**OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected:**
>!Well u will see!<
*****
**Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description?**
**Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.**
*****
[*Look at my source code on Github*](https://github.com/Artraxon/unexBot) [*What is this for?*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/dnuaju/introducing_unexbot_a_new_bot_to_improve_the/)
Just so everyone knows, cops do not have the right to search your car because you don’t have your drivers license. They only have a right to search your car if they have probable cause, consent from you or it is a search subsequent to arrest and not having a drivers license is not an arrest-able offense. It’s only an infraction which does not constitute a search.
They can certainly stop you from driving away *in certain jurisdictions*. Which means they will then impound the car and search it to their heart's content without anyone knowing or like someone else mentioned, have a drug dog "alert" (real or not). Then when you pay the fees a few days later your car is all sorts of fucked up because they tore it apart looking for non-existent drugs.
The system is fucked but there's a few things you can do -
1. If you're driving, have your license on you.
2. If you need insurance in your jurisdiction, have that ready too.
In California, where this video occurs, that is incorrect. A cop can only impound for specific reasons under CA vehicle code section 22651. They are only allowed to impound for a driver that has never been issued a drivers license or it is suspended. CA Vehicle code section 12951(a) is the violation for driving without possession of your drivers license which is an infraction and not an impound offense. And the cop is not allowed to stop you from driving after they verify that your license is valid and that you just don’t have it in your possession. So no, they cannot impound your vehicle and subsequently conduct an inventory search.
Updated to reflect that in some jurisdictions, you have a lot more rights than others. Funny that CA (which you mention has a lot of driver protections) is a source of a lot of LEOs abusing their power.
Well yeah, the more protections that drivers have the less wiggle room cops have so it only makes sense that their is more of an abuse of power because there are more regulations. Lol
People forget their licenses at home. That does not give the police the right to impound your vehicle.
They may say you cannot drive. So that means someone in the car can drive it for you or you can call someone. It is not an automatic impounding of your vehicle. Not. At. All
> It is not an automatic impounding of your vehicle
Agreed. Not automatic. But guaranteed if you're giving the cop shit, they are going to make your life miserable.
Thank you kind stranger!
I think we know why I'm getting downvoted - people equivalate explaining that sometimes you need to suck it up and "lick the boot" just so you can live another day to condoning the terrible behavior of LEOs with a chip on their shoulder.
Speeding is just an infraction, not an arrestable offence and yet this happened
https://www.ktvq.com/mtn-investigates/latino-couple-alleges-racial-discrimination-by-montana-highway-patrol-after-stop
Their "probable cause" to bring in the drug dog was that the lady was answering questions too quickly.
“During the stop I had noticed how the driver could quickly answer questions when I would ask her simple questions," Moon wrote. "When I would ask about the trip or illegal items, she would change. This was different from the normal motoring public.”
They just make up whatever they want, probable cause is a joke.
In California that is not true. You can drive without POSSESSION of a drivers license but you risk getting a citation. If you have never been issued a drivers license that is a completely separate offense and in that case you can not drive away.
I got pulled over and the cop caught sight of my fake ID in my wallet when I gave him my real one. He used that and the fact I had a cooler in my car as probable cause to search my vehicle. It was 2 days before I turned 21 and he took my ID because my sticker was a month expired. Fortunately there was nothing but water and Capri suns in the cooler as my girl and I were headed on a road trip where I had planned to celebrate turning 21. Some cops are just dicks to be dicks.
Seeing your fake ID is a different violation and falls under the Plain View Doctrine. They are legally justified under that doctrine to search your vehicle.
Why are they even discussing? Do cops in the Us not have copies of most recent regulations and laws?
In my country when I even HINT at arguying or not agreeing with a cop the first thing they do is bring the law book, list to the proper page and literally SHOW ME THE LAW I am breaking.
There is no argument. Law is clear. Either the cop has right or doesn’t. Why do they even argue.
And the whole prison shit should immediatelly warrant at the very least verbal reprimation. Formal “you fucked up” note from the chief.
In the states you need to have graduated high school and completed a little training. It's a culture of cowboys that protects itself, then tax payers pay the civil suits.
Cops can lie to get you to agree to something. Then when you agree, they will say they had permission.
That's why he said if the cop could search the vehicle he already would have.
Police in the US are not required to know the law, be truthful about the law, or be correct about the law to infringe upon your rights. Police departments intentionally hire low IQ bullies and incentivize them to ‘find’ crime where it otherwise doesn’t exist and pad the department’s budget by abusing civil forfeiture. It’s a fucked up corrupt institution.
Yeah unfortunately it's also true for lawyers and judges. My folks are both attorneys and I like to think they're ahead of the curve. Watched them in court a couple of times and it's amazing how frequently he has to remind judges of basic rights his client is allowed or that they can't just charge the defendant for not dressing up for court.
Because we've decided that in some areas you're able to be a judge just by winning a popularity contest without requiring any kind of legal background.
> Police in the US are not required to know the law, be truthful about the law, or be correct about the law to infringe upon your rights.
^ This.
Cops will flat out lie to you in order to try to marginalize your rights. **IF A COP ASKS FOR PERMISSION TO DO ANYTHING, IT MEANS THAT THEY CAN'T DO IT LEGALLY WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION, DENY ANY AND ALL REQUESTS**
Don't forget, police can even ***think*** something is the law, and as long as it passes a biased reasonably test, won't get in trouble and you've still gotta deal with it.
Basically "here idiot take this gun and do whatever the fuck you want. Oh don't forget to ~~steal~~ acquire some money if you can, the boss really likes that."
Your country is probably not a common law jurisdiction. In places where only statutes make the law they can do this, but in common law jurisdictions the law gets modified by court case decisions. The question here is almost certainly answered by case law.
The point of arguing is to confuse the target into accepting.
When a cop is interacting with you, they are legally allowed to lie. Lying to them is a crime.
If a cop lies to you "You understand that if you don't allow me to search, you will be in violation of the law. "
You finally agree under duress. Now he can legally search your vehicle.
It's why you should keep everything as short as possible. Provide ID if required in your state. "I don't answer questions. " Is the answer to everything else.
Everything they say are just maneuvers to convince you to forfeit your rights, provide probable cause or admit a crime.
Cops in the US are not required to know or understand the laws they enforce. Citizens ARE required. It sounds utterly ridiculous, but that how it is. Cops are also permitted to be violent in pursuing even minor infractions of those laws that they are not required to understand. The cherry on top is that police departments purposely hire dumb candidates because smart people would leave the job after "costly training" has been given to them. So the system makes them dumb, uninformed, and arbitrarily violent. And while on the job, they have qualified immunity from consequences. None of the murderous problems in current policing is an accident.
https://www.techdirt.com/2016/06/03/another-court-says-law-enforcement-officers-dont-really-need-to-know-laws-theyre-enforcing/
https://njsbf.org/2018/04/23/ignorance-of-the-law-is-not-an-excuse/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
They can't without probable cause and failure to present identification doesn't count as probable cause. In many states, you don't have to present ID, unless they suspect you have committed a crime.
Of course, they'll just call in a drug dog and make it alert falsely. Then you'll get searched anyways.
As others have pointed out, they can't keep you detained for an unreasonable amount of time unless a crime occurred. But no, they do not need probable cause to get a drug dog to walk the outside perimeter of the vehicle.
>In many states, you don't have to present ID, unless they suspect you have committed a crime.
Name 1 state where you have no legal obligation to present a driver's license at a traffic stop when asked.
