Scary is the right word for it. I just hope that someone can fight this at the state and (if necessary) federal courts. However, given the current occupants of those courts, it looks as though this horrible precedence may be here for a while. Smh.
Citation. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) Brief Fact Summary. Lawson sought to declare a California statute unconstitutional that required him to produce identification any time an officer asked. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Whether it is constitutional for individuals to produce identification when asked to do so at the request of an officer? The actions that police officers are allowed to take under this statute are unconstitutional against the fourth amendment protections against search and seizure. In order to constitutionally exercise the search and seizure of a citizen, a police officer must have probable cause. The statute would be unconstitutional regardless of whether it was clear because it would allow officers to unconstitutionally seize citizens at their discretion. Repealed California § 647(e).
The problem isn't that the cop made up probable cause. Even the defendant in this case admitted that there was probable cause to arrest. It was just that he cop hadn't figured that part out until after the fact. The courts have taken the approach that the legality of a stop/arrest is based on the facts present before the incident. The cop's awareness or knowledge don't factor in. They don't want to start questioning a cop's mindset during a stop/arrest.
@@KalijahAnderson the Supreme courts have deliberately put certain groups of people at risk of being framed and their lives ruined with their biases!!!
@@finris1 We don't need to question the cop's mindset in this case. He literally gave it to us. He truly believed that there was no probable cause and yet made an arrest anyway. Next week you'll be telling us that if somebody is arrested without probable cause at the time, the legislature gets to pass a law saying that what the arrestee was doing was illegal, thus creating probable cause.
The entire justice system is corrupt, so the answer is to use the justice system against them? I don't think that will work out the way that you think it will...
And, as soon as you're educated, you have to pretend you've never heard of it. If a judge gets the slightest hint that you know what it is, you will be dismissed from the jury.
@@JacobNeff-oq5km Okay. Well, until then, you need to pretend that you've never heard of it. Because, if a judge gets the slightest hint that you know what it is, you will be dismissed from the jury.
@@MrMagnaniman are you like a WEF-fy. A Klaus Schwab-ian. Perhaps judges of the past that protected individual rights would want to keep jury nullification out of courts since they were in good ethical hands and jury’s may be too sympathetic. BUT, when you have a circuit court telling us that people will be arrested without PC on hunches and then be allowed to investigate an individual looking for any reason while that individual rots in jail, they have literally taken suppression of rights to the next level and the integrity completely out of the justice system by creating yet another legal loophole. We the people need to tell them enough is enough. Jury nullification is not a secret and the people need an equalizer to counter unethical judges, yet again, sending a message that Joe private citizens have no rights while in the mere presence of a cop or public sector employee. It’s bull shot and we need to take this country back or our posterity will suffer, immensely.
To think someone who is intelligent enough to go through Law School, rises to the level of being a federal judge and to come up with this ruling is mind boggling.
That's next level corruption there. Fire the consenting Judges for incompetence, and charge the arresting deputy for kidnapping, false arrest, and perjury.
The constitution doesn’t fit their agenda. At this stage of my life I’m glad I didn’t have children decades ago. Anyone under 30 has a very bleak future.
@@JP-gi7dw Exactly. I always like the, “we need to…!!” comments. Feel free. All it takes is an impeachment by the US House and then removal from office by the US Senate.
This one of the most dangerous decisions I’ve ever heard. This judge is one of the most incompetent representatives of the US judicial system. It’s astonishing that he was able to graduate law school.
This court needs to understand why we became a free nation in the first place. It was undue harassment and interference with our lives that prompted our founders to say, enough is enough. We are reaching that point with a Judiciary that has missed the whole point of our existence. It's getting too much of this leftist doublespeak that makes no sense anyway.
Yeap, rules for you, not for them. Have enough of us figured out we're being extorted yet? For as much shit as police talk about sovereign citizens, they're the closest thing we have in the US- fly a bastardized American flag while ignoring American law... must be nice.
You mean like Civil asset forfeiture. No knock warrants based on anonymous informants. Field sobriety tests that are designed to give officers an arrest regardless of how you do. I could go on but yeah it's bad.
Right? If I see you walking at the side of the road, force you in my car and lock you up, it'll be called kidnapping. Yet, this ruling says police can do just that...
This has been the norm in policing for decades. The difference is these cops essentially admitted they didn’t have probable cause. Most cops will lie from the start about having probable cause.
Hey, let's use this logic for other professions: Mechanic: "I replaced your transmission." Customer: "I didn't notice any issues, what was wrong with it?" Mechanic: "I don't know, I haven't looked at it yet, but I'll probably find something wrong."
