Exactly, the cop didn't pull you over to give you a hug; the cop pulled you over *because he is looking for an excuse to take your freedom and/or your money.*
Yes, but even in this case if he had managed to avoid volunteering for the tests, the stuff he said before that was probably not enough for the officer to make him do it. It is best to limit responses to questions that you do have to answer, such as providing your identification information, but it really depends what's going on how much you have to say and how far the officer is going to go to bring in somebody that's probably not guilty. If it's an emphasis patrol, they're not going to go to this much trouble for the arrest, they're going to figure out that he isn't obviously impaired and move on to somebody that is a threat to the community pretty quickly in most cases.
I used to do exactly the type of shit this kid does in the video because growing up I was taught police are there to help you, but videos like this have really opened my eyes and I appreciate your work Andrew. Hopefully I don't get stopped ever again, but if I do, I know to just politely tell the police that my lawyer friend advises me not to answer questions and remain silent.
The ONLY and I mean ONLY way this guy loses in a civil trial against the police department is if the judge throws the suit out. If a non-corrupt judge let's it go to trial it's a slam dunk win for the student!!! People are tired of this crap from police!!
@@Kmangod The kid failed the tests. He will not win. The kid was even slow on his replies and sounded high. Sorry, but no, this kid needed to just keep quiet.
Yup if you listen to the older generation, not just physically older but mentally, they'll say "if you behave or comply you'll be fine.." Bull fucking shit
@@Kmangod I think you're right. The cop was so sure that he smelled alcohol then didn't give up after the 0.00. It'll be obvious to all but the most biased jurors that the cop wasn't acting in good faith.
Yeah, it's a shortsighted and just plain stupid policy / modus operandi -- "Let's piss off law-abiding citizens and treat them unfairly, and make them hate cops for evermore. Yeah, _that's_ a good idea!" 🙄
The cops literally tell you that nothing you say can help you and everything/anything you say can hurt you. There is literally no benefit to speaking to the police without an attorney present.
@Ian Battles Oh, absolutely, but even before that, before they Miranda you, they are constantly fishing for information for their investigation. So you are being investigated, likely as a suspect, from the moment they talk to you. If you choose not to talk to them and tell them as much, using your rights, it makes it harder for them to screw you
@@ninjabreadman8166 In fact, since they are allowed to lie to you, when they walk up to you and say, "good evening" implying that they are wishing you a good evening, they are lying. They actually intend to try their hardest to ruin the rest of your life.
You can blame the Heritage Foundation for stacking the courts with incompetent judges for that. Not that the others are necessarily that great, but they aren't so overtly corrupt.
I made cards that have my attorney's number on them, and that say, "I cannot answer any questions without my attorney present." There's another one for when my kid gets his license that says, "I am a minor, you must have my attorney or my parent present before I answer any questions." I fully expect these to be ignored by LEOs, but they're to be handed out with the required documents. We're already training our kids to never answer questions unless they're the ones who called LEOs to the scene.
@@ranger135xp that's true, but my kids aren't great at nuance yet. Even though I already have the cards, my oldest is 12, so we still have time to hammer in that message, and add nuance.
Andrew, you'll never be able to say "Don't talk" enough times! There was one time my lawyer dad gave a guest lecture to a 1L class. He walked in shouting SHUT UP! CLOSE YOU MOUTH AND KEEP IT THAT WAY! DON'T TALK! He then went on to explain, to the stunned students, about Miranda and more. Not just in traffic stops, but anytime an officer approaches you (in many circumstances, not all). His philosophy was simple: one word: Lawyer. Use it before Miranda, and after. He didn't dislike cops -knew and liked most of them- just knew that they operated on a different level.
You really must state that in choosing to remain silent you are asserting your 5th Amend, rights. You should not simply remain mute. Do not say, "My lawyer TOLD me to remain silent."
I agree about reminding is to not talk to cops. I think that the desire to talk is too ingrained to western culture. While watching this video, even I thought about what I would say, even though I knew full well to just keep quiet.
However, do not ask for, "a lawyer, dog." as is common in some social circles. There is established case law that you are clearly asking for a dog with a law degree and since that isn't possible your request is invalid and equivalent to not asking for a lawyer in the first place. You must clearly articulate that you will not answer questions without the presence of your lawyer. And you must stick to it regardless of the verbal judo they use to get you talking.
@@johnpublic6582 Yeah, that decision by the Louisiana State Supreme Court is a ridiculous farce and a slap in the face to the Rule of Law. Such nonsense really brings our courts -- especially Louisiana's courts -- into disrepute. So-called "Justice" Scott Crichton of the Louisiana Supreme Court (a Republican appointee) penned an opinion concurring in the court’s decision. He wrote, apparently in absolute seriousness, that “the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview.” Such intellectual dishonesty should not be countenanced in our justice system.
He might win his lawsuit because he might get a jury of people like me who will give him the victory he deserves. After blowing 0.00 on the roadside test, that's as far as that needed to go.
Especially since we have rulings throwing out confessions made after someone has been read the Mirands warming but was suspected of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The logic is essentially that if you're intoxicated, you don't fully understand your rights. It came up in a murder trial just this week.
Not that I think he’s guilty, but my friend was drinking all night on my birthday, he backed into a car at the club right in front of an officer… but he blew 0.00 even though he was drunk. It was wild.
_"After blowing 0.00 on the roadside test, that's as far as that needed to go."_ Exactly. At that point, the cop obviously should've let him go. If I were on the jury, I would award the innocent young man significant damages for a clearly wrongful arrest.