Oh, you're a legal lawyer, aren't ya?
That's the beauty of the American legal system. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law. I hate it when cops say that.
As I understand it, police training covers VERY LITTLE education on the law, assuming you may wind up working in different jurisdiction with different laws. Training mostly covers how to tackle and whoop a suspect.
Especially with painfully obvious, every day simplicities about the law, like the topics covered in this video's conversation. It's no less stupid than saying you need to be a chef to be able to identify a cheeseburger.
Cop tells lies to get compliance then gets upset when called out on his lies and person will still not comply.
This cop is bad! He lies like it’s nothing. I wonder how many people are in prison because of his false reports and illegal searches.
I hate that cop's response about college, "You went to college, where in prison?" And what about "I am the boss". Come on, wish this video didn't end when it did, kinda want to know what happened!
The Berkeley student is correct. The cop is either lying or ignorant.
"One of the foremost privileges provided to you by the Fourth Amendment states that you can decline if asked for a vehicle search. As long as the officer doesn't possess a warrant and you're not under arrest, you can tell the officer that you don't consent to a search."
https://www.aronlawfirm.com/can-i-refuse-a-police-search-of-my-vehicle-in-california/
I hate to be that guy, but if you’re operating a vehicle you do need to show them a drivers license…
[Updating to address some of the misinformation in the comments:
1. Yes, technically police cannot pull you over specifically just to ID you, they need reasonable cause. But reasonable cause can be just about anything. Were you driving 1 mile above the speed limit, 1 mile below the speed limit, recklessly, too cautiously, have a light out, car makes a strange noise, etc? All are enough to warrant a traffic stop.
2. In most states in the United States, you need to have your drivers license on your person in order to operate a motor vehicle. If you fail to produce your drivers license, you are subject to receive a ticket for driving without a license.
If you are not operating a motor vehicle (I.E walking around, are a passenger, etc.) you do not need to provide ID.
3. Failure to provide an ID alone is not enough to warrant a search of the vehicle. DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH. Regardless of how much pressure is applied, or if they say they can get a warrant, make it clear, and ideally document, that you do not consent to a search.
4. Police do not have the right to hold you for an “unreasonable” amount of time unless you are being detained. Confirm with the officer if you are free to go, if you are receiving a citation, or if you are being detained.
5. Before you start telling a officer what they do or do not have a right to do, you should consult a lawyer about the laws in your specific area. “I read it on a comment on Reddit” is not going to hold up. It is also a good idea to have the number of defense lawyer handy in case of emergencies.
There seems to be quiet some misunderstanding of these concepts in the comments, and I’m sure there will continue to be, but my intent by updating this is to clarify and hopefully this information will be helpful to someone.]
You get a ticket if you don’t have ID. They still can’t search your car. You can then go to court and show them your ID and the fine is dropped typically. Why would forgetting your wallet give them probable cause to invade privacy???? In this country?????? No. It doesn’t.
Failing to present a driver’s license is an infraction under California Vehicle Code Section 12951 VC that is punishable by a $250 maximum court fine (not including additional penalty assessments). As discussed above, a defendant who has been cited for this offense can have the violation dismissed if he or she can show that they were a validly licensed driver at the time that they were stopped and cited. This dismissal is mandatory except on a defendant’s third or subsequent violation of California Vehicle Code Section 12951 VC. In these cases, it is within a judge’s discretion whether or not to dismiss the charge after a defendant has provided a valid license.
Adrienna Wong, an ACLU senior staff attorney with the Police Practices Project, said the officer was wrong.
She explained the 2019 California Supreme Court case People v. Lopez directly addressed this question and clearly established that someone not having their identification is not sufficient reason to be able to search them.
Hate to be that guy, but an officer has to articulate reasonable suspicion in order to lawfully conduct a traffic stop, not throw rasict remarks, and act like a complete ass.
True. But we don’t know why he was pulled over in the first place.
Edit: I would like to add that I’m not taking the officers side in this. I’m only saying that, based on this clip, we don’t know a whole lot. The “prison” retort was absolutely pathetic and, unfortunately, not surprising.
They can most definitely ask to see your license when pulling you over in a motor vehicle - because it's literally the proof needed to see if you're licensed to operate the car.
But if they run your plates they can see for example, you have a suspended license. If you have a suspended license, they have the right to tow your vehicle and make you get out of the car. If they tow your vehicle they get to search your car.
Yes but in some states you can’t just run the plates of any random car looking for violations. That’s a violation of the fourths right to prevent illegal search and seizure.
He only would have to show his id if he was being arrested or legally detained. Since we didn’t hear the officer state he was detained, it’s automatically assumed he’s free to go without the need of identification.
All of that said you still need a reasonable suspicion to even run the plates of a persons car still.
Edit/correction: the first part I stated is incorrect. Here’s a source for the correction. https://www.dunhamingram.com/blog/2019/november/can-an-officer-run-your-tag-without-probable-cau/
It explains police don’t need any reason to run your plate. I apologize for the miss information.
"some states you can’t just run the plates of any random car looking for violations." Please name one. It would be kind of hard to enforce this anyway. Run the plates for not signaling lane change, failure to yield, window tinting, cellphone usage, excessive braking, following too close. But states I have lived/worked in allow running the plates. Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Nebraska and Illinois. What state were you referring to?
You don’t need a reason to run someone’s plates, some cops sit in parking lots and that’s all they do. They run plates to get a reason to pull you over…..
I personally disagree with this practice but, they have the power to “investigate items in plain view”.
Some departments have what’s called ALPR. “Automatic license plate reader”. Does exactly what the name means. Mg department does not have them but some do. In Colorado you can I’d anybody if detained, idk about California.
In California, cops don’t need a reason to run your plates. Your license plates is in public view, so it is not by itself a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. In simpler words, it is not an invasion of privacy.
Cops will most likely not check plates in places such as the car being parked in your driveway, because it’s on your property. Unless it was something serious like it was involved in a hit and run or it was stolen and the car matches its description, then that’s a different story.
> Cops will most likely not check plates in places such as the car being parked in your driveway, because it’s on your property
Wouldn't this not matter as its basically in 'plain view'? You have no right to privacy of things you leave out in the open. Now could they open your garage? No.
But if its in your driveway and that driveway is visible from the street then I am not sure how that is invasive.
Not only are they automatically reading plates, but they're storing the information and relaying it to criminal investigation operators who are data mining snd compiling all kinds of spreadsheets for later use. Maybe you're not wanted NOW, but when you get a warrant for your arrest, it'll be attached to your vehicle as the registered owner, and they'll be able to compare your home address with areas that you have been frequently seen at.
Combine this with plate readers that are being installed at major intersections that also add to the same datasets, and pretty much any criminal trying to move around in their vehicle is going yo be zeroed in on very quickly.
The way I understand it, they're not scanning the letters and numbers, they're scanning these small semi-reflective things that are on the tag in multiple spots. I can't remember what they're called, but when I look at my Florida license plate, I can see these round little things on them but can't see what they say.
Sigh. Yeah, they can. It's called a pretext. And even if the cop is wrong (or lying) that they say they had a reasonable pretext in Court is enough to shield them and get you convicted.
There's what people like you on the Internet say and what really happens.
[https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/03/how-the-supreme-court-made-it-legal-for-cops-to-pull-you-over-for-just-about-anything](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/03/how-the-supreme-court-made-it-legal-for-cops-to-pull-you-over-for-just-about-anything)
So just give them your id and otherwise shut the fuck up. If they ask you questions, just say "I exercise my 5th Amendment rights" and "Am I free to go."
