I believe he said 2 conservative judges. I'm not sure I heard that correctly because the constitution is neither left or right and they are bound to base their decision on that and not their political leanings. This should also be true for liberals judges as well.
Ah 2 on state supreme court. A prosecutor, trial judge, court of appeals. There are a lot of people in government that do not want us having the rights we have.
@@ygrittesnow1701I think it is more complex than that. They have priority one - their job which is to prosecute, arrest and prevent crime. If a few innocent people get busted oops no biggie to them. It’s the cost of doing business in their mind. That’s why cops and da offices should never be buddy buddy
@@davepirtle9790 So much for the judicial being setup on the principle that it better to let 100 guilty go free then to convict a SINGLE innocent person.
@@robertthomas5906 I dunno, a foil guy vs someone with an actual sharpened saber, things could get annoying. Especially as lawyers tend to be epee guys... I've done all three, so just some adjustment to remember what is and isn't a target and how, which isn't much as most touches ended up being a thrust anyway. Some years back, the eldest came back from college bragging that she was captain of her school's fencing team. Those lessons paid off, I guess. Took her outside with our foils and equipment, still took her on points. Knee was twice normal size, but not too shabby for a guy in his 50's.
@@davepirtle9790 That's why you never answer the door for police. Unfortunately most people don't know their rights and that's why the knock and talk strategy works
Policing has gotten lazy. They'd prefer to trample your constitutional rights rather than play it straight. Sympathetic to the job, but being a criminal to catch criminals is unacceptable.
It always has been, people as a whole take the easy route through life. The problem is the lack of accountability for doing so and the courts making it easier and easier to excuse.
The awkward way I try and describe it is that say you're employed to do a job. To properly do your job, after each task you complete you need to jog around a building the size of a superwalmart. Now if you don't jog around the building, nothing will happen to you. No lost wages, no firing, no effect on advancement, at most a verbal or minor note in your employment record. Now if you do choose to skip the jog, you get more tasks done, your supervisors are happier you're more productive, and your chances of promotion are increased. How many people will make the good faith effort to run around that building consistently, let alone without fail? Without accountability for the behaviour, it's encouraged.
Look at it this way . They ran his plate he didn't live there . They have a high crime rate and he is just chilling scouting out the area. Then when they ask for ID he takes off ? Sound like he's visiting friends to you ? Let's hear your idea for changing law enforcement. You seem smart let's start a discussion about ideas . Not just hating on cops.
@@nellietolb420 We already had it laid out for us centuries ago. Unfortunately our local communities which are an important part of that formula have almost vanished. There's not enough paying attention to effectively call government out on corrupt actions. We've all been stuck on treadmills of survival and entertainment so we aren't being active participants in our government like we should be. Corporations and the government itself have worked for decades now to limit citizen agency, and monopolize power. What we're stuck with now won't improve any until we start finding ways to carve corporations and government out of our daily lives.
Yep. I was stopped a couple years ago while on foot, and was given 3 stories in about 5 minutes as to why! Just answered his questions and moved along. But then, I wasn't doing anything wrong. Why get so upset if your not guilty? It sounds like they need to deal with that area, as someone isn't doing their job!
A consensual conversation only lasts until you try to walk away, then it becomes "fleeing". They do not tell you that you are detained or under arrest, but you are resisting. The truth is what they say it is.
Yup... guilty until proven innocent. That's what happens when you let cowards and criminals take positions of power. They abuse it and serve themselves rather than the people.
cops lie in court all the time... witness the masshole detective relieved of duty and suspended without pay... those are the bastions of integrity behind your law and order, think about that.
The courts also need to rule "a cop cannot arbitrarily charge a person with resisting arrest" when they were not verbally told "you're under arrest" or after they attempt to grab a person without prior warning when the case presents itself
There's also temporary detention without arrest (a "Terry stop" under "Terry v. Ohio"), but the officer should say something like "you are being detained and are not free to leave". It might even involve being briefly handcuffed, but struggling against those cuffs will still get you a resisting charge even if you're not under arrest yet. In an automotive context, a police car's lights signal this. You aren't free to drive off, but you aren't under arrest. But the stop has to be quick.