@@Milesco Unless he had traces of THC in his blood, he will win, but he does kind of seem like a pot head. Yah I know he said he can’t smoke weed because he supposedly gets drug tested weekly for football. Like those rules don’t get bent all the time. The cop was still an ass. And hopefully the kid wins.
It would have been better for him to provide the required information and keep his mouth shut, but prior to volunteering for the tests, he probably would have been let go with no further action. Even after the tests he probably would have been let go if the officer thought there were bigger fish to fry coming down the road. Sometimes, just having somebody doing a field sobriety test on the side of the road can remind other motorists that they could be the next one doing it.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade if the cop wants to make an arrest, there is no escaping it. So cuss the cop out like a mofo. A good cop wouldn’t care. With a bad cop, you’re doomed whatever you do.
@@TheBooban No. You also have to think about what that body camera footage is going to look like to the judge and the jury. There's no point in doing any of that. At best, it will accomplish nothing. More likely though, it's going to make you look like a POS that had it coming when it goes to trial.
The cop lost all credibility in this arrest. If he arrests anyone else, this video will be played at trial to discredit him. The Newton Police department should fire him immediately.
Cops live by "You can beat the charge but not the ride" its a thing. He didn't man handle the kid ...this was just another day for them and their superiors.
Totally agree. We have given our law enforcement apparatus far too much power and far too little accountability. And it's getting worse. See _Egbert v. Boule,_ U.S. Supreme Court, docket # 21-147 (2022)
@@KeithOtisEdwards That case actually _created_ the right to sue federal agents for constitutional violations. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not only refused to expand that ruling beyond the specific facts of that case, it actually *reduced* the scope of _Bivens_ in the very case I mentioned above. In _Egbert,_ the SCOTUS took away our right to sue Border Patrol agents, making them immune from lawsuits, and specifically said that _Bivens_ was "disfavored" and instructed the lower courts to look for any possible excuse to throw out lawsuits against federal agents in general (not just Border Patrol agents, which now cannot be sued at all). Most legal scholars believe that _Bivens_ is moribund at this point, if not already dead. ☹ The only way to resurrect our right to hold federal agents accountable for their misconduct is to contact our elected representatives and senators and tell them to allow federal agents -- and the agenices they work for -- to be sued when they violate our constitutional rights. There's already a federal civil rights law on the books that makes state and local agents liable for violating our rights -- why shouldn't it be made to apply to federal agents as well?
If you get to court and get the officer on the stand you get to ask him about smelling alcohol. Blowing 0.00 establishes the officer’s sole objective was to falsely arrest the person and is nothing but a liar.
They simply state that the smell was present in the vehicle. No matter what happens, it comes back to being the suspects fault... every time, imagine that! /sarcasm
@@wholeNwon I'm guessing once you subpoena all the records related to how accurate their road side tests have been they will settle. His other evidence will disappear.
@@wholeNwon Depends on the facts of the case. In this case, there really was no other evidence of intoxication. The driver performed the field sobriety test quite well, in my opinion. He didn't appear to be drunk at all. (And indeed, he wasn't!)
A good lawyer will break down every test and the ability to do the tests and certifications the officers has taking the officers credibility in question to show he wasn’t qualified and willfully lied to take the kid in. I’ve seen the dui lawyer guy destroy cops like this
I think there IS a chance of success for the lawsuit, primarily based on the fact that Officer Winters initially said he smelled alcohol, and tested based on that assertion, then changed his "suspicion" to drugs when the kid blew zeroes. His attorney can certainly make the case that the officer had no reasonable suspicion for drugs, and that the arrest was retaliatory in nature.
At my first DUI, I pretty much made all of the same mistakes. Got arrested and hauled to jail where eventually I was released. However, I pissed off a good friend by calling him at 2:00 in the morning to pick me up and had to pay a towing fee. I wish I knew then what I know now. Keep up the good work Andrew.
No. This case will fail on the fact that the kid failed the tests and slurred his words and delayed his answers. The kid failed and was arrested. The charges were dropped, but the kid was still arrested.
@@TEverettReynolds yet he blew a zero and the tests are meant for you to fail. I would fail these simply for balance and being nervous while being sober. Never take roadside tests. You are only required to blow in machine. Never answer questions. Isn’t it funny how the cop lied about smelling alcohol til the test came back zero. Then his ego couldn’t let it go and then claimed he was high. Cops are liars and much of what they do is based on being rewarded with promotions, prizes and winning awards for these DUI arrests. It is an abomination to the constitution and law. Also point out in the video where he slurred his words. Not answering quickly isn’t a crime.
@@TEverettReynolds Where did he slur his words? The delay could be reasonably argued to be covered by the 5th Amendment. He had to think for a second to decide if he was going to answer and how to answer without self-incriminating for an unrelated crime (having used weed sometime in the past). He did very well on the tests other than taking the wrong number of steps. As for the difficulty finding his papers, you can't just call something a sign of impairment when its not. If we allow that, then they can literally call anything a sign of impairment and justify arresting anyone.
@@TEverettReynolds Nope. Tayvin's performance on the Field Sobriety Test was quite reasonable. Perfect? No, but more than adequate. Perfection is not required. If it were, we would ALL be subject to arrest at all times. And as "L C" pointed out, he didn't slur any words. I don't know what video you were watching. His delay in answering the "when did you last smoke weed?" question by itself does not constitute grounds for suspicion of DUI, either. It's quite common for a person to have to think for a moment in order to answer a question honestly. The kicker here is the 0.00 on the breathalyzer. Proof of innocence! What more do you want?! At that point, the cop obviously should've ended the whole interrogation right there and let Tayvin go on his way.