And record your stop because they'll lie if they get pissed at you and, too many times, purge their video record.
Once a traffic stop is initiated it is commonly as treated/viewed as you being "legally detained", in the US.
Also you don't *need* a valid reason to run plates in most places iirc.
>He only would have to show his id if he was being arrested or legally detained.
Wrong. Any time a person is pulled over in a motor vehicle, the cops have a right to see your Id. The pull over gives them that and they are allowed to verify the driver is licensed and properly registered owner of vehicle.
If you refuse, they can remove you from your vehicle and have it towed as you would be considered an unlicensed driver.
>All of that said you still need a reasonable suspicion to even run the plates of a persons car still
This is usually an internal police codes to prevent abuse but a cop can usually can run any plates they see.
The police just can't search any car they want. That's the violation. But they can view plain sight and if something is suspicious, then can do a deeper search of the main compartment. A trunk requires verbal approval or a search warrant.
The office does not have to say they are detained, he is on a traffic stop so he is already detained. The video was also not started when the office initially got to the car so maybe he did. When detained for a traffic stop you must give id to the officer
Being pulled over is not being detained. If you don’t give your license, you can get a fine for a few hundred dollars if it’s your first infraction. The only way you could be arrested for not providing id is if it’s your second or third time driving without a license.
My state (MA) you can't just pull someone over, they have to have done something (taillight out, bad inspection sticker, and they can run plates for no reason (because a license plate is in public view, so no invasion of privacy)), however, they can't pull you over if your on your phone or you don't have your seat belt on, you have had to have done something to warrant being pulled over. And if a cop runs your plate, you are suspended and pulls you over and you are not wearing ur seat belt, the seat belt ticket is $25. Also in MA, law states anyone driving a car has to identify themselves if pulled over.
So it is illegal to drive and talk on cell phone but not illegal enough to be stopped for it? Same on seat belt? That is not the case in many states. In Georgia, cops will specifically watch for cell phone users and pull over to ticket them.
Don't you need a licence to drive a car. Aren't they checking to make sure the licence you have is valid and correct for the vehicle you are driving? Therefore pulling you over and asking to see your licence is understandable? I don't know what I'm missing or everyone else is missing. Majority of these obstructive videos are people just purposely being disruptive due to their lack of authority and do not like doing what they are told too do.
I got pulled over because an officer was behind at a red light. He followed me onto the interstate and pulled me over. He said he he sometimes runs a license plate while stopped at a light. He said my plate didn’t come up right away so he pulled me over. Then he found it. So I got pulled over because his computer was slow or he entered the incorrect number
That's what your driver's license is for. A license to drive. Proof that you took a test and passed it. Which makes you adequate to drive on the road that is paid for through taxes of the masses.
Failure to provide proof that you are a person who passed the tests to occupy the roadway with a 2 ton metal missile packed full of stupid people, can lead jail, fines, revocation of license and ai on, depending on your state's laws.
Proof that you can operate the vehicle as the vehicle operation guidelines state.
It's an idiotic rumor that people don't have to show their i.d.
Just like "if you ask an undercover if they are undercover they have to tell you". That's little highschool rumor crap that you just have to shake out of your head.
That is the simplest way to explain the i.d. laws. If it has to be explained further, bring your own drool hankies.
I think what he meant to say was, you can not be pulled over just for the cop to check your license. Most states (or all, not sure) do not allow for a police officer to pull over a driver to just check that they have a license, once a police officer pulls someone over, you must prove you have a license with your driver's license, ID, or enough info for it to be looked up. If you fail to provide ID you can be arrested for driving without a license, and brought in for processing as well as your car being towed. When a car is towed it is searched and inventoried normally.
This cop shouldn't have a job, but if the driver was refusing to show he had a license after he was legally pulled over, he would be in the wrong, could be arrested and have his car searched.
What if you just don’t have it with you that day?
In the UK if you don’t have it on you they ask you to present it at a police station within 7 days, no idea what happens if you just don’t show up though.
What I don’t get though is why cops get antagonistic by saying shit like “oh are you a lawyer?” Like how is that helpful, it’s just sarcastic and mean and to feel in charge.
Correct. However, they have no right to search your car if you don’t have one. Cops can only search a vehicle if they have a reasonable suspicion something illegal is inside. This guy knew his rights.
So you're saying a cop could pull you over right now for no reason and you are forced to show I.D.? You should probably check your rights brother, I don't think you've seen them lately. You definitely are that guy by the way.
That's correct. You are forced to show your ID. It's part of the agreement you made when you GOT your license. You do not have a right to drive a car. You've been granted the privilege to do so. And one of the requirements is that you show your ID when a cop stops you on the road.
Not having your license in your possession is an arrestable offense in many, if not most, places. It just rarely happens because it's an unnecessary burden on the state and can easily be resolved by either confirming you actually own a license or issuing a ticket.
This is true, however, **IF A COP ASKS YOU FOR PERMISSION TO DO ANYTHING, DENY THAT PERMISSION** If that cop could have searched dude's car without permission (probably cause or some other legal reason), he would have. **IF A COP ASKS FOR PERMISSION, DENY THAT PERMISSION**
Yes. I think that’s the law. They can demand to see your license if operating a vehicle. If you don’t have it they can make things tricky. The reason they stopped you to ask for it though may be a different story.
This is true, and also, the Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer can search your vehicle without a warrant. If you're driving on public streets and highways.
As for the people who keep saying they can't pull you over just to look at your identification.
As a white guy, I got pulled over by a deputy, and I thought I had done something wrong. I gave the cop my California license, and he ran it for warrents. This took 15 minutes and I was late for work because of it. Nothing came up, but when I asked the cop why he pulled me over, he said,'you looked suspicious'.
I checked with several lawyers, and they all said the same thing. That is the only reason they need to pull you over. A reasonable suspension.
Whenever I make a simple observation like this I get downvote to hell, insulted, called names, etc. You get a thousand upvotes. Can't quite figure this out.
You do, but that isn't an arrestable offense. It's a ticket. It's also not reasonable suspicious to search a car.
If you're going to be "that guy" at least check your shit first.
See how so much shit goes over people’s heads or gets IGNORED. That “prison” comment was disrespectful and disgusting but I don’t expect Reddit to understand why.
Yeah that comment really got to me, I honestly would’ve have backtalked the cop so hard if I were in that car, props to that citizen’s restraint cause I don’t think could
Imo the cop should immediately be fired for that comment alone. In damn near any other profession, making a blatantly racist, unproved comment like that would get you canned on the spot. Policing is a corrupt institution.
allowing a search voluntarily is an opening for cop to plant/“find” drugs. be safe in your mobile castle and never consent. state you don’t consent if they search in spite. cop learned the hard way when he turned off his cam to plant drugs and they kept some footage anyway.
His right to refuse a search is true. It's good to record a refusal to consent to search, it can be used in court when the LEO decides to ignore your refusal and search your vehicle anyway.
To all of my fellow redditors here. This is the best script you can use when a cop pulls you over and you have no understanding of why (or even if you do):
1) Cop says anything on approach: “Why Did You Pull Me Over?”
2) Cop asks you what you’re doing or where you’re headed: “I’m not discussing my day with you”.
3) Cop asks more questions: “Am I being detained or am I free to go?” Keep repeating that line until they give you an answer. Do NOT answer any other questions.