@dmatech I am familiar with much of the precedent, and this analogy is not clear cut because there are rules surrounding a Terry Stop. Just because a cop activates the overheads doesn't mean the stop is lawful. Everyone should consult their states laws regarding police citizen encounters. In any event, reasonable articulable and particularized suspicion that you have, or are in the commission of a crime is required. In Ga the Supreme Court has determined "you have the right resist an unlawful arrest."
They also need an underlying charge before resisting arrest comes into play. These ridiculous traffic stops that end with a passenger legally refusing to identify and then getting slapped with resisting is ridiculous
If your only charges after an arrest is "fleeing and resisting" I think it's pretty clear that they were illegally arrested and the cops should be punished. The fact that he was convicted for fleeing from cops when they did nothing wrong should have been a gigantic red flag. "Well he was resisting arrest" "Arrest for what?" "Not answering questions!" "About what?" "No idea, didn't get to ask the questions"
Sounds like how they can arrest for failure to ID when they couldnt tell you what crime you were suspected of that needed you to ID in the first place.
When the police have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime and you are detained and not free to go you are under a temporary lesser form of arrest. Resisting temporary detainment gets you arrested for resisting arrest. Resisting arrest (temporary detainment) absolutely can be the primary and only charge. In this case the police did not have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime as required by Supreme Court rulings JL vs Florida and Alabama vs White. Therefore the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the conviction. If the police had reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime the conviction would have been upheld.
@@rosssmith9870 You're conflating an arrest with temporary detainment, which is not correct. An arrest requires probable cause, which is a higher burden of proof than reasonable articulable suspicion. An officer has to be in the process of arresting for a criminal infraction based on probable cause to charge you with resisting arrest. It absolutely cannot be the only thing you're arrested for. Fleeing from a detainment based on RAS would be probably be considered obstruction, not resisting arrest.
Cops always seem to forget that they are all "Civilians" as well. They don't appear to be intelligent enough to understand the second part of that binary is Military.
All this ruling does is teach Michigan police to never admit they had no reason to question/detain someone. It’s easy to make up some BS that stands the court’s test to justifiably detain.
The smart ones will make up pc after the fact and confering with other cops to best cover it up, double check what was /wasn't on body cam, delete body cam, ect.
And go ahead because those cops will be questioned on the stand during trial.......look what happened to the lead detective in the karen read trial....he's now fully suspended without pay. Had his gun,badge, and car all taken away. Police powers stripped.
Still think we live in the Land of the Free ???? --- He was chased down, arrested, and found GUILTY for doing nothing wrong by our 'Highly Trained Professionals' with badges and guns. Let that sink in...
There's no requirement for law enforcement to know the laws they're enforcing. I would blame the DA. Since there was a question that went to the Michigan Supreme Court, I would say that there was a question there. In a completely perfect world that isn't in our dimension, this shouldn't happen again. Since our reality is on the more crap side, this individual did get justice. The subsequent individuals that will be going through the same thing may not be.
@DogDooWinner sometimes there is no question that an act is illegal but the judge can lack the standing or precident to rule in the obvious way. It can get to a higher court to resolve the requirements.
I was parked on a public street in Detroit. Police rolled up on me and asked for id. I just came from the park and my wallet was in my back seat. End result arrested and car impounded for not showing ID. My license and ID was valid. They ignored my ID when they found it during the search. Went to court, but the court had no information on me. Like I was never arrested. Later find out I have a warrant. They are dirty af.
In Canada if you are detained or arrested you have the right to be promptly informed of the reason for it. The legal basis is that the suspect requires this information to make an informed decision whether to comply. It also tends to prevent police from arbitrarily detaining or arresting anyone.