If I was on the jury, he wins or the jury is hung. I was once accused of DUI because my wife had gathered registration and insurance papers and rolled them into a tube inside my glove box. She forgot to tell me and I couldn’t find them. Fortunately I was let go. But she regrets doing that to me some 15 years later. People are people, the kid was just being a kid, and regular people make innocent mistakes.
If the jury only sees the tests, the kid failed. If the jury only sees the questions and the delayed reply from the kid, he failed. The kid failed the tests, the cop did nothing wrong. There is no way the kid wins.
@@TEverettReynolds I agree, but in life, there is the right thing to do and the best thing to. The cop may not have been wrong, but nor was he right or did the best thing in this situation.
I actually think that IF this gets to a jury, he may win. I think the cop switching from being extremely sure about him being drunk, to suddenly being high or wasted on drugs strikes most people being unfair and possibly a violation of his 4th and 14th amendments rights. By looking at the video, he may have made mistakes, but those are instructional mistakes, where most laypeople will be looking for slurring and balance issues. He had none of that. I hate to say it, the other thing he has going for him is that he is a sexy, young, football player that comes off extremely wholesome. This really does look like an jealous overweight bully picking on the popular kid. I can see a jury punishing the cop for that behavior.
@@TEverettReynolds So I don't know what planet you are from, but on planet Earth, when someone files a civil suit against the department, where video evidence is already widely available (OBVIOUSLY), there is no way on this planet that the plaintiff's attorney isn't going to be showing the jury the entire video. Also, there is no way his attorney won't show the jury the clip of the video when the officer claims he smells alcohol on the kid. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-roMKVS8AITw.html and there ya go. Then to switch it to weed after he blows 0.00? I mean get real lol.
Yea, well my wife may not be perfect, but she is ideal enough to have put my traffic related papers in a bifold to organize and isolate them from other stuff in the glove compartment. Oh yea, and she drew my particular attention this bifold and its contents.
I watched the full bodycam, a few other things stood out to me. First, the student stated a line was uneven (it's unclear if that's the line the cop chose). He's walking on a crack on the pavement, an irregular, likely not flat line. Second, he stated he injured his ankle and it prevented him from walking "a little bit", but "I'll be able to do this"(with no idea what "this" was. And it didn't hurt because he had all his weight on his other foot. Finally, the officer went through the instructions leaving out the count out loud, then just before the student went the cop mentioned counting out loud. This test was so arbitrary that it shouldn't contribute to any reasonable suspicion to arrest.
I agree. The student's performance on the field sobriety test was more than adequate, in my opinion. It doesn't have to be *_perfect._* No one is perfect. If a cop rattles off a thousand instructions for you to follow, and you don't remember every single one, that means you're drunk?
I'm 65 with a bad hip. No way I'd do those tests. I'll blow on the machine of course. Blood test if nessessary. Then sue the shit out of them. Of course, I'd refuse to answer any questions.
@@LC-uh8if False. In MOST states, you must be arrested BEFORE a refusal results in implied consent refusal. There are 7 states which do not have "if arrested" in the language of the implied consent statute.
@@LC-uh8if Yeah, as jcadult101 indicated, that's not correct. There are two tests: the handheld breathalyzer for preliminary roadside use, and the desktop machine at the police station. The handheld test is simply to determine if there is probable cause to arrest you. The full-size desktop machine is more accurate and is used to determine whether you actually have an illegal amount of alcohol in your bloodstream. The handheld breathalyzer is optional, except in a limited number of states (see below). The desktop machine is mandatory, but only after you have been validly arrested, based on probable cause. You cannot be arrested merely for refusing the roadside handheld preliminary breath test. And you won't have your license suspended either, except in the following states: Alaska Nevada Michigan New York Montana North Dakota Nebraska Rhode Island Indiana is a weird exception: there, you can be arrested for refusal if you refuse to take the roadside test _after having been involved in a fatal car accident._ So if you've had any significant amount to drink, *don't* take the handheld roadside breath test. If you're completely sober, then it's probably okay. But NEVER submit to the field sobriety test (the "walk the line, touch your nose" dog-and-pony show), even if you're completely sober. As you can see, those test are designed to make you fail.
Okay, I have a question for you that wasn't clear to me in the video. I had this EXACT thing happen to me as a teenager. Going home around midnight from a movie with a passenger friend, pulled over for a tag light out and the officer asks me to come sit in his car where he absolutely blasts the heater the whole time asking me questions. He did eventually let me go because he didn't smell any alcohol like he wanted. I'm almost 40 now and I have vowed for years that I will NEVER do that again, get in the car, I'll get arrested first. I was a 17 year old girl on a deserted road at midnight locked in a car with a grown man with a gun. Police officer or no, had that man wished me harm, harm it would have been. That is a situation in which I would still fear for my safety today, even if it is a police officer. What are my rights? Can I refuse to get in his car? Can I keep going until I find a populated area I feel safe to pull over? In this case having kept going would've been another 20 miles for any kind of population unless I had turned around and headed back into town.
I know that the lawyers will use every means at their disposal to get the lawsuit thrown out, but if it get to court and I were on the jury my only question would be " how much are we going to award him"?
If it were a jury case, and I were on the jury, I wouldn't be allowed to be on the jury. I would tell the judge from the start, that no matter the evidence, I'm finding him not-guilty.