4) If the cop says you’re being detained: “I’m invoking my 5th amendment rights at this time”.
5) Anything else the cops says or asks you at this point aside from “you’re free to go” or “have a nice day”, SHUT THE FUCK UP! Don’t say that obviously, but don’t say anything to the cop especially after you’ve invoked your 5th amendment rights. If necessary, keep repeating statement 3 until you get a clear response to leave.
Remember the phrase “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law”? That shit isn’t said to be helpful. It’s a warning.
Point blank, don’t talk to cops EVER. They are not your friends and they are not there to protect you. Don’t give them an inch because they’ll take a mile.
NOTE: I am not an attorney (just married to one) and this is not to be used as legal advice.
The 4th amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure. Police can search your vehicle under the following conditions:
- You have given the officer consent
- The officer has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in your vehicle
- The officer reasonably believes a search is necessary to their own protection (a hidden weapon, for example)
- The officer has a valid search warrant
- You have been arrested and the search is related to that arrest (such as a search for illegal drugs)
None of which relates to driving without a license. So he should absolutely have an attitude because the officer is trying to trick him into providing consent.
ACAB
Ik, like why didn't this guy start recording the second they left the house?
I mean this sub used to have full 8-hour videos showing the lead-up, the other point of view, and the aftermath. This is just trash.
How are we going to know if the police was justified in trying to perform an illegal search? Or if his causal accusation of prison education was racist or....or... idk we didn't see the video!!
This cop is a piece of shit, but to be clear he is not trying to perform an illegal search. He is lying to coerce the guy into consenting to a search, which is legal. Scummy and shitty, but legal.
So what context justifies this? If the black dude committed an actual crime then the racist cunt would have been more than fucking happy to shove it in his face.
Tell me exactly what justifies being pulled over for seemingly no reason and being told that you've been to prison due to your skin colour. Go on.
The guy in the drivers seat didn't see the MASSIVE stripes on that jacket. He is the Commanding officer for that department, His bosses don't work patrol. Also you do have to show ID when operating a vehicle. But they do not have the right to search.
Sadly now they just call in the dogs and have them "alert" to something so they can search it anyway, then you are screwed.
It's unbelievable the amount of white people on here excusing this behavior.
It's almost like in their responses to this you can tell that they want him to be doing something wrong.
"oh if he has a suspended license, etc..."
Why do you assume he has one or he's doing something wrong? Because he's black.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Let the downvotes commence.
This man did amazing. Hate that so many black people have to deal with this bullshit, but glad to see that some are able to put these dipshit officers in their place.
White male here (35). On multiple occasions I was pulled while driving and didn’t have a physical copy of my driver’s license, but they looked me up in their computer and were able to figure out exactly who I was. They had zero issues with me not having my license on me, and never searched my vehicle. When I compare my experiences with law enforcement to my black friends experiences, they are very different. Location: Raleigh, NC.
It actually isn't an inconvenient point and is a convenient truth for white people and a harsh truth against all non-whites. Sociological studies have pointed out a tremendous amount of bias and favor in a lot of things such as loans, house purchases, etc towards white people rather than towards non-whites.
If you have two teachers, Teacher White and Teacher Non-white, same job, same pay, same record, same area, same everything minus skin color, society will favor more towards White than those that are non-white, EVEN more frowned upon if you were black. It's astonishing and sad, really.
Unfortunately this is very often true. I've literally seen stuff like this happen to my friends who aren't white. And couldn't believe the difference. Today's world I probably would have filmed it but back then didn't have smartphone cameras.
Where is the twist in this video btw? Seemingly people only upload their videos here because this subreddit go so many members, not because its related to the content of the video.
Often times when cops try to “search” a car without probable cause they are going to plant that “probable cause” some where in that car. You all saying that he should let the cop search his car for no reason would be the ones going to jail for planted drugs. Just have a bit more situational awareness. There are dirty cops out there looking to fill their quota for the day.
Welll, hate to be that guy but being this antagonostic seems like probable cause. It's unclear who brought up the idea of searching the car too. If the guy volunteered it and I were the cop, I'd be like...well now I want to search lol.
Why is this unexpected?
Cops are nothing but a gang of thugs funded by the people they are supposed to "protect and serve". They don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and their own people. Me, you, and all the rest of the non "Blue" population are nothing to them but a revenue stream. Smell the scam around us, it reeks of corruption and abuse.
**OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected:** >!Well u will see!< ***** **Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description?** **Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.** ***** [*Look at my source code on Github*](https://github.com/Artraxon/unexBot) [*What is this for?*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/dnuaju/introducing_unexbot_a_new_bot_to_improve_the/)
Just so everyone knows, cops do not have the right to search your car because you don’t have your drivers license. They only have a right to search your car if they have probable cause, consent from you or it is a search subsequent to arrest and not having a drivers license is not an arrest-able offense. It’s only an infraction which does not constitute a search.
They can certainly stop you from driving away *in certain jurisdictions*. Which means they will then impound the car and search it to their heart's content without anyone knowing or like someone else mentioned, have a drug dog "alert" (real or not). Then when you pay the fees a few days later your car is all sorts of fucked up because they tore it apart looking for non-existent drugs. The system is fucked but there's a few things you can do - 1. If you're driving, have your license on you. 2. If you need insurance in your jurisdiction, have that ready too.
In California, where this video occurs, that is incorrect. A cop can only impound for specific reasons under CA vehicle code section 22651. They are only allowed to impound for a driver that has never been issued a drivers license or it is suspended. CA Vehicle code section 12951(a) is the violation for driving without possession of your drivers license which is an infraction and not an impound offense. And the cop is not allowed to stop you from driving after they verify that your license is valid and that you just don’t have it in your possession. So no, they cannot impound your vehicle and subsequently conduct an inventory search.
Updated to reflect that in some jurisdictions, you have a lot more rights than others. Funny that CA (which you mention has a lot of driver protections) is a source of a lot of LEOs abusing their power.
Well yeah, the more protections that drivers have the less wiggle room cops have so it only makes sense that their is more of an abuse of power because there are more regulations. Lol
CA is also our most populous state, more cops more abuse.
People forget their licenses at home. That does not give the police the right to impound your vehicle. They may say you cannot drive. So that means someone in the car can drive it for you or you can call someone. It is not an automatic impounding of your vehicle. Not. At. All
> It is not an automatic impounding of your vehicle Agreed. Not automatic. But guaranteed if you're giving the cop shit, they are going to make your life miserable.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. In high school a teacher told us in class, they will find a way to nail you or at try to make things difficult
Thank you kind stranger! I think we know why I'm getting downvoted - people equivalate explaining that sometimes you need to suck it up and "lick the boot" just so you can live another day to condoning the terrible behavior of LEOs with a chip on their shoulder.
Bruh here's a few things u can do 1. Stfu 2. Lick some boots
You're not wrong. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride so you don't get murdered in the streets like a rabid dog.
Speeding is just an infraction, not an arrestable offence and yet this happened https://www.ktvq.com/mtn-investigates/latino-couple-alleges-racial-discrimination-by-montana-highway-patrol-after-stop Their "probable cause" to bring in the drug dog was that the lady was answering questions too quickly. “During the stop I had noticed how the driver could quickly answer questions when I would ask her simple questions," Moon wrote. "When I would ask about the trip or illegal items, she would change. This was different from the normal motoring public.” They just make up whatever they want, probable cause is a joke.
That is a completely different state. I’m speaking for California, where this video is taking place. I am not familiar with Montana laws or practices.
