News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Please show me some evidence of an illigal stop leading to an arrest and conviction on the charge of the original stop,or failure to ID.
You're defining this as an illegal stop. It was not, in the legal terminology, an illegal stop. That's part of where your confusion is coming in, I think.
I'm happy to find you one of these bodycam YouTube videos of someone failing to ID and getting their window busted out, and then look up the records and see if they actually got convicted of the failure to ID (or obstruction or whatever the statute is where they are). It may take me until later today. Would that influence you, if I found that?
Is driving without headlights in daytime illigal in Florida? That is the stated reason for the stop. If that is not in fact, illigal, then the stop is illigal. Regardless if the officer thinks it's illigal.
As an analogy, lets say an officer stopped you for wearing your backpack on your left shoulder, which he says is in violation of some ordinance. Is that a legal stop?
And to answer yoir question, if you find footage where the initial stop was deemed unconstitutional, but the subsequent conviction fir failing to ID stands, I will accept that I am wrong.
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-an-unlawful-police-stop-23464
If the cop sees you (allegedly) not wearing your seat belt, and then pulls you over for a seat belt violation, that's a legal stop. I sort of agree with you that the headlights thing is bullshit (and briefly looking at the internet I think you're right). For all I know the officer realized that the headlights was bullshit, and randomly added in the seat belt thing. But, regardless, him saying the issue was the seat belt is going to hold up in court completely, and so refusing to ID based on that is going to get you in trouble. Your lawyer is going to have a hell of a time making that argument, especially if you then obstructed and resisted arrest.
IDK where this "if I don't agree, then I need to physically resist the cops, because it'll be okay" thinking came from, but that's not how it works legally. That's part of why I am taking time to disagree with this, because people do get busted for crimes because of listening to what the internet told them.
What was a stop where the initial stop was even deemed unconstitutional? If I knew that, then I might be able to answer you. Except for some landmark cases, I don't really know of it happening. I feel like that doesn't happen very often. I feel like people getting charged for failing to ID is very common (including where they are trying to argue on the side of the road that the stop is improper in some way, and that's why they are failing to ID and it's okay.) That's sort of my point.
Well, I watch the video when it camentonlohht a fewndays ago, I don't remember anything about the aeatbelt. But the reason the officer gave to the driver was driving without headlights in inclement weather, which would only be a violation if the weather were inclement, which it wasn't, and the driver states that. The officer doesn't get to change his mind as to the reason for the stop, thats well established in law.
As to physically resisting, the driver did not physically resist, he passively resisted, refusing to unlock the car door andnexit the vehicle. He didn't at any point lay hands on the officers.
A stop where the initial stop was deemed unconstitutional: Here's one . The first one on YouTube. I admit I haven't watched this one, but then same judge is on YouTube presiding over dozens of similar cases, and there are many other similar videos.
A few crucial points you are missing:
There's absolutely no legal obligation for the cops to answer any of your questions. Feel free to ask them anything you want, but they don't need to answer. Further, they can lie to you about why they pulled you over. I've seen videos where they were stopping an armed violent offender known for resisting arrest for their bigger crimes. So the cop pulls them over and wants to keep them calm so they only tell them something like seat belt or light violation. Then get them out of the car so they can't reach for hidden weapons. And YES there are plenty of videos of people reacting innocently asking the same questions this guy asked only to suddenly pull a gun or something.
I'm sure all states have some law that requires you show your license when pulled over (mine definitely does) . Even for flimsy victimless traffic violations. Even if you absolutely are wearing your seat belt and had video evidence to corroborate, you would still need to show your license if pulled over for a seat belt violation. It doesn't matter that you are innocent. The arguments you'd make on the side of the road are the exact same ones guilty people make. They'll swear up and down they were wearing their seat belt knowing they weren't. Nothing differentiates them from the innocent on the side of the road.
You keep harping about it not truly being inclement weather, but that doesn't matter. Even without the seat belt issue included, they are legally allowed to come up with RAS after the stop. That's one I personally think is utter bullshit but it doesn't change the fact it's legal. After all of this if it turns out he wasn't guilty of the other infractions but they figured out his registration was expired, they can just swap the citation to that even if that wasn't considered until after the stop was done.
This is not supposed to come off as defending cops. I'm all for legally resisting as much as you can, but this wasn't the case here. This was one to fight later in court. This doesn't further the cause of police accountability. This just sets it back and is one more example of the general public being woefully ignorant of the law that strengthens police resistance to positive change.
I linked to the full bodycam video, the officer clearly says that there were two reasons for the stop: Headlights and seat belt.
Your video has the AI voice claiming that failing to give a Miranda warning before opening the door is a "clear 4th amendment red flag." That's a load of steaming crap. Moving on to the actual issue at hand, the charge there was for unlawful carrying of a weapon. The judge's decision is that by the officer randomly opening the door of the guy's vehicle, and then seeing the weapon, that means it was an unlawful search (it was "in plain view" according to the officer / prosecutor, but the judge says it wasn't in plain view until you opened the door). That has literally nothing at all to do with the initial stop being unconstitutional, or failure to ID or anything. It's just to do with how the cop found the gun.
Do you have one where the person failed to ID on a traffic stop, and their lawyer was able to make the argument that the initial stop was improper, and so they didn't have to, and it worked? I feel like those would be super-easy to find, if that argument ever worked, since it is very commonly what people say while they are refusing to ID, and so if their lawyers were able to make it work we would have examples of it working.
Well dont I look the fool. I'm pissed off now, I didn't watch the video. Inhave seen like 3 where tthisnsame judge throws out the case based on an illigal stop. Ill find them tomorrow. As to yoir question, you keep leaving oit the illigal part. Yes, not providing ID is an offence if the initial stop is legal. Now you are again correct, the officer does claim that the driver wasn't wearing a seat belt, so I suppose the initial stop can be justified, which makes refusing to ID an offence.
Yeah, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just don't know of it.
I also like that judge, AI voice aside I feel like he has a perfectly valid point. I also have a feeling he was the same judge I saw scorching a prosecutor one time for cutting a plea deal where it seemed like they could have prosecuted the guy and he was getting away with sexual assault with a pretty minimal sentence, and he was furious at the prosecutor for not doing their job. He couldn't exactly just take over the prosecution's job for them, I think he sent the lawyers away to work out a new plea deal instead, and they came back with one that was still pretty minimal but I think added in some jail time. He sort of yelled at the guy some more and then just approved the plea deal, but if that is the judge I'm thinking of, it seems like he cares a lot about the purpose of what he's doing, which is a really good thing.