Ostensibly, so do those of us in the U.S. "Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and _to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;_ to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Unfortunately, it doesn't define a timeframe within which you need to be informed. I really think we need to pass an new Amendment modifying all the existing Amendments to eliminate loopholes and unforeseen oversights which the government has managed to find over 240 years. Think of it as patching exploits.
I was driving home late one night coming back from a filming trip. It was around closing time of the bars. At the time I was driving a bright green Jeep Compass with a 3 inch lift and 33 inch tires. I got pulled over just outside of a small town by Montana highway patrol. I pulled over at the first safe place to do so. With both hands in plain sight when the officer got to my window I asked what I was being pulled over for. I wasn't speeding and I didn't have any lights out. He said my vehicle fits the description of a vehicle seen leaving the scene of a breaking and entering. I replied, are you sure that is the story you want to go with? He says why would you think its a story? I asked again is that what you are going to stick with? He says yes I have reason to think you're vehicle is the one I am looking for. I said really look at my Jeep, look at the color, and the lift and the tires, and tell me you have seen another Jeep this color with a lift and tires this big. He says just because I haven't seen one doesn't mean there isn't. I said I can tell you for a fact that there isn't, since I am friends with the Lake County Sheriff Don Bell and a s a favor asked him to see if there were any other Compass's in Montana this color, as I had never seen one and was looking for one. He told me, mine was the only one. After telling the officer that, he says I was just doing a DUI check and I don't smell or see any alcohol, you're free to go. I said why not just say that to start with. He says if I say that then most people will not talk allowing me to smell their breath.
I live in Montana and I thought that police aren't allowed to lie like that (unlike many other states). Apparently whoever told me that was lying - probably a cop...
Become????? This has ALWAYS been a guilty until proven innocent country. What do you think lynch mobs were doing back in the day? Do you really think they cared about due process?
Per the police who have forgotten that they are ONLY in charge/control of individuals breaking the LAW. They don't seem to understand that they are NOT arbiters of what free, law abiding citizens can and cannot do or say....
If they don't tell you what reasonable articulable suspicion, or worse lie to you, how do you know if you're legally detained? That seems to violate your freedom of association, or disassociation.
Its worse than that. Courts have often ruled that they dont need reasonable suspicion at the time of arrest. Just that they can articulate the suspicion after the fact (i.e. make up semi-coherent reason later)
@@RU-vidMan98 Cops are supposed to have reasonable suspicion at the time of a detainment for it to be legal. But because cops, DAs, and judges are so corrupt they know they can just make it up after the fact with no problem. What you’re probably referring to is the case where it was found that as long as probable cause existed for any crime, even if the cop was completely unaware of the probable cause and arrested you for a completely separate crime that they didn’t have probable cause for, the the arrest is still justified. I remember Steve covering this asinine case. I’ll have to look for it. If I find it I’ll reply with it here.
@@RU-vidMan98 I found it. The video is titled “Court Says Cops Can Come Up w/Probable Cause AFTER the Arrest”, uploaded on September 19th, 2023. Steve has covered a lot of authoritarian judges over the years but these guys take the cake.
He wasn't convicted of not answering questions. The dissent opinion would not require anyone to answer questions. It would however require them to stand there and be asked questions. How you answer them or not is up to you..
Which two judges? Maybe two judges that have read a US Supreme Court decision? This video doesn’t go into any detail which is normal for a brief video. The reason that it matters is because was this MI Supreme Court ruling based on the US Constitution or the MI Constitution? The US Supreme Court has ruled that flight from the police is reasonable suspicion. MI might have a different standard under their state constitution.
@@tvc1848 But reasonable suspicion of what? You have to have an underlying CRIME. Just running away from police doesn't PROVE you are guilty of anything? I mean wasn't this the same group of "Judges" that gave us Terry v Ohio and Qualified Immunity? If you wanted to live in a police state THEY are certainly taking us there. Good Job Michigan Supreme Court!
I was reminded of Tony Hillerman’s short story “The Great Taos Bank Robbery.” Police spent three days hunting down two guys, guys who eventually called the police to come pick them up. Held for months in jail, at arraignment they were released because the bank had never been robbed and there were nothing with which to charge them!