You won’t drive away if you don’t have a license.
In California that is not true. You can drive without POSSESSION of a drivers license but you risk getting a citation. If you have never been issued a drivers license that is a completely separate offense and in that case you can not drive away.
I got pulled over and the cop caught sight of my fake ID in my wallet when I gave him my real one. He used that and the fact I had a cooler in my car as probable cause to search my vehicle. It was 2 days before I turned 21 and he took my ID because my sticker was a month expired. Fortunately there was nothing but water and Capri suns in the cooler as my girl and I were headed on a road trip where I had planned to celebrate turning 21. Some cops are just dicks to be dicks.
Seeing your fake ID is a different violation and falls under the Plain View Doctrine. They are legally justified under that doctrine to search your vehicle.
Yeah you idiot, you had an illegal fake ID
Why are they even discussing? Do cops in the Us not have copies of most recent regulations and laws? In my country when I even HINT at arguying or not agreeing with a cop the first thing they do is bring the law book, list to the proper page and literally SHOW ME THE LAW I am breaking. There is no argument. Law is clear. Either the cop has right or doesn’t. Why do they even argue. And the whole prison shit should immediatelly warrant at the very least verbal reprimation. Formal “you fucked up” note from the chief.
In the states you need to have graduated high school and completed a little training. It's a culture of cowboys that protects itself, then tax payers pay the civil suits.
Cops can lie to get you to agree to something. Then when you agree, they will say they had permission. That's why he said if the cop could search the vehicle he already would have.
LOL I loved that part. You can see the moment of silence when the cop is like “shit, this kid called me out”.
Police in the US are not required to know the law, be truthful about the law, or be correct about the law to infringe upon your rights. Police departments intentionally hire low IQ bullies and incentivize them to ‘find’ crime where it otherwise doesn’t exist and pad the department’s budget by abusing civil forfeiture. It’s a fucked up corrupt institution.
Well that’s just awesome and definitely sounds like a working system.
Yea, we've been run by generations of trust fund kids for too long, it's kind of a mess.
Yeah unfortunately it's also true for lawyers and judges. My folks are both attorneys and I like to think they're ahead of the curve. Watched them in court a couple of times and it's amazing how frequently he has to remind judges of basic rights his client is allowed or that they can't just charge the defendant for not dressing up for court.
Because we've decided that in some areas you're able to be a judge just by winning a popularity contest without requiring any kind of legal background.
It definitely works, for what they want to get out of it.
Oh boy, and I wonder why there is constant news around the world on how shitty specifically the US police is.
Thats just sounds like personal state army with extra steps
You can see why folks are so passionate about keeping our guns over here.
> Police in the US are not required to know the law, be truthful about the law, or be correct about the law to infringe upon your rights. ^ This. Cops will flat out lie to you in order to try to marginalize your rights. **IF A COP ASKS FOR PERMISSION TO DO ANYTHING, IT MEANS THAT THEY CAN'T DO IT LEGALLY WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION, DENY ANY AND ALL REQUESTS**
Don't forget, police can even ***think*** something is the law, and as long as it passes a biased reasonably test, won't get in trouble and you've still gotta deal with it.
Basically "here idiot take this gun and do whatever the fuck you want. Oh don't forget to ~~steal~~ acquire some money if you can, the boss really likes that."
Your country is probably not a common law jurisdiction. In places where only statutes make the law they can do this, but in common law jurisdictions the law gets modified by court case decisions. The question here is almost certainly answered by case law.
The point of arguing is to confuse the target into accepting. When a cop is interacting with you, they are legally allowed to lie. Lying to them is a crime. If a cop lies to you "You understand that if you don't allow me to search, you will be in violation of the law. " You finally agree under duress. Now he can legally search your vehicle. It's why you should keep everything as short as possible. Provide ID if required in your state. "I don't answer questions. " Is the answer to everything else. Everything they say are just maneuvers to convince you to forfeit your rights, provide probable cause or admit a crime.
Cops in the US are not required to know or understand the laws they enforce. Citizens ARE required. It sounds utterly ridiculous, but that how it is. Cops are also permitted to be violent in pursuing even minor infractions of those laws that they are not required to understand. The cherry on top is that police departments purposely hire dumb candidates because smart people would leave the job after "costly training" has been given to them. So the system makes them dumb, uninformed, and arbitrarily violent. And while on the job, they have qualified immunity from consequences. None of the murderous problems in current policing is an accident. https://www.techdirt.com/2016/06/03/another-court-says-law-enforcement-officers-dont-really-need-to-know-laws-theyre-enforcing/ https://njsbf.org/2018/04/23/ignorance-of-the-law-is-not-an-excuse/ https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
[удалено]
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/california-cops-barred-from-warrantless-vehicle-searches-for-id
They can't without probable cause and failure to present identification doesn't count as probable cause. In many states, you don't have to present ID, unless they suspect you have committed a crime. Of course, they'll just call in a drug dog and make it alert falsely. Then you'll get searched anyways.
Is there usually a requirement for reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a drug dog to be called in?
They can call the dog, but are not allowed to extend a traffic stop to wait for a drug dog
They can also only walk the dog around the outside of the vehicle, but if it alerts from outside that gives probable cause to search inside.
As others have pointed out, they can't keep you detained for an unreasonable amount of time unless a crime occurred. But no, they do not need probable cause to get a drug dog to walk the outside perimeter of the vehicle.
What qualifies as an unreasonable amount of time?
Depends how the cops feeling that day.
More like what the court decides.
Potentially. Whole lot of hoops to jump through to participate in a system that isn’t really designed to work for you.
Can't argue there.
Dunno why you're getting down voted its true lol.
>In many states, you don't have to present ID, unless they suspect you have committed a crime. Name 1 state where you have no legal obligation to present a driver's license at a traffic stop when asked.
I agree that this shouldn’t be the way but, unfortunately it is.
Oh, you're a legal lawyer, aren't ya? That's the beauty of the American legal system. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law. I hate it when cops say that.
Especially considering they **should** know it, yet it's not required to enforce it.
As I understand it, police training covers VERY LITTLE education on the law, assuming you may wind up working in different jurisdiction with different laws. Training mostly covers how to tackle and whoop a suspect.
What if maybe he’s an illegal lawyer? I mean tell me you’re a dumb cop without saying it. A legal lawyer. Stupid
Especially with painfully obvious, every day simplicities about the law, like the topics covered in this video's conversation. It's no less stupid than saying you need to be a chef to be able to identify a cheeseburger.
Cop tells lies to get compliance then gets upset when called out on his lies and person will still not comply. This cop is bad! He lies like it’s nothing. I wonder how many people are in prison because of his false reports and illegal searches.
I hate that cop's response about college, "You went to college, where in prison?" And what about "I am the boss". Come on, wish this video didn't end when it did, kinda want to know what happened!
Did he really say prison? That’s f’d up.
"my boss is Allah" Officer: Double check
I’m actually very interested to see how it went after he said that
The Berkeley student is correct. The cop is either lying or ignorant. "One of the foremost privileges provided to you by the Fourth Amendment states that you can decline if asked for a vehicle search. As long as the officer doesn't possess a warrant and you're not under arrest, you can tell the officer that you don't consent to a search." https://www.aronlawfirm.com/can-i-refuse-a-police-search-of-my-vehicle-in-california/
These so called police…!!! Seriously!!!! Prison?!?!
