Tyrant tries to use Terry stop for UNLAWFUL ACTION!

welcome back to the Copwatch Podcast, on this channel we go over police interactions and audits that test the freedom of press in government buildings. Today I want to go over a video from the channel, Lick the whole boot. Today’s video is a traffic stop, but I do not know exactly when and where this is is taking place. Regardless, it is still a good video to breakdown and to find some key points to educate the people. In this video this man was pulled over because he was parked in a “suspicious area” according to the officer conducting the stop. This cop tries to get this man to admit to being involved in a drug deal, but when this man refuses to answer questions this officer backs off. What the officer says after, is pretty concerning. But lets get into the video and see what you all think.

@LickTheWholeBoot

#cops #freedom #film

[EAMitch]

It's already been ruled that being in an area isn't reasonable articulable suspicion, yet I hear cops falsely claim it is all the time. That was clearly an unlawful detainment and a federal felony. It is not a law to surrender your license when pulled over for any reason. It is the law to produce your license when lawfully pulled over.

[Dave-lwlx]

Always looking to slap the cuffs on some one. Thanks CP 🇺🇸🇺🇸😔👍👍

[maverick]

You are NOT required to show your license unless you have been lawfully stopped.
A Terry Stop occurs when the officer can ARTICULATE criminal behavior, or in the process of a lawful detention the officer has articulated a reason to believe the person detained is unlawfully armed, and a possible threat.

[ctom]

You don't have to provide a license unless lawfully stopped.

[marthag]

So if I understand correctly a vehicle terry stop has to be for a suspicion of a Traffic infraction Not for being in a suspicious place or area.

[Lovemygrandkids]

The Hispanic guy had some drugs but got away. Huh 🤔 how do you know he had drugs. Smh

[jasonleslie]

Every AREA is a "suspicious area"
Just like EVERYTHING YOU do is "suspicous active"

So is going to "pat down/stop & frisk" the CAR?
Sicko cop

[dericksmith]

According to this cop, the police would always have RAS since practically every neighborhood in every city has had some form of criminal activity at some point, so you or me being within a mile of that spot makes us suspicious?

This would give every bored cop, that’s looking to boost his arrest stats, an excuse to falsely stop and detain anyone they wanted.

[ctom]

Can't be a good cop if you don't know the law.

This was completely illegal.

[davidwilliams]

This guy did good. Kept it cool while dealing with an unscrupulous cop.

[thenatural]

Just being parked in a "high crime area" alone is not RAS of a crime. Otherwise cops could use that flimsy excuse for anyone that lives in the area. GTFO. People learn your rights. Study this stuff. The guy didn't have to give up ID because it wasn't a traffic stop. I don't blame the guy for not knowing better, but I would in the future if this wasn't enough to make him go home and learn.

#endqualifiedimmunity
#abolishleobor
#alwaysrecordthepolice
#copslie

[ronaldacarter]

Courts have ruled that merely be in or coming from an area of known narcotics trafficking is not in itself RAS of a crime nor can it be used as the sole reason for a Terry Stop. Additionally, SCOTUS held that the officer must have RAS that the suspect is armed and dangerous before a pat down is legally permissible.

[sammybubba]

does anyone remember the case where the judge determined that being in a "known location", without further indication, did not give officers enough reason to stop and detain individuals?

[richh]

The 3 landmark federal (precedent) cases of Sibiron, Sbarra and Eggersgluess absolutely prohibit such illegal 'stops' based on being in the mere proximity of criminals or criminal activity and does NOT constitute probable cause nor RAS by the proximity of same.

[cobracommander]

It's important to note that Stop and Frisk are two different things and they require their own RAS. In order for police to Stop someone that is "detain" they need reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot based on articulable facts. In order to Frisk someone that is "pat down" police need reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that the person is armed and a threat to themselves and/or others. You should listen to Terry v. Ohio oral arguments in front of the SCOTUS, they can be found here on Youtube. You can hear that the attorney just makes up this new term called "detain" in which the police no longer need probable cause to stop you as it is written in the US Constitution. #overturnterryvohio

[calvinclark]

But you don't have to give ID unless there is RAS of a CRIME and being in a drug area is not a CRIIME.

[mooseboose]

I was told to check this video out by San Joaquin

[jarrodhilaryperazabarbosa]

psychopaths in police uniform :: in action 🤮🤮🤮🤮

[richarddavis]

They will make up a reason to stop you no matter what. My defense would be write me a citation for why you stopped me and I want your supervisor.

[stevenl]

If the only thing this cop has is it's a high crime/drug area - it's an illegal, pretextual stop. No ID is required as it was unlawful. Now if the cop had a couple more facts that might be different... otherwise he might want to stop this crap. He's going to get the wrong person one day if he's not more careful.