Should printout and laminate a card that reads. "I hereby invoke and reserve all of my rights granted and protected by the constitution. Including my right not to be searched. My right to remain silent. And my right to have an attorney present during questioning." Then just stay silent.
Funny when they will arrest you for being silent, and then the first thing they say when reading your Miranda Rights is "you have the right to remain silent".
I know people like to say this, but it's not always true. That elderly man who got arrested in Oakland for killing a burglar, was arrested because the burglar's partner told police he shot and the guy (who later died). But he refused to give police a statement. Police suspected it was a botched burglary and he fired in self defense, but when he refused to give a statement they had to go off of what info they had. Which in this case was a witness claiming that he shot the guy. It'll probably all get sorted out in court after he's talked with legal counsel (he's already been released, but the prosecutor still has the option to file charges). I agree there's a danger in talking too much with police. But if he'd just told police it was his home, these guys were breaking in, and he feared for his life, before invoking his right to remain silent, they probably would've let him go on his own recognizance while they investigated the incident further.
1st words outta ur mouth: Am I free to go, or is there a reason to detain me? This polighty asserts that your not volunteering info. & laying the basis for leaving ASAP!
Two little words: "Probable Cause" If the Cop can't articulate WHY he detained you, HE is in the wrong. It works every time, assuming the Judge understands the Law and isn't hopelessly corrupt.
Police do Not have to articulate, to you, why you were pulled over. That's the law, as Steve stated in this video. A police departments policy might require it though
Secondary charges as primary prosecution should should require a MANDATORY jury trial. The jury instructions should also include a short primer on the term “non sequitur.”
I ran, I feared for my life, cop was talking about murder, I thought he wanted to kill me.! Still waiting for my day in court. I will be looking this Michigan case up for possible legal defense?
@@rosewinter8693 A seed of doubt doesn’t negate reasonable suspicion. In fact the definition of suspicion in itself means doubt. Otherwise it would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a huge difference between a lawful detention and a conviction.
It's because Michigan has been insane cops driving around shooting non lethal rounds at anyone for any reason. Most other states the justices will still be delusional thinking that cops are good people interested in being fair and just. Jury nullification needs taught and the da should have to go before grand juries before charges except the most basic again
@@tvc1848 you look at any case there will be references to many other cases. That’s how judges have been doing things was to compare issues to see if they apply and lawyers have been doing the same to bolster client’s standing based on other cases.
In Battle Creek yesterday, they called in the swat team over 2 dogs fighting, and the guy didn't want to accept his ticket. So they had a 2 hour stand off with what ended up looking like an empty house. It's on James Freeman's channel
I think it was in Atlanta some time ago where cops saw a guy look at them and then ran. The cops chased him and arrested him based on the fact he ran. They threw him in the back of police van. I don't recall if they ruffed him up but, they let him bounce off the walls and Floor of the van on the way to lockup. He died. The police chief made a public statement about what happened. The chief said, "running is not illegal"
If they used illegal force then obviously they are wrong. If the judge is going by the US Supreme Court rulings on the US Constitution on fleeing and not the state constitution, the judge is likely wrong.
this is why you always need to get the cop to state whether or not you are detained and for what specific crime.. IF they won't or can't answer, then it's likely not a legal detainment and if they state that you're not detained, then it's a 'consensual' stop and you don't have to consent and can leave... this is why it needs to be clear when they answer you about if you are detained or not... if they keep hedging or not answering, then you can just state: " if you refuse to tell me if I am being detained, then I will consider this a consensual stop and I don't consent any longer and I am leaving right now"... then leave if they still refused to tell you that you ARE detained....
If they ask you if they can ask you some questions, then they have nothing. They are fishing. If they suspect you of a crime they won't ask for permission to ask questions.
Man, I can't remember the last time someone pulled out a dictionary to check a word. Feels like something great we lost. Remember how each time you did that you'd read a few other words?