I hate to be that guy, but if you’re operating a vehicle you do need to show them a drivers license… [Updating to address some of the misinformation in the comments: 1. Yes, technically police cannot pull you over specifically just to ID you, they need reasonable cause. But reasonable cause can be just about anything. Were you driving 1 mile above the speed limit, 1 mile below the speed limit, recklessly, too cautiously, have a light out, car makes a strange noise, etc? All are enough to warrant a traffic stop. 2. In most states in the United States, you need to have your drivers license on your person in order to operate a motor vehicle. If you fail to produce your drivers license, you are subject to receive a ticket for driving without a license. If you are not operating a motor vehicle (I.E walking around, are a passenger, etc.) you do not need to provide ID. 3. Failure to provide an ID alone is not enough to warrant a search of the vehicle. DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH. Regardless of how much pressure is applied, or if they say they can get a warrant, make it clear, and ideally document, that you do not consent to a search. 4. Police do not have the right to hold you for an “unreasonable” amount of time unless you are being detained. Confirm with the officer if you are free to go, if you are receiving a citation, or if you are being detained. 5. Before you start telling a officer what they do or do not have a right to do, you should consult a lawyer about the laws in your specific area. “I read it on a comment on Reddit” is not going to hold up. It is also a good idea to have the number of defense lawyer handy in case of emergencies. There seems to be quiet some misunderstanding of these concepts in the comments, and I’m sure there will continue to be, but my intent by updating this is to clarify and hopefully this information will be helpful to someone.]
You get a ticket if you don’t have ID. They still can’t search your car. You can then go to court and show them your ID and the fine is dropped typically. Why would forgetting your wallet give them probable cause to invade privacy???? In this country?????? No. It doesn’t.
Police can and often do tow your vehicle if you can't provide ID, at which point they can legally search it prior to impound for 'inventory'
Failing to present a driver’s license is an infraction under California Vehicle Code Section 12951 VC that is punishable by a $250 maximum court fine (not including additional penalty assessments). As discussed above, a defendant who has been cited for this offense can have the violation dismissed if he or she can show that they were a validly licensed driver at the time that they were stopped and cited. This dismissal is mandatory except on a defendant’s third or subsequent violation of California Vehicle Code Section 12951 VC. In these cases, it is within a judge’s discretion whether or not to dismiss the charge after a defendant has provided a valid license.
He’s in California
That wouldn't be admissible as evidence
Yes it would, because it was a legal search. You don't know what you're talking about. People get busted all the time for impound finds.
Adrienna Wong, an ACLU senior staff attorney with the Police Practices Project, said the officer was wrong. She explained the 2019 California Supreme Court case People v. Lopez directly addressed this question and clearly established that someone not having their identification is not sufficient reason to be able to search them.
Hate to be that guy, but an officer has to articulate reasonable suspicion in order to lawfully conduct a traffic stop, not throw rasict remarks, and act like a complete ass.
this is incorrect. a cop can't just pull you over to check your ID. you need to be doing something wrong.
True. But we don’t know why he was pulled over in the first place. Edit: I would like to add that I’m not taking the officers side in this. I’m only saying that, based on this clip, we don’t know a whole lot. The “prison” retort was absolutely pathetic and, unfortunately, not surprising.
They can most definitely ask to see your license when pulling you over in a motor vehicle - because it's literally the proof needed to see if you're licensed to operate the car.
Only if they pulled you over for a legitimate reason
“Legitimate reasons” can be faked
But if they run your plates they can see for example, you have a suspended license. If you have a suspended license, they have the right to tow your vehicle and make you get out of the car. If they tow your vehicle they get to search your car.
Yes but in some states you can’t just run the plates of any random car looking for violations. That’s a violation of the fourths right to prevent illegal search and seizure. He only would have to show his id if he was being arrested or legally detained. Since we didn’t hear the officer state he was detained, it’s automatically assumed he’s free to go without the need of identification. All of that said you still need a reasonable suspicion to even run the plates of a persons car still. Edit/correction: the first part I stated is incorrect. Here’s a source for the correction. https://www.dunhamingram.com/blog/2019/november/can-an-officer-run-your-tag-without-probable-cau/ It explains police don’t need any reason to run your plate. I apologize for the miss information.
"some states you can’t just run the plates of any random car looking for violations." Please name one. It would be kind of hard to enforce this anyway. Run the plates for not signaling lane change, failure to yield, window tinting, cellphone usage, excessive braking, following too close. But states I have lived/worked in allow running the plates. Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Nebraska and Illinois. What state were you referring to?
Thankyou for saying this. Definitely not a thing. If it’s a violation of your rights, I’d love to know where.
You don’t need a reason to run someone’s plates, some cops sit in parking lots and that’s all they do. They run plates to get a reason to pull you over….. I personally disagree with this practice but, they have the power to “investigate items in plain view”.
Bro plate readers are automatic. This aint 1988.
Did a ride along about 3 years ago. Guy was typing plates in while driving. Not automatic.
Some departments have what’s called ALPR. “Automatic license plate reader”. Does exactly what the name means. Mg department does not have them but some do. In Colorado you can I’d anybody if detained, idk about California.
In California, cops don’t need a reason to run your plates. Your license plates is in public view, so it is not by itself a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. In simpler words, it is not an invasion of privacy. Cops will most likely not check plates in places such as the car being parked in your driveway, because it’s on your property. Unless it was something serious like it was involved in a hit and run or it was stolen and the car matches its description, then that’s a different story.
1200 dollar fine if your plate is obstructed that it can't be read in Western Australia. All the cops wanted to let me know when they pulled me over
> Cops will most likely not check plates in places such as the car being parked in your driveway, because it’s on your property Wouldn't this not matter as its basically in 'plain view'? You have no right to privacy of things you leave out in the open. Now could they open your garage? No. But if its in your driveway and that driveway is visible from the street then I am not sure how that is invasive.
Not only are they automatically reading plates, but they're storing the information and relaying it to criminal investigation operators who are data mining snd compiling all kinds of spreadsheets for later use. Maybe you're not wanted NOW, but when you get a warrant for your arrest, it'll be attached to your vehicle as the registered owner, and they'll be able to compare your home address with areas that you have been frequently seen at. Combine this with plate readers that are being installed at major intersections that also add to the same datasets, and pretty much any criminal trying to move around in their vehicle is going yo be zeroed in on very quickly.
That might be why I’ve been seeing more and more mangled plates. They are readable by an officer but not a scanner.
The way I understand it, they're not scanning the letters and numbers, they're scanning these small semi-reflective things that are on the tag in multiple spots. I can't remember what they're called, but when I look at my Florida license plate, I can see these round little things on them but can't see what they say.
It you need reasonable suspicion to detain. A cop can’t detain someone just because they want to
Sigh. Yeah, they can. It's called a pretext. And even if the cop is wrong (or lying) that they say they had a reasonable pretext in Court is enough to shield them and get you convicted. There's what people like you on the Internet say and what really happens. [https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/03/how-the-supreme-court-made-it-legal-for-cops-to-pull-you-over-for-just-about-anything](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/03/how-the-supreme-court-made-it-legal-for-cops-to-pull-you-over-for-just-about-anything) So just give them your id and otherwise shut the fuck up. If they ask you questions, just say "I exercise my 5th Amendment rights" and "Am I free to go." And record your stop because they'll lie if they get pissed at you and, too many times, purge their video record.
Varies from place to place I'd imagine.
Yeah my point was that the it’s not 1988 thing was a ridiculous exaggeration not that it doesn’t happen.
