Cops in here - video of kid getting pulled over

[stevo]

I am guessing that you weren't detained and slammed onto the hood of a police cruiser for simply walking down the sidewalk in the middle of the day. What were you doing that led to the confrontation?

I have told the story before, but not sure if it was on this site. Incoming wall of text.

I was riding in the back of a truck with four friends coming back from a morning of swimming. I only knew the people in the cab as a friends of one of my buddy's. A highway patrol pulled us over, and wanted to search the truck. The cop found a bottle of whiskey behind the truck set, and was giving the driver hell about having an open container. Us kids in the back knew nothing about it, but the cop wanted to see at the point if us kids had been drinking. A couple more cop cars pulled up, Give us and the driver breath tests, all clean. At this point, cop A started to get pissed (I guess because he wasn't getting some kind of proof) and we were required to each to find a spot of hood or trunk and place hands down. When the officer got to me to search I mentioned the hood was burning my hands. He popped off some shit, and pushed me face and chest down on the hood, and told me if I moved I would be going to jail for resisting. He took his time searching me (I only had shorts and shoes on), then zip-corded and hands and led me to the ditch to sit along the other boys. When it came time to give ID's I didn't have one(was 15), so I got detained to the Hill County Sheriffs office to be ID. The fingerprinted and mug-shotted me to check my ID, but since I had never been in trouble, they couldn't ID me, and stuck me back in the holding tank. I was there for hours until my brother showed up, even then he had to bring stupid shit to ID me, birth certificate, SS card, etc. The next day I had giant water blisters on my face, and worse ones on my stomach and chest. I lost some skin over it. It was a giant clusterfuck, and since I wasn't formally charged or arrested I was told I couldn't do anything. I have never totally let it go, henceforth, I keep the eye out for crooked cops fucking up.

Stevo

[Up0n0ne]

There are states with laws on the books requiring to show ID, and it could be argued that simply showing ID is not considered unreasonable. The supreme court tends to agree.

Within reason I also see no problem with checkpoints or at least the intent of the TSA. Criminals and terrorists shouldn't be able to hide behind the 4th ammendment, an amendment that was written for a much simpler society over 200 years ago.

Have to disagree on the check points Big A. They tell us it's all in the name of "security" but it's not, sorry.
They're not checking for criminals or terrorists at these checkpoints.
Plus there's more of a chance of getting struck by lighting than to come across a terrorist on the roadway.
Saying that an ammendment wasn't written for today's society is to give up your rights and hand over the Constitution and say well this doesn't apply for today.
It is what this nation was founded on and sorry but that thought process is the same reason these puppets in office continue to strip away our Liberties and step on this nations Constitution.
And why people just give up their right, thinking the govt. is for our best interest. You do know our nation has become a police state and socialist? Which is NOT what this nation is supposed to be, but is what happens when we allow the govt. to get too big and the people just hand over their rights.
Sorry for the rant, not all directed towards you.

[LANTIRN]

Same here, but honostly nowadays it's getting out of hand.


Last statement by the cop was, "Remain in your vehicle".

I see this a lot with videos posted online, and that does make me extra cautious about my rights, but like I have said above even though I have this "preception" that my rights are about to be violated, with the exception of the TSA I haven't had my rights violated.

[Up0n0ne]

I agree completely, though I honestly cannot remember ever having an officer ask to search my vehicle. They either give me a ticket or warning and let me go; guess I am just lucky I have only dealt with reasonable officers. And I have always had them give me a reason for being stopped, I gave ID, they ran it in the computer, and 90% of the time that was it. Even at one of the I10 checkpoints they never asked to see inside my car; they pulled me over, walked a dog around, and then waved me through.

Airports are an entirely different issue and there is a reason why I refuse to fly now unless my job or family depends on it.

Same here, but honostly nowadays it's getting out of hand.

Anyone know what the cop said on the radio before he walked off?

Last statement by the cop was, "Remain in your vehicle".

[jnobles06]

Negative. The law states immediately pull to the right. Most officers prefer that you pull out of traffic but not if you have to travel a long distance to do so. When an individual travels for a while it starts throwing red flags up, like they are trying to hide things in the vehicle. Law is written immediately but it is up to officer discretion whether to write the citation.

hmm. good to know. i always just pull over immediately.

[LANTIRN]

As a fellow LEO, I have stopped individuals over for registration/inspection violation that I was incorrect in seeing. I usually walk up and let them know why I stopped them and apologize and send them on their way unless I see something else in plain view.

Now in regards to this officer, there is a good faith clause for Probable Cause for stopping a vehicle or detaining individuals. For instance he thought there was a registration violation so he initiated a traffic stop. That is where the good faith clause comes into effect, meaning in good faith the officer thought he observed a violation. Due to the individual not yielding to an emergency vehicle imediately, he now has another traffic violation (probable cause) to identify the offender of the violation. So when he realizes the registation is valid (in good faith) he still has an offense for not yielding to an emergency vehicle. So he can explain that to the driver and identify him and complete his investigation.

Now unless an officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause of an offense an individual does not have to identify him/herself in Texas. So the driver is correct, but the officer pretty much froze when challenged and didn't know where to go with his investigation. He had PC for not yielding to an emergency vehicle violation but got tied up with the individual challenging his authority.

Kind of brief explanation but I hope everyone gets the idea.

The only real problem I have is we did not see if the kid really kept driving or not; both parties made a different claim so I really don't want to comment on if the kid was right or wrong in that respect.

That being said, several times when I have been signaled to pull over on a busy street I kept driving (slowly) to a nearby parking lot or side street that was safer for myself and the officer. I always signal that I am pulling over, and I have never been confronted about it. I think officer are generally thankful that you pull over where they are least likely to be run over by an idiot. I don't know if that is a law or not but if you do it with some common sense most officers seem to be understanding and grateful about it.

