When Clueless Cops Meet Uninformed Citzens THIS Is What Happens!

1. Use AUDIT to get 55% off your first month at Scentbird https://sbird.co/3ZmV0ei

2. Bro stop endorsing scentbird. The ceo/owner Mariya Nurislamova is an absolute maniac. Do some research and see for yourself. If i hear another scentbird endorsement, I'm done with this channel. And I'm sure many others feel the same way..

3. Ran out of audit videos I see?

4. Ok i will AUDIT THE AUDIT IOF THTHAT AUDIT WITH MY AUDITING SKILLSS NO WORRRIEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

5. Pennsylvania v Mims requires the officer to have a reasonable fear that the person is armed. The language is in there, why doesn’t the nerdy law boy narrating know this?? (Or want other ppl to know this??)

6. So they just have to lie and say I saw you put your seat belt on and they get to id all passengers… funny how the tint obstructed their sight except when they saw the seat belt get put on…

7. How in the world was he obstructing or resisting them, giving the driver a ticket? He wasn't. They escalated the entire situation to show authority!

8. Driving off was the dumbest thing they could have possibly done

9. >THE RUNAWAY: THIS COP IS NUTS AND A BLATANT LIAR. Cops are allowed to lie to you during a criminal investigation, this is totally out of control. He can ask passengers for their ID; cops cannot force passenger to ID without cause and lie about the laws. The cop can ask everyone in the car to exit the vehicle for officer safety in some states. His attitude is overly aggressive and his opinion of trying to be nice is pure BS. Running away is NOT an option. The passenger had his seatbelt on.

10. This has to be the most disgusting, anti-human/ pro-authoritarian channel on the entire internet. Puuuuuukkkeee.

11. In the second video they gave that guy way too many chances to get out and then i wondered why they didn’t charge him with resisting??

12. driver #1 – smh
    driver #2 – smdh

13. Pennsylvania v. Mimms does not apply to passengers.

14. yOU CANT EDUCATE STUPID

15. Play stupid game and win stupid prizes

16. Before I start watching . If this is another idiot looking for drama and lawsuit I'm not watching.

17. They said pennsylvania versus mims.Go back and fuckin listen to the video.

18. Sir you are one hundred percent wrong.The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the pat-down search was justified under the Fourth Amendment.

    The Court held that when an officer has made a lawful traffic stop, they may order the driver to exit the vehicle for their own safety. During this lawful encounter, the officer may conduct a pat-down search if they reasonably believe the individual may be armed and dangerous.
    He wasn't driving, and it says nothing about passengers.The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the pat-down search was justified under the Fourth Amendment.

    The Court held that when an officer has made a lawful traffic stop, they may order the driver to exit the vehicle for their own safety. During this lawful encounter, the officer may conduct a pat-down search if they reasonably believe the individual may be armed and dangerous.👈🏿

19. The mims ruling making cops able to force anybody out of the car for no reason is absolute garbage. Him trying to I.D. passengers in a stop sign violation is absolute profiling. Oo the passengers black so I bet he has a warrant. Just scum bag policing earning the hate all around the country.

20. Taking off was pretty stupid

21. Riding in the passenger seat of car while being black is a terrible crime. I know I’m sure that that’s what the officers we’re gonna charge him with and that was the reason reasonable articulable suspicion. I’m sure.

22. It really sucks when no one actually knows the law

23. Black guy in the car with a white woman yea that’s the crime!

24. Ohio law says police still need RAS to get id! Cop full of shit

25. Pennsylvania v. Mimms Does NOT say that a cop can just arbitrarily pull you out of the vehicle anytime they demand it. They must have reasonable articulable suspicion that you have, had or are about to commit a crime and are a violent fleeing felon. That case law is always abused and grossly misunderstood and misrepresented by the police all the time to circumvent your fourth ammendment rights.

    Pennsylvania v. Mimms

    In this 1977 Supreme Court case, the court established that police can order a driver out of their car during a lawful traffic stop if they reasonably suspect a threat to their safety. The court ruled that the government's interest in officer safety outweighs the intrusion of requiring a driver to exit the vehicle. 

    Good luck articulating in court how much of a threat he was to you and the crime you suspected him of committing or about to commit. Its only in the case they have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe you are both armed and dangerous aka a violent fleaing felon. They cannot just arbitrarily order or pull you out of your vehicle having not given them ID as a passenger because they said so. That is retaliatory and a violation of the 4th amendment on its face, period!

    Furthermore, there is zero case law stating that you must surrender your ID whenever a cop demands it from you and in fact, there is ton of case law stating quite the opposite.

    To name a few and add the qouted laws, here are a few supreme court cases that speak to the side of individual rights under the 4th amendment in such cases to name a few.

    United States v. Pack (612 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2010)), “it was permissible to ask a passenger like Pack to identify himself and to run computer checks on his driver’s license and background”; in United States v. Soriano-Jarquin (492 F.3d 495 (4th Cir. 2007)), “the officer may ask for the identification of the driver of a lawfully stopped vehicle,…[and] he may request identification of the passengers also lawfully stopped”; and in United States v. Carpenter (462 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2006)), “a request to see identification is not a seizure, ‘as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their request is required."

    ”When an officer asks for passenger identification and a passenger declines to provide it, the officer may be limited in what enforcement, if any, can follow. The Supreme Court noted, “Refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure” (Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)).

26. It's always a good episode when the police officers get good marks

27. I'm honestly confused by the title of this video. In both video's the cop's were clearly in the right and the citizens in the wrong. I thought this was supposed to be an unbiased channel. 😂

Comments are closed.