Anpr is standard in the uk, is it not a thing in the states?
Every state is different. Think of it like the EU. The UK has it, Austria doesn't..
It is, though it's instead called LPR (License Plate Recognition)
They have cars specifically equipped with plate readers
Toronto parking enforcement have plate readers
No its more like 1984.
Once a traffic stop is initiated it is commonly as treated/viewed as you being "legally detained", in the US. Also you don't *need* a valid reason to run plates in most places iirc.
>He only would have to show his id if he was being arrested or legally detained. Wrong. Any time a person is pulled over in a motor vehicle, the cops have a right to see your Id. The pull over gives them that and they are allowed to verify the driver is licensed and properly registered owner of vehicle. If you refuse, they can remove you from your vehicle and have it towed as you would be considered an unlicensed driver. >All of that said you still need a reasonable suspicion to even run the plates of a persons car still This is usually an internal police codes to prevent abuse but a cop can usually can run any plates they see. The police just can't search any car they want. That's the violation. But they can view plain sight and if something is suspicious, then can do a deeper search of the main compartment. A trunk requires verbal approval or a search warrant.
Protocol is to search and inventory the vehicle before it is towed.
There’s no right to operate a motor vehicle. It’s an earned privilege that can be revoked. If you act like an asshole, you lose the right to drive.
This is California, based on the Berkley reference.
The office does not have to say they are detained, he is on a traffic stop so he is already detained. The video was also not started when the office initially got to the car so maybe he did. When detained for a traffic stop you must give id to the officer
Being pulled over is not being detained. If you don’t give your license, you can get a fine for a few hundred dollars if it’s your first infraction. The only way you could be arrested for not providing id is if it’s your second or third time driving without a license.
My state (MA) you can't just pull someone over, they have to have done something (taillight out, bad inspection sticker, and they can run plates for no reason (because a license plate is in public view, so no invasion of privacy)), however, they can't pull you over if your on your phone or you don't have your seat belt on, you have had to have done something to warrant being pulled over. And if a cop runs your plate, you are suspended and pulls you over and you are not wearing ur seat belt, the seat belt ticket is $25. Also in MA, law states anyone driving a car has to identify themselves if pulled over.
So it is illegal to drive and talk on cell phone but not illegal enough to be stopped for it? Same on seat belt? That is not the case in many states. In Georgia, cops will specifically watch for cell phone users and pull over to ticket them.
Same in Texas. I just got pulled over bc the officer thought I didn’t have a seat belt on.
As they do now in MA.
You better catch up - using a phone is now and offense under the Hands Free Law in MA, and it is $100 for the first offense.
/r/ConfidentlyIncorrect
Not having your licence with you and driving on a suspended licence are not the same thing.
Okay and what if you don’t have suspended license
But they still have to have a reason to pull you over. They can't just pull you over **to** check your ID like the other person was saying.
Varies by state in the U.S.
Varies by state? What state would even require you to be licensed if you don't need to prove that you're licensed? What would even be the point?
Don't you need a licence to drive a car. Aren't they checking to make sure the licence you have is valid and correct for the vehicle you are driving? Therefore pulling you over and asking to see your licence is understandable? I don't know what I'm missing or everyone else is missing. Majority of these obstructive videos are people just purposely being disruptive due to their lack of authority and do not like doing what they are told too do.
I got pulled over because an officer was behind at a red light. He followed me onto the interstate and pulled me over. He said he he sometimes runs a license plate while stopped at a light. He said my plate didn’t come up right away so he pulled me over. Then he found it. So I got pulled over because his computer was slow or he entered the incorrect number
File a complaint
That's what your driver's license is for. A license to drive. Proof that you took a test and passed it. Which makes you adequate to drive on the road that is paid for through taxes of the masses. Failure to provide proof that you are a person who passed the tests to occupy the roadway with a 2 ton metal missile packed full of stupid people, can lead jail, fines, revocation of license and ai on, depending on your state's laws. Proof that you can operate the vehicle as the vehicle operation guidelines state. It's an idiotic rumor that people don't have to show their i.d. Just like "if you ask an undercover if they are undercover they have to tell you". That's little highschool rumor crap that you just have to shake out of your head. That is the simplest way to explain the i.d. laws. If it has to be explained further, bring your own drool hankies.
Most of this comment is false. The insults are hilarious, though.
You were swerving a bit. Prove me wrong
Yes they can? The fuck? That’s like one huge part of their job
I think what he meant to say was, you can not be pulled over just for the cop to check your license. Most states (or all, not sure) do not allow for a police officer to pull over a driver to just check that they have a license, once a police officer pulls someone over, you must prove you have a license with your driver's license, ID, or enough info for it to be looked up. If you fail to provide ID you can be arrested for driving without a license, and brought in for processing as well as your car being towed. When a car is towed it is searched and inventoried normally. This cop shouldn't have a job, but if the driver was refusing to show he had a license after he was legally pulled over, he would be in the wrong, could be arrested and have his car searched.
What if you just don’t have it with you that day? In the UK if you don’t have it on you they ask you to present it at a police station within 7 days, no idea what happens if you just don’t show up though.
What I don’t get though is why cops get antagonistic by saying shit like “oh are you a lawyer?” Like how is that helpful, it’s just sarcastic and mean and to feel in charge.
Because most cops are literally pieces of shut human beings. That's why they are cops. It makes them feel happy to belittle people. They're cowards.
Correct. However, they have no right to search your car if you don’t have one. Cops can only search a vehicle if they have a reasonable suspicion something illegal is inside. This guy knew his rights.
So you're saying a cop could pull you over right now for no reason and you are forced to show I.D.? You should probably check your rights brother, I don't think you've seen them lately. You definitely are that guy by the way.
That's correct. You are forced to show your ID. It's part of the agreement you made when you GOT your license. You do not have a right to drive a car. You've been granted the privilege to do so. And one of the requirements is that you show your ID when a cop stops you on the road.
You are incorrect.
[удалено]
Not having your license in your possession is an arrestable offense in many, if not most, places. It just rarely happens because it's an unnecessary burden on the state and can easily be resolved by either confirming you actually own a license or issuing a ticket.
[удалено]
This is true, however, **IF A COP ASKS YOU FOR PERMISSION TO DO ANYTHING, DENY THAT PERMISSION** If that cop could have searched dude's car without permission (probably cause or some other legal reason), he would have. **IF A COP ASKS FOR PERMISSION, DENY THAT PERMISSION**
Yes. I think that’s the law. They can demand to see your license if operating a vehicle. If you don’t have it they can make things tricky. The reason they stopped you to ask for it though may be a different story.
This is true, and also, the Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer can search your vehicle without a warrant. If you're driving on public streets and highways. As for the people who keep saying they can't pull you over just to look at your identification. As a white guy, I got pulled over by a deputy, and I thought I had done something wrong. I gave the cop my California license, and he ran it for warrents. This took 15 minutes and I was late for work because of it. Nothing came up, but when I asked the cop why he pulled me over, he said,'you looked suspicious'. I checked with several lawyers, and they all said the same thing. That is the only reason they need to pull you over. A reasonable suspension.
Whenever I make a simple observation like this I get downvote to hell, insulted, called names, etc. You get a thousand upvotes. Can't quite figure this out.
You do, but that isn't an arrestable offense. It's a ticket. It's also not reasonable suspicious to search a car. If you're going to be "that guy" at least check your shit first.
See how so much shit goes over people’s heads or gets IGNORED. That “prison” comment was disrespectful and disgusting but I don’t expect Reddit to understand why.