Same. The prosecutor I think even said the officers didn't tell him he was detained or to stop because they didn't have time. Yet they followed him for awhile before he took off running.
@@Jason-hm1scthe average person tries to avoid cops in their every day lives but cops will force themselves into situations just to get a reaction then create a crime.
@@Jason-hm1sc This video doesn’t explain it but what is “took off”? Did he simply walk or drive away at a slow or normal speed or did he start driving fast or running on foot? If he actually started running, that if itself is reasonable suspicion.
counterpoint: chat with cops and get to know them, and have then get to know you. if we can get back to the community police model, we will all be better off.
@@kenbrown2808 then they take what they know about you and use it as a confession that you committed a crime they are “investigating”. There is not a single incident police can’t make worse.
Tried to absorb the entire analysis of this important decision in the law but at 5 minutes 30 seconds still getting distracted by that AWESOME Third Eye Blind shirt! Their first album was the bomb!
Can imagine a cop running after someone running away shouting, "You're Detained! You're Detained!" Then writing in their report that they told the suspect as much.
If a cop has to ask, rather than make an immediate arrest because they have zero evidence, and the person doesn't want to answer, then what's the point of detaining them.......🤔 There isn't any... beyond hoping that the person will incriminate himself, or cross their fingers and hope something magically turns up for them. This routine almost always involves demanding identification, but what that is supposed to tell them about what you've been doing over the last few minutes is one of life's great mysteries.
@OrdenJust: It would be "resisting detainment", and if it's not "on the books", the cop would probably just use the statute for "resist, obstruct, delay".
@@daleallen7634 Thank you for this reply. I am not sure that I will ever encounter the situation. But one never knows. I have already been "swatted" once, in a way. Somehow two cops were inspired to wake me up at midnight for a "welfare check" that no one I know asked for.
Brings to mind the cop who suspected a kid of "avoiding him". Cop attempted to detain the kid, but the language barrier made this problematic. Cop ended up having a heart attack and died, and they at first tried to charge the kid with felony murder. I kid you not.
"The Law requires more than a supposition. The Law requires a fact. But if you are correct in supposing I have objections, and correct again in supposing my objections to be treasonable, The Law would let you cut my head off." -Thomas More, they cut his head off
@@shiina29 They are free to ask, but you don't have to answer any questions, 5th amendment right. Also it would be a VOLUNTARY contact meaning you can walk away. It COULD NOT be lawful investigative detention without proper RAS.
So if the Police Officers find a person in a high crime area, they figure that person is a criminal? We really need to hire people with higher IQ’s to be police officers!😂
No, the notices that are going out to police stations are; "If you don't have anything on a suspect and they take off, lie and say that they matched a description."
If the police are approaching in a high crime area and the person “takes off”, that alone can be reasonable suspicion, depending on how a person took off. Running or merely walking away?
If courts could just start docking police pay for unreasonable and/or unjustified disregard for citizen rights, they could put almost put a stop to alot of this nonsense.
"What is your reasonable suspicion of a crime committed or about to be committed? If you continue this unconstitutional and illegal harassment you will lose your qualified immunity for knowingly violating my basic rights."
All of the states need to make this reform. California made a ruling where you if you changed you path to avoid cops, that could not be considered suspicious. In California, the cops are so bad that people will go out of their way not to have to walk near them, and cops used to say that the act of avoiding police was in itself, suspicious, but the court said no, that is not suspicious because a reasonable person can have a fear of the police and because of that, are lawfully allowed to avoid them by crossing the street, turning around, or any other act, including running away. I hope all of the states start to rein in the overt violation of rights that citizens face every day in the US.
100% correct! Even people who've never had any run ins with bad cops are now aware just how badly it can go for them, with any police interaction. It's never in your interest to stop and talk to the cops, whether you're innocent or guilty of anything.
This is great, but will it be enforced is the issue. Will criminal cops who break these laws be fired, arrested, and jailed? I hope so, but it seems unlikely. But, it’s a great start and I’m happy to know there are at least a couple judges who are willing to break away from the usual police state rulings.