"I don't consent to any searches, seizures, or questions. If I am not under arrest at this time, let me leave. Direct any further inquiries to my attorney. I have nothing else to say at this time." *And then you shut your mouth and keep it shut* until they let you go and/or your attorney arrives.
hey can remaining silent (literally) turn into "subject was so intoxicated he was unable to understand nor respond to my questions" on the police report?
Jim is correct. And just to be clear, you should always invoke your 5th amendment rights, rather than just clamming up and saying nothing. If you simply remain silent without claiming your 5th amendment rights, your silence can be used against you. _Salinas v. Texas,_ 570 US 178 (2013)
In the UK, as soon as our police got issued roadside breathalysers, the roadside dance routines stopped. If you blow below the legal limit, you're free to go.
@nailsofinterest they have drug swabs to test for the presence of drugs in the nose and mouth, so if you've smoked or sniffed any substances, it'll pick it up. If it picks up a medication, as long as you have a valid prescription then you're fine
B.B.C. (before body cameras) I clearly heard the officer say step 10 paces heel to toe and turn to the left. He claimed he said "turn to the right." The police can lie to you. You get in more trouble if you lie to them. Double standard? Don't talk to the police.
That’s messed up, idk about you guys, but being arrested or detained would be a big shame for me and my family, I would feel like a criminal, the police officer made a mistake, and they should pay for it…
More people need to hear this @6:58 Many police officers are rewarded for the number of arrests they make, not how many convictions they get. This is a very very bad policy that leads to many people being falsely arrested or arrested and then having charges "dropped". The average citizen thinks the police are on their side when the reality of the situation is very very different.
Many moons ago, I was a reserve officer in the small town where I live. On a Friday or Saturday night, I was riding around with the chief (department consisted of the chief, two full time officers and 5 reserves) and we pulled a guy over for erratic driving (crossed the center and fog line multiple times). The smell of alcohol was there when we talked to him. He agreed to a field sobriety test, which the chief administered (I had yet to have any formal training for it). This guy had a hard time balancing and doing the walk and turn. Clearly inebriated. I'm sure his prosthetic leg had nothing to do with it, right? Now, he was inebriated. After cuffing and stuffing him, then driving the 30 minutes to the county lock up, where the Intoxolizer 2000™was located, he still blew around a 0.13. Clearly over the 0.08 limit. I do remember thinking this is a bunch of bovine fecal matter that a guy with a fake leg is deemed under the influence because he can't walk a straight line.
Try living in Utah. Our limit is 0.05 😂 If I recall you can refuse the field sobriety test given certain medical exemptions they just have to be listed with the DMV when you renew your license. One woman around my age of 19 (at the time) had a similar issue. She was an amputee, lost her right leg. In Utah we have implied consent laws, basically making it illegal to refuse an FST after being arrested. If it’s alright for me to ask, has anyone in your time as a reserve officer had a genuine medical exemption to the FST where it wasn’t administered? I know glaucoma and medications like lisinopril can cause dizziness or eye stuttering and therefore effect the legality of the test, but I find very few instances of the FST not being administered despite obvious medical exemptions. Suppose that’s up to the courts after the arrest.
Mr. Flusche MIGHT want to check county or municipal financial records. In Bexar County Texas, a woman was arrested for DUI, (after blowing a 0.00), because there is a program that offers financial payment for arrests for DUI, that do NOT require a conviction or even a trial. It was brought to the attention of the public by WOAI news, and as far as I'm aware, no resolution was ever mentioned regarding the status of this "program".
Former Officer Winters resigned after jailing 10 sober citizens. Winters craves that M.A.D.D. plaque and $25 chicken wing gift card. I think the number of people sueing for this shows Winters' pattern of incompetency and as such factor in plaintiff's favor. I think you are wrong about the lawsuit being a longshot. Research Winters' pattern of jailing sober people and you might change your mind.
I was wondering if you were going to cover this story... thank you! I've seen this reviewed on other channels and you didn't cover the part where Tayvin interviews the cop afterwards... *that* part is not only hilarious, it might actually give Tayvin a shot.
I had a accident in 2018 where I choked on my drink while driving and passed out. Went through a guard rail going 70mph and hit a tree at the bottom of the ravine. I walked the hill toward the highway on my own power. A cop about 30ft away from me said "I smell alcohol". WTF? EMT's were there. Cop kept insisting I blew into the portable. I said I can't breath. He made me try. Then EMT's told cop that they are taking me. I got to the local hospital ER and they sent me straight to Pittsburgh (UPMC) trauma unit. At local hospital the cop showed up for blood draw. They gave it to him. They sent me to Pittsburgh because I had 10 broken ribs, punctured lung, and punctured spleen. Only thing cop tried to do was get evidence of something... he didn't give fuck about injuries.
officer tryant ...IM GOING TO SHINE this high power flash light in you eyes ,now follow my pen ,now a coronation test first stand on one leg, close your eyes , lean back , count back wards from the letter U TO the letter H AND TOUCH YOU Nose
It seems like no matter what you do with these roadside tests there are "clues" that will discover that you are guilty of something no matter if you are or not. These kind of cutesy "gotcha games" have got to be stopped, it makes the government look a sinister entity out to create a world of distrust.
So, organize with your friends and neighbors around the issue, go to city/county council meetings, your state senator's office, etc. and work for the changes you want.
@@Milesco Even more correct answer: "I don't smoke weed" (if true and you aren't pleading the 5th.), or silence, because you should have already pled the fifth by this point.
If the driver is blowing a 0.00, the cop has no business arresting him. If I were on the jury, I would award a substantial amount of damages for wrongful arrest.
