe that there is MATERIAL evidence of a serious crime on that camera. Footage of an arrest or a traffic stop or a search is not MATERIAL evidence. Like the sergeant said, if they got into a shootout and you were filming then potentially you WOULD have MATERIAL evidence on your phone and they could seize it as evidence and get a warrant to search through the contents.

  10. “You saw me make this arrest??? Oh, hell no! I’m arresting the absolute hell out of you. I’d arrest you twice if I could. You gonna go to jail cause you is witnessing a crime, boy. And we all know it’s illegal for you to actually see a crime being committed! You think it’s lawful to actually keep your eyes open when a crime is occurring in front of you? Don’t you know you gotta close your eyes and say “Simon, may I watch this crime take place?” Put your hands behind your back, you have the right to remain silent, AND you ain’t getting no juice box with your snack later. Nope, you’re only getting water and bread crusts since you broke the law watching a crime take place. Jeez, don’t you know anything??? No snack for you! You done goofed! I back traced you, kid!”- these LEOs allegedly.

  11. See… this is one situation where I can fully understand why cops would want to identify someone and have it make sense. Logically speaking, knowing who a witness is can be beneficial. HOWEVER, if they decline and are not a material witness, leave them alone. Both sides here have legitimate reasons for their decision.

  12. Why would anyone even argue with an officer. Many of these "audidors" are beeing obnoxious little shits asking unneccessary questions instead off just shutting their mouth and comply.

Comments are closed.