This sounds like why there are thousands and thousands of laws arrayed against us. It’s almost impossible to go out of the house and not break some law and be subject to arrest by a petty, vindictive cop.
Well, when the only legal way to enslave someone is to convict them of a crime... Thanks 13th amendment; I didn't want slavery abolished anyways, it's much better when the government has that exclusive right.
Already is. More than 2000 extrajudicial executions per year for non-capitol offense infractions. This cop belongs in prison awaiting execution for a violent abuse of authority under colour of law.
Those courts are crazy. When a court knows that an officer or prosecutor is charging the wrong crime or mis-charging it, their job is to dismiss the inappropriate charge, not fix it for the prosecution.
The fact the cop called someone (a superior?) AFTER the arrest and specifically asked "What can I charge him with?" proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the cop had ZERO "reasonable suspicion" to effect an arrest. He had no knowledge of nor suspicion of the man actually breaking any law - beyond exercising his Constitutional Rights. It doesn't get any clearer than that.
Just says to me he wanted to heap on. If I was asking that question, it would be to ask why ELSE I can pile on ABOVE the initial charge. I hear that ALL the time in bodycam video, "So what ELSE can we ALSO charge him with?" It's called being pencil whipped. It's why you don't be a dick, ever, to anyone, especially people you count on, like server and your local utilities.
I really can't understand what difference it makes what side of the road you walk on. If your not in the road it is irrelevant what side or what direction you are walking.
@@jameshoward8609 as to why it's illegal I don't know (it shouldn't), but as to why I do it, simple: I don't want to constantly look over my shoulder to check for cars, can't always hear them coming and I don't want to be startled. So, If I walk on the "wrong side of the road" I can spot them from a distance and act accordingly.
The law is when you have to walk on the roadway. Like when there are no sidewalks. It's a safety thing. It's also just an infraction. "Arrestible" here doesn't mean you get taken to jail for it. If that was the actual reason for the stop, there is no justification for the officer to not have said so immediately. Therefore, him not saying so is proof that it was not the reason for the stop.
@@trollfarmergoestowashington They can, without legal penalty. A non-trivial issue with "solving" this via 2nd amendment is that ignorant juries will convict (they convict on much less). A much bigger issue is that most of the time, the person attempting to "solve" the issue that way doesn't have to worry about his day in court, or literally anything else any longer, after attempting it.
@@TheMelnTeam How many nitwits out there believe the "2d amendment" means you can shoot anyone for any reason? It just says you cannot be arbitrarily denied the right to HAVE a firearm.
In Florida we have "Loitering (or Prowling)" for when the cops feel like using it. I was held for 11 hours literally for taking my regular nighttime walk a mile from my house. This farce ten years ago constitutes my entire criminal record.
Judges need to have consequences for nonsense decisions like this. Its hard enough to stand up for your rights throughout the process leading up to seeing the judge. We dont need them to ignore the constitution and confirm that our rights dont exist.
Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion has a very low threshold but wasn't met, how can they arrest someone that requires probable cause which has a much greater legal threshold? Sounds like the courts are now trying to set new legal precedence to get law enforcement off the hook now that the general public is becoming far more informed and asserting their constitutional rights and winning large sums in the courts.
At a Major LE department on the west coast I read an affidavit by a Detective that stated: “ until something has been booked into the evidence room, it’s not evidence.” This was an explanation to the court why new burner LE phones used for a specific case were destroyed prior to trial. In my lane, it’s evidence as soon as you as an use or collect it in response to an investigation that envelope and support the charges. Ugh
They are all on the same side. United against We The People. And if you or I have a problem with it, we can casually walk into any station in America, and they will gladly explain it to us one cue ball knot on our heads one at a time 😅
Cop: I thought he had a gun, so I had to stop and search him. After hours of exhaustive research into his online activities, I found a picture from 10 years ago of him watching someone else hold a gun, so the stop was totally justified. Judge: Sounds legit. Did he have a gun? Cop: Not this time, but now he is in our database of potential gun handlers, so next time we stop him it will be a felony takedown stop.
That sounds like an illegal search also. Arrest anyone then search through their stuff until you find a reason. In this case it was arrest him then search their person or whatever you need to identify the person.
If this stands, to put it very gently, it delegitimizes the entire justice system to the point that intentional "resistance" needs to be considered very seriously. There is no person who can be safe from such an absurd standard, because the law is so bloated they can always find something... that makes the entire concept of arrest arbitrary government action.