I agree with you here.. The kid DID schlep up a few times and that really long pause on the smoking weed question... But, it was clear to me that he wasn't under the influence (I actually thought he might have been trolling the cop/maybe trying to drum up a lawsuit) and I too think the cop was wrong to arrest. Your comment about cops asking "Should I" vs "Can I" arrest is a good one! It really seems that cops would much rather arrest first and let you deal with it later if you're not guilty or not under the influence. And that is completely wrong IMO!!!! It should be the minimum amount of intrusion into our lives.
The problem is, we the taxpayers have to pay out that money. So the police never actually suffer any consequences. The more money, a municipality has to pay out in these cases, the less is used for public services that are actually needed.
@@deebee4575 yes.. i am aware of that.. there needs to be another alternative to where it hits the their pockets and not us taxpayers then there might be less arrests..
@@deebee4575 But it does come out of the city or county's budget, and I would like to think that the city councilmembers are not too pleased when their police department causes their city to get sued. And hopefully they would then take steps to make sure their police officers obey the law and don't abuse their citizens.
had a situation like this happen to me years ago, coming off the highway with my brights on, didnt talk much just had to go through a lot of stuff to get to drive home. it was stupid. made me not trust law enforcement. know a few local police that i trust but beyond that i dont trust any of them.
I found it interesting that he was mirandized before he was asked the weed question. If he's under the influence as the officer suspects, he isn't able to comprehend the Miranda warning, which makes his statement inadmissible (this came up in a murder case, the confession was thrown out due to the accused being under the influence when he was initially arrested and interrogated).
The cop is full of it. He said he smelled alcohol yet he blew zero. Then when he blew zero he changed it to pot. Also taking too long to find your stuff is quite innocent and doesn’t mean someone may be drunk. People keep a lot of stuff in their car.
I hope he wins the lawsuit, big, even though the chances may be slim. the competition by police to incriminate you with impossible tests is just downright dirty. even if you get off later it's still a huge cost in time, expense, and stress. just because you're not a lawyer when pulled over that doesn't in no way excuse this racket. that's why this behavior needs to be curbed at every opportunity. maybe the cops can spend more time looking for real crime instead of shaking down the citizens they are duty bound to protect. the cop even got the test he wanted, saw the 0.00, but instead of saying "oh, it's a zero, fix that light ASAP, sign here for this easy fix-it ticket, I'll escort you home to better keep everyone safe, have a nice night," like a mobster, the cop went to harass the kid and family by arrest anyways 😕 I salute the kid in his further effort to encourage law enforcement to protect us instead of preying on us 🍻😎🇺🇸
This is allegedly a free country. The police have no right to ask where you are going or where you have been. He should have gotten his headlight fixed instead of driving with his brights. The policeman could have given him a warning ticket which is canceled when you prove you have had the repair. It always surprises me that serious crimes are sometimes solved during a traffic stop. Don't break the law.
What's in it for the officer? Stats, Better Reviews, Invites to MADD and other events and awards, Overtime if done at the end of a shift, On Call Court Pay, Actual Court Pay. And if you are a really good guy you'll pull in a few other officers to transport, do the test, book, etc., etc. so they get their names on the report and get some OT and Court Time too. It's all a shakedown of the system
Once you are removed from your car and put in the cops car, you are detained and therefore arrested. Never keep your documents in your glove compartment unless you want to risk getting shot for "reaching for a weapon." Always keep them in a pouch on your sunvisor so the cop can see your hands at all times.
This is a great example of how badly designed incentives are for police. We need to get rid of anything that incentivizes arrests but not convictions. How obnoxious!
I hope people that says 'why don't you just comply' understand now why you shouldn't, especially if you're innocent! By helping the officer in his investigation, this gentleman basically said, without even realizing it 'i give up my right'.
No - he will not win unfortunately. The judge will usually side with the police officer. While the young man has good standing, so does the officer. Everything you said is correct.
It's a whole system against the citizen. The resources of the state versus one's individual resources. The DA, the judge, and the officer are all on the same side. The system rarely if ever admits it is wrong. The judges are biased in favor of the officers.
Love the practical video talking though an example DUI arrest. I'm a bit surprised that being placed in the cop vehicle wasn't considered to be "in custody." Do we really need to follow EVERY cop's request/command with the question, "Was that a request or a demand?"
And your last point about cops getting rewards for the most arrests, is exactly why I never became a cop. Originally, thats what I wanted to do. But I saw how much of a joke policing is these days, I decided to pursue other interests.
I'm the same way. Many times over the years I considered becoming a cop. The pay and the prestige are quite attractive. But the problem is, I don't like cops, and I wouldn't want to be surrounded every day by people I don't like!
@@Milesco Yeah seriously..If I were a cop, I know I would be arresting people who should REALLY be arrested...like every member 99.9% of public officials....but you can't do that, because they eat lunch with your boss. Arresting them for treason, which they are all guilty of, would land you in the slammer.
@Andrew - do you know any good civil rights attorneys in VA, especially Richmond Metro area? I don't have an immediate need, but want to proactively have the info. If you're familiar with "The Civil Rights Lawyer" YT channel, he's in WV but gathering referrals for civil rights lawyers in all 50 states. It'd be good to pass that info on the him as well.
Excellent analysis. Thank you. One thing I have been really wanting to ask you is what to do if you're questioned by police as a potential victim. Are there things you need to be careful about saying which even as a victim can get you into trouble.
The police almost NEVER take the accused, without unnecessary delay before a magistrate for a determination of probable cause. Usually it’s straight to booking. That is the real issue at hand for almost EVERY arrest, absent a warrant.