As for the Good Faith explanation; I think that is a very common sense law when applied correctly. People make mistakes and I have nothing wrong with being stopped as either as a case of mistaken identity or mistaken wrong doing so long as the officer is respectful about it; tells me why he is stopping me (even if he is wrong), and lets me go as soon as he realizes he made a mistake. With me it's not a big deal as long as they don't make it a big deal.

[hustleman]

i thought the driver was allowed to continue to drive to a place where they thought was a safe place to stop, like out of traffic, or something like that.

Negative. The law states immediately pull to the right. Most officers prefer that you pull out of traffic but not if you have to travel a long distance to do so. When an individual travels for a while it starts throwing red flags up, like they are trying to hide things in the vehicle. Law is written immediately but it is up to officer discretion whether to write the citation.

[stevo]

Correct, but not knowing you is no reason to stop you and ask for ID. Innocent until proven guilty, and if they don't have reason to think you have done anything wrong then there is no reason to stop you. An increase in population does not mean I have to surrender my rights for "safety".

I agree about being stopped without due reason, and as I think the bullshit of "while I have you pulled over, I'm going to search you and your car, etc". And I disagree with the bullshit of "I thought your inspection was expired but isn't, but now I am going to take you to jail for something in the car that was made observable due to my mistaken stop".

But saying all this, I agree with the ID check. Pretty soon when visual photographic recognition gets advanced enough, they will be able to ID you just by making you look at the camera. You won't have to carry it, and they still get to know who you are.

Stevo

[jnobles06]

As a fellow LEO, I have stopped individuals over for registration/inspection violation that I was incorrect in seeing. I usually walk up and let them know why I stopped them and apologize and send them on their way unless I see something else in plain view.

Now in regards to this officer, there is a good faith clause for Probable Cause for stopping a vehicle or detaining individuals. For instance he thought there was a registration violation so he initiated a traffic stop. That is where the good faith clause comes into effect, meaning in good faith the officer thought he observed a violation. Due to the individual not yielding to an emergency vehicle imediately, he now has another traffic violation (probable cause) to identify the offender of the violation. So when he realizes the registation is valid (in good faith) he still has an offense for not yielding to an emergency vehicle. So he can explain that to the driver and identify him and complete his investigation.

Now unless an officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause of an offense an individual does not have to identify him/herself in Texas. So the driver is correct, but the officer pretty much froze when challenged and didn't know where to go with his investigation. He had PC for not yielding to an emergency vehicle violation but got tied up with the individual challenging his authority.

Kind of brief explanation but I hope everyone gets the idea.

i thought the driver was allowed to continue to drive to a place where they thought was a safe place to stop, like out of traffic, or something like that.

[JC316]

Cop screwed up and was being a dick about it. Should have just said, whoops, my mistake, go about your business. The kid wasn't out trying to get a cop to pull him over, or purposely seeking trouble, so yeah the cop was out of line IMO.

I have been pulled over twice, both times the officers have told me why they pulled me over and just gave me a warning. Also had cops question me while I was dumpster diving, nearly every time they were completely cool about it.

[Blakeski]

Anyone know what the cop said on the radio before he walked off?

[LANTIRN]

I agree, 200 years ago the population was so low and condensed that people of authority actually knew people and each other by face and name, it isn't possible these days.

Stevo

Correct, but not knowing you is no reason to stop you and ask for ID. Innocent until proven guilty, and if they don't have reason to think you have done anything wrong then there is no reason to stop you. An increase in population does not mean I have to surrender my rights for "safety".

[Big A]

I was 'detained' when I was a 15, and actually was what I would consider a victim of police brutality in the process (forced face down handcuffed on the hood of a very hot highway patrol Chevy Impala mid-day in mid-summer heat, I suffered burns, water blisters and still have scars from it) and was held there until my brother found out and came to the jail and ID'd me. The asshats wouldn't let me call someone to come ID me, a person in the truck I was riding in walked to my brother's house and told him.

Stevo

I am guessing that you weren't detained and slammed onto the hood of a police cruiser for simply walking down the sidewalk in the middle of the day. What were you doing that led to the confrontation?

[hustleman]

As a fellow LEO, I have stopped individuals over for registration/inspection violation that I was incorrect in seeing. I usually walk up and let them know why I stopped them and apologize and send them on their way unless I see something else in plain view.

Now in regards to this officer, there is a good faith clause for Probable Cause for stopping a vehicle or detaining individuals. For instance he thought there was a registration violation so he initiated a traffic stop. That is where the good faith clause comes into effect, meaning in good faith the officer thought he observed a violation. Due to the individual not yielding to an emergency vehicle imediately, he now has another traffic violation (probable cause) to identify the offender of the violation. So when he realizes the registation is valid (in good faith) he still has an offense for not yielding to an emergency vehicle. So he can explain that to the driver and identify him and complete his investigation.

Now unless an officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause of an offense an individual does not have to identify him/herself in Texas. So the driver is correct, but the officer pretty much froze when challenged and didn't know where to go with his investigation. He had PC for not yielding to an emergency vehicle violation but got tied up with the individual challenging his authority.

Kind of brief explanation but I hope everyone gets the idea.

[stevo]

There are states with laws on the books requiring to show ID, and it could be argued that simply showing ID is not considered unreasonable. The supreme court tends to agree.

Within reason I also see no problem with checkpoints or at least the intent of the TSA. Criminals and terrorists shouldn't be able to hide behind the 4th ammendment, an amendment that was written for a much simpler society over 200 years ago.

I agree, 200 years ago the population was so low and condensed that people of authority actually knew people and each other by face and name, it isn't possible these days.

Stevo