The justice system is legitimate in your eyes? Seems like a corrupt system of oppression to me, what with the wildly inequitable application of the law and all that. Manufacture and distribute literally tons of heroin as Oxycodone while bribing and lying to oversight and legislators- received immunity from prosecution while being allowed to keep the profits from addicting American's to heroin Sell or buy one of those pills on the street- become a slave of the state in a for-profit prison where you'll receive zero drug treatment or rehabilitation
This should be dealt with by the Supreme Court swiftly and decisively. This opens the pandora's box of police retaliation and undermines the 4rth in a big way.
That is, IF our SCOTUS even decides to take on the case. They could refuse to hear it, then later claim that their refusal to hear it doesn’t equate to an ‘approval’ of the decision.
Yet we see it being played out in House of Representatives against President Biden. Trying to impeach him without probable cause because they are retaliating for Trump’s Impeachments. Which will only lead to more BS against others if they get away with it by re-elected. You want better more fair laws???? Stop electing bullies, mean girls, sexual predators and criminals to create the laws.
This just further reinforces it’s not just qualified immunity that must be abolished, but all immunity’s afforded to any government employee, as well as all levels of the justice system.
This corrupt judge needs to have his Consitutional Rights violated. Throw him in county lockup for a month or two, then tell him to pound sand when he attempts to get justice for false incarnation.
We need EVERY state to create state laws that REQUIRE cops to immediately clearly state WHY they are stopping someone, Notify persons of their rights with regard to identification, filming, photography, and the specific law under which they are being arrested. Federal constitutional rights are gone under the current court.
On the street, "guilty if they think you're guilty" has ALWAYS been the rule. "Presumed innocent until proven guilty" really only applies as a precursor to judicial conviction and sentencing.
Sadly, it is not new. That is the norm. When was the last time you stopped what you were doing to petition to free a person that was treated that way? How many times have you decided without all the facts if a person was guilty or not in immediate reaction to something? We all do it, but only the best of us resist it!
There’s a reason George Carlin called the Bill of Rights the bill of temporary privileges. And as for judges, well, there’s something about wearing priestly robes and getting “your honored” every time you burp that gets to people’s heads.
"Your Honor" is a title bestowed upon the judge by the government. Which is unconstitutional. "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign State." You only have to call a judge "Judge" or Mr. or Miss, whatever the judges name is.
Yes, this is an example of judges never having heard of the law. They probably would rule that "fruit of the poison tree" would only mean someone sprayed it with pesticide.
What a horrible descision by the Eighth Circuit Court. Anticipatory arrests are absolutely absurd. Further had the cop said you’re walking down wrong side of road during initial encounter, the walker may have IDed.
@@johntracy72so you didn't know you can be detained indefinitely without a trial if you're labeled a terrorist in AMERICA, or be exterminated along with your family if you live outside of the US?? 💯💯
This happens all the time. When found unlawfully in someone else’s building, officers will commonly arrest you before they determine what particular degree of trespassing, breaking and entering, or burglary they are going to charge you with.
"You cannot write tens of thousands of criminal statutes, including many touching upon conduct that is neither immoral nor dangerous, write those laws as broadly as you can imagine, scatter them throughout the thousands of pages of the United States Code-and then expect decent law-abiding, unsuspecting citizens to cooperate with an investigation into whether they may have violated some law they have never even heard about.". -- James Duane
the sick part is, that the government assumes that every citizen knows ALL of them at all times, and conducts themselves thus. The problem is, and Steve stated this before, not even lawyers know even a fraction of these laws. Thus the presumption of knowing laws is bull since it is something that perhaps only an autist with specific interest in them could even hope to know. Instead of reducing the number to a reasonable amount, the government f***faces are just making more and more and more. This makes me think its not about order but instead tyranny.
Just to be clear, in the past the standard for probable cause or reasonable suspicion was "facts particularized to an individual and known to the officer that illegal activity has occurred, is occurring, or will occur." If those facts are not known to the doughnut dumpster making the arrest, the arrest must be, by definition, groundless. Can you be arrested on a whim, held while the state does a background investigation, then charged for what they then find?!
They pretty much already do this- pretextual stops. Make the stop, hope for warrants or drugs or alcohol... doesn't matter if you didn't have PC or RAS for the stop, as long as your fishing expedition pays off (though there's no recourse if they don't find anything either...).