The sixth amendment exists for this reason. It’s particularly useful for when you’re being interrogated because it guarantees you a fast and public trial WITHOUT unnecessary delay. Alongside your lawyer, an impartial jury, etc. More than that most people don’t realize the sixth amendment actually forbids the government from deliberately eliciting incriminating information from an accused, in the absence of a defense counsel. Even better it requires the detectives to inform you of your charges and your accuser. So none of that trying to get you to admit to something you didn’t do or make you look guilty by falsely informing you of the *“overwhelming evidence”* or the classic *”you will be charged if you don’t tell us your side of the story”* / *”You could face serious charges if you don’t come clean”* BS. If they tell you that, they’re already charging you, they just dance around the charges trying to get you to admit to it or incriminate you. However most interrogators and officers get around the sixth and fifth amendment through *”Miranda rights”* and *“Messiah rights”* which while they are required to read to you, do not count as the fully invoked rights they are based off of. In an infamous case a man was actually proven guilty because he remained silent after being read his Miranda rights, the reason? Because he did not invoke them and his silence was used against him. If you’re being held or interrogated do not say *”I want a lawyer”* Instead, invoke your sixth amendment right by saying *”I invoke my sixth amendment rights.”* Don’t even say *”I invoke my sixth amendment right to legal counsel”* because that can be assumed you only invoked the right for legal counsel and thus forfeited the rest of the rights under the sixth amendment. So they might still end up interrogating you or even holding you for unnecessary amounts of time. Typically your lawyer might ask you to forfeit your right to a speedy trial so they can build a defense, but you can invoke it to put the police in the hot seat and thus create less time they actually hold you absent of evidence and lack of legal counsel. ALWAYS invoke your rights by invoking the right itself. The *“you have the right to remain silent”* phrase is a sneaky sneak around the fifth amendment and it’s powerful rights. Just as the *”you have a right to a lawyer”* is a sneak around the sixth amendment. The best way to counter the *”anything you say can and will be used against you.”* Is the fifth amendment, but if you’re in an interrogation room the sixth amendment might be better because if invoked it prohibits the detectives from eliciting incriminating information from you absent of legal counsel as mentioned before. A detective might actually try to talk you out of the sixth amendment by saying it’s only applicable as quoted *”once adversary judicial criminal proceedings have commenced”* as some clever con to get you forfeit these rights. However it should be noted that when you were arrested such proceedings have already commenced since the police are unable to un-arrest you. Only a court can do that so from a logical standpoint, those proceedings have already begun. Hope this helps.
@@Waroftheworldsz Wow, that was an entire thought process! Actually, law enforcers are bound by specific requirements and duties. None of them outweigh the many rights of the People. If by chance a law enforcer violates one of the People’s many rights, it becomes the duty of said person to prosecute the violator. That is where most People have fallen short, they do not know how to protect their many rights. The government schools have failed the People, it is now up to the People to educate themselves to defend their many rights.
@@Richardrefund I agree, despite law enforcers being bound by requirements and duties, they can and have outright abused the power they are given. You can plead your rights all you want, but whether or not the officers honor them is up to them. It's important to invoke these rights whenever you're being arrested, processed or interrogated due to the proliferation of video camera technology. If by invoking your rights a court finds out the officers denied you or violated them, various violations, penalties and doors to further legal action open up. Most infamous was Massiah V United States where the Supreme court upheld that the Sixth amendment prohibited the elicitation of information from the accused. However, it should be noted the US views "Interrogation" different from "deliberate elicitation." Quote: "The definition of "deliberate elicitation" is not the same as the definition of "interrogation" under the Miranda rule established in Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda interrogation includes express questioning and any actions or statements that an officer would reasonably foresee as likely to cause an incriminating response. Massiah applies to express questioning and any attempt to deliberately and intentionally obtain incriminating information from the defendant regarding the crime charged. The difference is purposeful creation of an environment likely to produce incriminating information (Massiah) and action likely to induce an incriminating response even if that was not the officer's purpose or intent (Miranda)." However as was upheld in Rhode Island V. Innis and United States V. Henry: Rhode Island V. Innis: "The Court went on to emphasize that no sixth amendment "protection would come into play if there had been no interrogation." and that: United States V. Henry: "When an objective observer would infer that the officer's speech or conduct was "designed to elicit a response," he will perceive it as at least an implicit demand for information. If, as will generally be the case, the suspect shares this view of the police activity, he will experience the "functional equivalent" of direct questioning." So, it seems that you may have to call out the police on their behavior absent of your legal counsel in order to qualify for 6th amendment protections against interrogations, such as *"I will not answer questions without a lawyer present"* or my earlier phrase *"I invoke my sixth amendment right to legal counsel"* You are not lying about public schools failing people. Ever watch those videos where Harvard students couldn't even name basic countries? In my opinion, it should be made clear that we are indeed responsible for our own education and should never rely on the government for said education. Either way, stay safe friend :D
It might be worth looking into steroid abuse with some certain officers if they have an ego and overreact ... a give away is when they wear smaller uniform shirts to highlight their size to intimidate - acne, balding, short temper and over authoritarian behavior is a good giveaway ... Police gym junkies is also a red flag - Some time ago a bunch of NYPD officers were stood down for steroid abuse in 2008 - Drug testing of officers throughout the US PD's doesn't include steroid abuse or use !