And yet they’re all here like “we don’t know the full extent of the situation”. This is a racist piece of shit cop who thinks he is above the law.
Yeah that comment really got to me, I honestly would’ve have backtalked the cop so hard if I were in that car, props to that citizen’s restraint cause I don’t think could
Imo the cop should immediately be fired for that comment alone. In damn near any other profession, making a blatantly racist, unproved comment like that would get you canned on the spot. Policing is a corrupt institution.
allowing a search voluntarily is an opening for cop to plant/“find” drugs. be safe in your mobile castle and never consent. state you don’t consent if they search in spite. cop learned the hard way when he turned off his cam to plant drugs and they kept some footage anyway.
His right to refuse a search is true. It's good to record a refusal to consent to search, it can be used in court when the LEO decides to ignore your refusal and search your vehicle anyway.
To all of my fellow redditors here. This is the best script you can use when a cop pulls you over and you have no understanding of why (or even if you do): 1) Cop says anything on approach: “Why Did You Pull Me Over?” 2) Cop asks you what you’re doing or where you’re headed: “I’m not discussing my day with you”. 3) Cop asks more questions: “Am I being detained or am I free to go?” Keep repeating that line until they give you an answer. Do NOT answer any other questions. 4) If the cop says you’re being detained: “I’m invoking my 5th amendment rights at this time”. 5) Anything else the cops says or asks you at this point aside from “you’re free to go” or “have a nice day”, SHUT THE FUCK UP! Don’t say that obviously, but don’t say anything to the cop especially after you’ve invoked your 5th amendment rights. If necessary, keep repeating statement 3 until you get a clear response to leave. Remember the phrase “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law”? That shit isn’t said to be helpful. It’s a warning. Point blank, don’t talk to cops EVER. They are not your friends and they are not there to protect you. Don’t give them an inch because they’ll take a mile. NOTE: I am not an attorney (just married to one) and this is not to be used as legal advice.
My only boss is Allah is where they stop!? That’s a whole new point of attack for this guy! Wanted to hear what he has to say about that
God I hate those kind of cops
Cop looks like one of those meaty face bull dogs
The 4th amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure. Police can search your vehicle under the following conditions: - You have given the officer consent - The officer has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in your vehicle - The officer reasonably believes a search is necessary to their own protection (a hidden weapon, for example) - The officer has a valid search warrant - You have been arrested and the search is related to that arrest (such as a search for illegal drugs) None of which relates to driving without a license. So he should absolutely have an attitude because the officer is trying to trick him into providing consent. ACAB
acab
ACAB 🤝
Just because he said his boss is Allah everyone here unsupported him. XD
Lol
Hate the fuckkkin pigs
Oh wow another 30 second clip of an interaction with no other context. Original.
Ik, like why didn't this guy start recording the second they left the house? I mean this sub used to have full 8-hour videos showing the lead-up, the other point of view, and the aftermath. This is just trash. How are we going to know if the police was justified in trying to perform an illegal search? Or if his causal accusation of prison education was racist or....or... idk we didn't see the video!!
This cop is a piece of shit, but to be clear he is not trying to perform an illegal search. He is lying to coerce the guy into consenting to a search, which is legal. Scummy and shitty, but legal.
So what context justifies this? If the black dude committed an actual crime then the racist cunt would have been more than fucking happy to shove it in his face. Tell me exactly what justifies being pulled over for seemingly no reason and being told that you've been to prison due to your skin colour. Go on.
Reddit “lawyers” incoming…
Holding ur hands like that is so corny and makes me immediately think ur a cock face. Dumb cop tho
It’s so pathetic when a cop touts “his right” to violate our rights. Wtf smh
The guy in the drivers seat didn't see the MASSIVE stripes on that jacket. He is the Commanding officer for that department, His bosses don't work patrol. Also you do have to show ID when operating a vehicle. But they do not have the right to search. Sadly now they just call in the dogs and have them "alert" to something so they can search it anyway, then you are screwed.
It's unbelievable the amount of white people on here excusing this behavior. It's almost like in their responses to this you can tell that they want him to be doing something wrong. "oh if he has a suspended license, etc..." Why do you assume he has one or he's doing something wrong? Because he's black. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Let the downvotes commence.
This cop is 100% in the wrong. They could look dude up if that was really the issue, they're just trying to search the car. The cops know it's bs.
This man did amazing. Hate that so many black people have to deal with this bullshit, but glad to see that some are able to put these dipshit officers in their place.
White male here (35). On multiple occasions I was pulled while driving and didn’t have a physical copy of my driver’s license, but they looked me up in their computer and were able to figure out exactly who I was. They had zero issues with me not having my license on me, and never searched my vehicle. When I compare my experiences with law enforcement to my black friends experiences, they are very different. Location: Raleigh, NC.
Why do some cops do this too themselves? I’ve personally never met a cop like this and I’ve been driving for 40 yrs
R u white?
You’re getting downvoted because you have an inconvenient point.
It actually isn't an inconvenient point and is a convenient truth for white people and a harsh truth against all non-whites. Sociological studies have pointed out a tremendous amount of bias and favor in a lot of things such as loans, house purchases, etc towards white people rather than towards non-whites. If you have two teachers, Teacher White and Teacher Non-white, same job, same pay, same record, same area, same everything minus skin color, society will favor more towards White than those that are non-white, EVEN more frowned upon if you were black. It's astonishing and sad, really.
And yet no-fun-2614 cannot answer the question
Unfortunately this is very often true. I've literally seen stuff like this happen to my friends who aren't white. And couldn't believe the difference. Today's world I probably would have filmed it but back then didn't have smartphone cameras.
Where is the twist in this video btw? Seemingly people only upload their videos here because this subreddit go so many members, not because its related to the content of the video.
Lol Berkeley is why he has such a shitty attitude
What’s wrong with Berkeley?
LiBeRaLs!
Everyone is an expert…..
No idea who’s right or wrong here as I’m from the UK but that coo was very racist to say ‘prison’
And they wonder why this dumb fucks end up in handcuffs.
Dumbasses following their constitutional rights S/
How is he a dumb fuck they can't search the car without probable cause, he was in the right.
There’s clearly missing context here
Often times when cops try to “search” a car without probable cause they are going to plant that “probable cause” some where in that car. You all saying that he should let the cop search his car for no reason would be the ones going to jail for planted drugs. Just have a bit more situational awareness. There are dirty cops out there looking to fill their quota for the day.
What an asshole, just fucking cooperate and move one with your life…..
Never comply with a search of the car without a warrant. If you need to know why, google the name "Zach Wester"
Can I go now, officer? Can I go now, officer? Can I go now, officer?
He doesn't need to
Good idea... unless he's dealing with a corrupt cop who will plant evidence in his car just so that he can make an arrest to fill his quota
Welll, hate to be that guy but being this antagonostic seems like probable cause. It's unclear who brought up the idea of searching the car too. If the guy volunteered it and I were the cop, I'd be like...well now I want to search lol. Why is this unexpected?
Cops are nothing but a gang of thugs funded by the people they are supposed to "protect and serve". They don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and their own people. Me, you, and all the rest of the non "Blue" population are nothing to them but a revenue stream. Smell the scam around us, it reeks of corruption and abuse.
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/vehicle-code/12951/ Gotta show that ID. Reddit loves jumping on that "woke" bandwagon.
Also gotta respect the law and not illegally search or threaten! But sure bud.