@@scottmcintosh2988 Sure, but if we have judges who aren’t corrupted at all the other levels then we’re making progress. We don’t have that right now, but this gives me a little hope.
unless you need them lolz... like you daughter is is experiencing a break in and the cops arrive. you would suggest to her to remain silent? context changes everything. blanket statements are for non-thinkers.
Cops typically lie to me when articulating why I’m being stopped, especially when I’m on foot. Always a concerned caller or some kind of excuse to stop and question me when out jogging. Somehow my hydration pack is also considered suspicious when it’s 90+ and miserable outside.
Contra Costa County, California recently paid 8.4 million dollars for a false arrest. There will be more multimillion dollar awards like this for false arrest. I live in San Jose, California. We are so thoroughly disgusted with Police misconduct, there will be many more multimillion dollar judgments against the Police to pay both actual damages and punitive damages for Police misconduct.
@@fred_derf An officer is going to pay millions of dollars in a judgment? Or maybe the officer is going to file for bankruptcy and the claimed victim gets nothing.
@@fred_derf Why? Article III in the Constitution for starters. Then on into the actual United States Code commonly called a section 1983 civil rights violation and the requirement that there was a specific right that should be known by the officer or an actual statutory law. Qualified immunity as usually discussed deals with a specific federal law. A state can enact its own laws on immunity.
I was "walking while nobody" and got stopped on tarry where I refused to ID and won vocally to be released (actually verbal confirmation I was never detained or arrested before I walked away) without disclosure of papers, only to have the officer second guess letting me free and called in to have me arrested for leaving by another officer blocks away on sight with no questions asked. I beat obstruction in court immediately, but I am told that "false arrest" can only be fought if you "do not consent" to arrest by resisting (which is a crime). You have to resist while in the right to then sue for false arrest? Does not resisting arrest legally make you in the wrong and then legal to detain and arrest due to "valid suspicion based on action"? This is in another state, but doesn't the 16th amendment not allow willing slavery because it is de facto under duress? I have no idea how this case relates other than "walking while doing nothing as a nobody" does not a suspect in MI make, but it is hopeful. I walked away while allowed, and gave my hands up then immediately wrists when notified I was being arrested. I did not break the law, thus I am screwed?
Good to see you admit. Usually Republican voters on these videos act like conservative judges are against police tyranny. The one thing Republican judges sometimes get right are striking down gun permits. Other than that they’re horrendous. Liberal judges, though they also love cops, are better on most issues related to police.
I was in Vancouver Washington (Clark County) and took off running from the police when they wanted to question me. I thought I had a warrant, but I didn't. I was charged with escape. The next day my attorney had the case dismissed before I even appeared in court. She said they can't charge you with an escape, when they had no reason to detain you. (Btw, I took off running before I was ever cuffed).
@@conscientiousobserver8772not accurate obstruction first requires reasonable suspicion then you have the right to remain silent obstruction is a physical act or lying to obstruct it requires a positive act. Even the law requiring to identify was always illegal but if they have reasonable suspicion you can be arrested in many states for not identifying some states only require arrest until identity was confirmed and whether crime was done then if not you were to be released as how can the crime exist without a crime happening remaining silent was never supposed to be a crime except for driving because you waived that right for ticketing purposes
So basically, unlawful stop, and the only charges they had on him was not stopping and resisting an unlawful arrest. Yea, tell ANY jury that and see how fast they say "not guilty!"
@@BrianButterworth-s4z You honestly sound like a troll. This “both sides are the exact same” stuff is false. Conservative judges are clearly worse. Why do you insist on acting like there are no differences?
@@joe-s5r unusual enough that an attorney turned to a dictionary. I'm bored and thought I'd drop the definition for those less fortunate than yourself who obviously must be surrounded by people who use such vernacular on a regular basis. Makes me wonder though... Why do you have this kind of language being used around you on a regular basis? Sounds very formal to me.