It was raining, some people might have health issues plus it's quite uncomfortable to go out and perform those dumb tests while cold water rains on you. Can't you just request them to do the breathalyzer so you don't have to exit your car? If you pass the breathalyzer, aren't they required to let you go? Just shutting up is usually considered rude and police agents usually make an entire drama situation. The punishment is not the result, but the process of having to go through all that 💩 How can you legally avoid that terrible treatment? This is just humiliating and should be considered abuse of power. If the point is to check if you are drunk or not they should have a proper device to test you right on spot and let you go if you pass it. Faster and with much less drama. I assume there must be alcohol tests using your blood like those used for diabetes as well, perhaps more accurate? You need to change your laws, this is unacceptable IMHO. They should be catching criminals not drivers. Test them quickly with a proper device and let them go (or not) depending on the result.
Probably won't..but at the end of the day...a LOT of people got a an up close, real time tutorial on what drives, and amplifies the distrust/disrespect the general public has for the basic, modern day gendarme...so if the young man opted to turn the light on this.. he did..
I love this - "Officers shouldn't ask 'can I arrest this person" they should ask "Should I arrest this person". Given the Circus that came to town on the heels of this arrest - this cop should not have made this arrest. I know - 20/20 hindsight.
I've seen this video in several other channels, and only you would explain the legality of the officer actions. This kids talks too much and all he probably get out of this lawsuit is the towing fee. NEVER TRUST COPS NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE
I wish I had called a lawyer the last time I got pulled over. I was left on the side of the road in a snow storm at 3am and i have a paralyzed arm and a bad limp 40 miles from home. He would ne give me a ride to a place with heat. I was close to having to have my hand amputated because of frost bite. I was in my plow truck And I got pulled over for snow blocking the license plate in the middle of a big snow storm a few years ago and the cop ticketed me for 4 things and only 1 was not a complete lie The officer also Lied to me when I asked him if I could Park the truck in a lot Across the street and he told me if I can get the owner's permission He would let me and I had the owner's permission within 5 minutes before he ever walked back to my truck Because it happened to be the place I was on my way to plow and he said I only told you that so I thought there's no way you would get permission at 3 o'clock in the morning Now the tow trucks on its way and I can't send it back and then he lied to the Toe company telling them it was a large truck and needed The semi truck Wrecker Which cost me a fortune with the tow company and they even told me That my truck would fit on their normal size flat bed And then he told them not to release my truck without proof I owned the company that the truck Registered too which I couldn't get on a weekend and LLC's don't have a person listed as an owner then we have a person listed as a representative or something like that so I Ended up paying for 4 days of the truck being at the tow yard and lost all the money from plowing ended up paying $1400 to the tow yard and another $500 in tickets and court costs. I never could prove that I owned the vehicle so what I ended up doing was getting a notary to sign something saying they witnessed me signing that I'm the owner which the guy at the tow yard was too dumb to understand that that doesn't actually mean I'm the owner. I lost my snow contract over that and had to Take the owner of the company I was plowing for to small claims court and I won because the guy never showed up but then I couldn't collect because he refused to pay and I didn't know how to proceed on my own so I ended up losing more than $8k over that cop and it was probably much much more because I couldn't plow the rest of the winter Because I had no contract anymore.
Given the FACT that courts have ruled that law enforcement are allowed to lie to a person "under investigation", they are then 'trained' to do so during ANY encounter, and, as pointed out in the video, since "rewards" are given to officers who produce the greatest number of arrests, one MUST assume that the "tweaking", or outright fabrication of the "numbers", be they related to the BAC of the person, OR the "speed" of the vehicle, OR, whatever traffic violation, or vehicle defect, that the officer used to justify the stop, MUST be considered suspect. One MUST always assume that whenever a TWO-legged pig is oinking (speaking), that TWO-legged pig IS lying. THEY ARE NOT YOUR 'friend'.
Honestly, i’m confused. You say don’t take a breathalyzer because they can arrest you with a 0.00. However, they arrest you for declining the breathalyzer. So what’s the difference here? I’m seeing the same result.
Yeah never EVER take the field sobriety tests. They are completely arbitrary, experts who train cops to do them watching this concluded the kid passed with flying colors. But Winters says he failed, why? cause he wanted to see it.
I think you're wrong that he won't win his lawsuit. This was 100% a fishing expedition. Now, he may lose some of his settlement money over the cop countersuing him for defamation if they find he has valid claims of defamation sure. But as courts have held, traffic stops must be concluded in a reasonable amount of time and this stop escalated beyond the reasonable amount of time. This was a 19 year old college athlete. Sure, he's legally an adult but what real life experience does he have? For all we know, this might've been his first time being pulled over or even interacting with a police officer and he's probably not watching RU-vid videos on how to protect yourself from the police or what to do/not do at a traffic stop. He's probably just trying to have some fun before he gets tossed into the real world. Luckily, this life experience will help him grow and I suspect he's winning 6 figures at minimum in his lawsuit
A few months ago I was stopped going 62. The speed limit in that rural area has *always* been 65. (I mean for 50+ years.) At the top of the hill was a motorcycle cop who pulled me over. I gave him my license and insurance and he asked was there an emergency that I needed to be there for. I just said no. He leaned his arm along the window frame where a device in his hand hovered over the area of the VIN not so subtly scanning it. He told me the speed limit was 55 and to slow down - no ticket. I went on my way but was baffled. How could it be 55?? The next time I drove that way, I saw the city limit sign had been moved a mile from where it had been all these years! I assumed this was done so they could acquire that land for the new veteran's cemetery BUT never heard a word about it on the news. Anyway, the only words I said to him was 'no' and 'ok'.