Following that logic, we are all pre-criminally under arrest for crimes yet to be determined, but not yet in custody. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals covers: Arkansas Iowa Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota
@@jaysen6938 Hahahaha…. An 8-1 Supreme Court decision is what led to this same decision. If probable cause exists then there is no retaliation. Of course that is only relying on facts. Kind of like in A Few Good Men, you can’t handle the truth. But I always look forward to the boot licker comments to admit a person has run out of rationale. 👍🏼🤣
This judge needs to be taken off the bench this is absolutely ridiculous we've got to start standing up for ourselves these are god-given rights they're not granted to us by anyone on this Earth
The officer could not inform the subject of the charge because the officer didn't know enough about the law to justify the arrest. Determining a violation after the fact is a sign of poor police procedures and inadequate training. The Circus Court of appeals even went as far as to qualify an arrest on suspicion 'he must be doing Something wrong.' This reflect back to the old Jim Crow Laws of 'We'll find something to arrest him for, eventually.'
These judges in the lower courts are going nuts. Congress definitely needs to limit judges immunity. Furthermore, this will go to the Supreme Court of The United States where its obviously will get reversed
obviously will get reversed.... oh really? I bet the people who brought the case were qualified immunity was invented by the supreme court thought HA.... that could never happen... But some how, it did.
I think that one of the requirements for judges is that they must have been violently and illegally arrested at some time in the past. That way, they would understand why these sorts of decisions are so dangerous.
"...at some point...." would imply they were arrested *exactly* once. How about multiple times, and along with that, also being forced to go though the legal process as everyone else who can't afford to bond out and can't afford a lawyer? Oh, and, just to hit the point home, they aren't allowed to take a plea bargain. That last sentence is especially important, as some innocent people have a choice of a plea deal (aka where they say they are guilty of the crime, even though they aren't), and getting out today, or rotting in prison for 1+ month(s) while they await trial.
So in essence, any officer can walk up to anyone, arrest them, and then what, make up an excuse for the arrest? That seems to be what the judge said. This seems to be the next part. Forget about rights, we can arrest you and then justify it by making up the reason, forget about evidence, they can manufacture that too. This judge needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred in all 50 states too.
There needs to be a judiciary review board that can remove judges. One that has no judges involved. They always cover for other judges crimes. This judge needs to be striped from the bench.
Depending on whether it's a county, state or federal court there are different bodies such as Federal and State Senates that do judiciary reviews. For a county or parish you might have a council. A governor or president can remove a judge. Even a US Supreme Court judge can be removed but it takes moving heaven and earth to do it.
If these treasonous judges are not appointed this is the perfect example of when the community should ban together and ensure every judge that supported this decision is unemployed next election cycle
It should get overturned. There is no legal assumption of guilt without evidence (cause). In the United States, an irrebuttable presumption of guilt is considered to be unconstitutional. Informal and legally illegitimate presumptions of guilt may also arise from the attitudes or prejudices of those such as judges, lawyers or police officers who administer the system.
@@tvc1848 An irrebuttable presumption of guilt is unconstitutional in the United States. An arrest, however, often becomes synonymous or "fused" with guilt, postulates Anna Roberts, a United States law professor. In the minds of jurors, the person charged must have done something wrong. It is unconstitutional to arrest someone whom you have no crime for. Even you should know there has to be probable cause to make a probable cause arrest. There was NONE.. They went looking for it after the arrest. BTW an accusation is verbal an arrest is the physical taking of a person.
@@tvc1848 Questions: "Can I be arrested without evidence against me?" Brad Smith: Criminal Defense Attorney You cannot be arrested without evidence. In order to be arrested for a criminal offense a police officer must have probable cause. Probable cause is a legal standard less than reasonable doubt. It’s when a police officer has developed a case to the extent that a reasonable, cautious police officer would believe the accused to be guilty. But as the video states. He didn't even have a crime or a charge at the time of arrest. He had to go fishing for a charge after the arrest. A clear violation of rights.
"You're under arrest." "For what?" "We'll tell you when we find out." Yeeeeaaaah, I'm going to have to ask you to line up in front of this wall, please.
"Even if he doesn't know the cause at the time....." So now they are literally just given free reign to tyranize the entire public, simply by virtue of being hired for a specific job. HORRIFYING!
This is truly an abhorrent decision. I pray judges who make these insane decisions are directly affected by their idiotic behavior. This is Tyranny at its finest blessed by the judiciary who’s only task is to protect us against tyranny.
You have it backwards. The job of the judiciary is to protect tyranny against us. If their job was to serves us in any way, the SCotUS would be elected and subject to recall.
