Pick up your copy of The Civilian Rights Handguide here: https://a.co/d/aDvE0xL

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=lf_s7IZpKlE&t=1003s

Body camera footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJBJq4DTcwU

Kansas City Accountability’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/@kansascityaccountability9515

Sources:

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 84.710- https://bit.ly/3DEHZPf

Grandview Code of Ord. § 34-25- https://bit.ly/418JELN

Grandview Code of Ord. § 34-26- https://bit.ly/4eXT3Jt

Hinesley v. City of Lake Ozark- https://bit.ly/49iVlkR

Brown v. Texas- https://bit.ly/3p1SKDr

Chestnut v. Wallace- https://bit.ly/4bsErjI

Turner v. Driver- https://bit.ly/44Vw4Kg

Miranda v. Arizona- https://bit.ly/3xGP9yR

Pennsylvania v. Muniz- https://bit.ly/3ThBX16

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)

36 thoughts on “They Were Nice Until He Had To Use His Rights! Now They’re Getting SUED!”
  1. Acting suspiciously is not reasonable suspicion. This is what get cops confused. Terry vs Ohio is not cops detaining based on suspicion alone those officers had reasonable suspicion. They could articulate with FACTS why they suspected those men were more likely than not committing a crime.

    If all you have is suspicion in and of itself that's a fricken hunch and NOT RAS. The job of the officer is to use an anlogee that simple to grasp is to paint a picture with facts. The more facts you have the more detailed the picture you can paint. This does not mean the picture painted is correct though.

    Consider a call coming in some breaking into a car. Cop comes up and sees suspect using a slim Jim a known tool used to break into cars in the hand of the suspect. He then witnesses the suspect use said tool. The officer has more than enough facts to paint a picture that this dudes stealing a car. However, if it turns out the dude owned the property and the car he's not guilty of a crime! Due to the fact the officer has RAS he's well within his rights to detain.

    In this situation these cops have No RAS. What's worse is these cops interfered with a journalist gathering content for a story a felony called prior restraint. I would purse a conviction thus stripping these officers of there ability to be officers. Do this a few times and cops will learn real fast what RAS means

  2. I remember the old Flex Your Rights videos which absolutely saved my ass from an illegal search and seizure. PD still searched and seized but their originally asking me if they could before doing it anyways resulted in charges being dropped.

    This information is invaluable.

  3. All he had to do was be honest with the police that he was auditing and making videos for his youtube channel. He was vague and that makes it suspicious. He will lose a lawsuit and no lawyer will take it up. Be honest if you are auditing…..these fraudsters are trying to make money in lawsuits.

  4. So.. How do you know when you are legally required to give ID…? It seems absolutely innocuous.. They don't have to tell you what their reasonable suspicion is, so the fail safe is to just allow your 4th amendment to be violated.

Leave a Reply