I worked at trucking company shop that was in the middle of nowhere, near a known party spot. My work hours was 4 AM to noon, which included weekends, and put me on that road a little after 3 AM Friday and Saturday nights. Getting pulled over for bullsh*t traffic stops was a weekly occurrence. Kept my paperwork on my dash and handed it over before the a-holes could say anything, staring straight ahead. Never looked at them. The usual question was where I'm going. My answer, "To work from my house". Nothing more. They would stick their head in my window, I guess to get a whiff of my *ss or obtain probable cause. God only knows what the perverts were searching for. When asked if I was drinking, I asked what probable cause they had to assume I was. They are fishing for probable cause and It's best to shut that down quickly. Driving on a certain road at a certain time is not probable cause and they know it. I got quite good at calling their bluff. Key thing, keep your yap shut. Very few times they asked me to get out of my truck. If asked any more questions like "will you do field sobriety tests", I answered with, "Is there probable cause." They know arresting a person without it, they are wide open for a lawsuit.
Where are you going tonight? Do I have to answer that question? Where are you coming from? Do I have to answer that question? Yes. Am I under arrest? No. Have you been drinking tonight? Do I have to answer that question? .........
MAAD has gone a step too far, IMO, recommending unconstitutional laws. I can understand their concerns, especially if a family member has been harmed by a drunk driver, but let’s not play the line drawing game with our liberty and unalienable rights. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” (Old English proverb)
Would you please explain to us what may or may not constitute as harassment by a public official? It makes me wonder if this might fall into harassment by a public official? Isn’t that also in some states “abuse/negligence of power?”
Where's the harassment in this case? I explain in the video how Winters likely had a solid stop and a solid arrest. If Winters arrested Tayvin for this several more times, maybe there's a harassment claim.
If they blow 0.0 then the next phrase LEO says is that they are under arrest…that would be harassment as many people have poor priopriocrption, ADHD, and even connective tissue disease that would make a life long tea roller “fail” a purely subjective test as the field sobriety test. LEO is to enforce the law, not to ASSUME violation of the law, and wouldn’t the assumption by this LEO then be considered harassment? Furthermore, not everyone has a clean glove compartment box, the average American usually stuff things in there that never get to see the light of day again (napkins, car repair receipts, straws, air fresheners, probably even parking tickets, etc). So that alone would be a “delay” and is not a justifiable cause to believe the driver is impaired. These things combined seem more like harassment and chasing the awards you mentioned, which is quite the opposite of law enforcement. That is why I was asking given some states have laws about harassment.
@@PyrettaBlaze "If they blow 0.0 then the next phrase LEO says is that they are under arrest" Dui is driving under influence, it doesnt mean alchohol. all that means is he has a bad case for alchohol so he moves onto a different thing that makes you under influence. harrassment has to be repeated.
@@PyrettaBlaze but if this is a first incident. he admitted to breaking the law. i agree the cop doing this shouldn't have reached for a DUI when it was clear he was sober. you wont get harassments because the stop was legal. all that you can get is that the evidence collected after the investigation into the DUI was past the scope since he pulled him over for a highbeam, he admitted to the crime, cop should have issued citation and let him go, but thats just going to mean that it would prevent a dui, it doesnt mean he is criminally or civily liable. you cant just make up applications of the law
I don't live in America (thankfully) but I will offer free medical advice. These subjective "impairment" tests are utterly useless. Everyone will get nystagmus at extremes of lateral gaze, people rarely follow instructions to the letter and the scientific basis for these is shaky at best. Objective tests like breathalyser (appropriately calibrated) or blood/urine drug tests fine...but this junk? Nope. Absolutely under no circumstances would I ever consent to doing them. No police officer is sufficiently trained in the subtleties of neurological examination to appropriately interpret these tests. Yet again an example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Never, ever, ever do them.
Sure did. Frankly, the officer's conduct was outrageous. The breathalyzer showed 0.00 and he *_still_* arrested him! If i were on the jury, I'd award big $$$. This is why we (sadly) need to teach our children *not* to talk to the police when they start asking questions. Like seatbelts and fire extinguishers, it is crucial that we know our rights *_before_* we need to use them. It's a shame that it has to be this way.
Unbelievable. Fortunately, as of February a Judge has this case to go forward. Prior to that the city of Newton appealed the lawsuit and filed a countersuit.
I think you did a good evaluation of this video. Bad on them for making an iffy arrest, good on them for dragging a DRE in and sorting it out. He may not win a lawsuit but the heat it brings will make this agency pay more attention to DWI enforcement. Most cops are not trying to win the toaster and DWI arrests are complex, time-consuming, and rarely worth the squeeze. I arrested a guy for DWI who had 19 DWI arrests with 9 convictions. This tells you how hit-and-miss they can be. His condition at the time was significantly more obvious than the average DWI if you know what I mean.
Keep your documents handy. Give them to the officer. In a kind manner tell the officer, "The time is currently [TIME]. I don't want to delay you in any way, so I'm going to assert my right to remain silent." Now shut up and let him write you your ticket. Don't let him goad you into speaking.
Never do the field sobriety test. In police academy we had folks 25 years old to 57, NONE of us passed the test. Voice your exercise your 5th and 6th amendment rights and have lock jaw.
I've heard of some cities or towns where a lot of residents drink a lot of alcoholic beverages. Law enforcement officers may assume that "It's five o'clock somewhere" and just about everyone is drinking. I hardly ever drink. I'm a bit resentful of some law enforcement officers or politicians who assume that just about everyone drinks and drives.
mfer really expects a 19 year old to have a deep legal understanding of his rights lmfao. saying the lawsuit will lose after you picked apart how garbage the cop's "evidence" was is also pretty rich. any judge with common sense will not let this crap slide.
