Your Local Police: To Serve, Protect and Slap?

And he also did it right in front of the police station.  

Yea well, giving the finger is Court recognized free speech. Ya know, 1st amendment, Constitutional right ? Don't forget the excessive force and unreasonable search part.

Doesn't make it smart

Thacheronix wrote

Doesn't make it smart

Actually, it makes it a serious civil rights violation that's very actionable.

Snowballs wrote

Actually, it makes it a serious civil rights violation that's very actionable.

First of all my personal opinion is that someone should beat the shit out of this punk, cops have a difficult time and we need them now more than ever. But looking at the video and reading the story, I think this shit head doesn't have a leg to stand on. The police officer politely and calmly asked him for his ID and to step out of the vehicle. I believe this is all legal in NYS without needing a reason, we have a stop and identify law. If he were on foot this may have been a different story - police need to have a reason then. Because driving a car requires a license and requires that the vehicle be up to standards, this gives the police the right to verify that you are operating within the law. This has been upheld by Hiibel vs. 6th District Court of Nevada.

So at the point where the shit head decided not to comply with the officers polite request, that is when he step over the law and from that point on the officer could treat him like a common criminal, which he did. I my opinion, they should have sent this punk back to Troy after three hots and a cot in the Saratoga lock'em up.

I just watched the video.  Is the guy part of some kind of organized effort to stress test the police in an effort to bring change or is he a bored trouble maker?

It is interesting that the officer goes for his pepper spray so quickly.

If it is legal to give cops the finger (seems like it is from a quick search) the cops need to know this and let it go.  There seems to be no way out for an officer once he's confronted the guy, it's against their training to back down when they make a mistake.

Do you need a reason to pull a car over and ask for license and registration? What are the criteria for making a stop?

Harvey wrote

Do you need a reason to pull a car over and ask for license and registration? What are the criteria for making a stop?

Have you ever had to stop at a DWI check point?
Sobriety checkpoints are legal in New York (see 473 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 1984)).

Harvey wrote

Do you need a reason to pull a car over and ask for license and registration?

Yes.

Snowballs wrote

Harvey wrote

Do you need a reason to pull a car over and ask for license and registration?

Yes.

You need probable cause. Doesn't take much, though. Do you have a frame around your license plate? That's a technical violation of the V &T Law. A dash cam or a parking lot tag hanging from your rear view mirror? Obstructed view.

Pulling someone over solely to ask for license and registration is not enough.

Spongeworthy wrote

Snowballs wrote

Harvey wrote

Do you need a reason to pull a car over and ask for license and registration?

Yes.

You need probable cause. Doesn't take much, though. Do you have a frame around your license plate? That's a technical violation of the V &T Law. A dash cam or a parking lot tag hanging from your rear view mirror? Obstructed view.

Pulling someone over solely to ask for license and registration is not enough.

Yes and no - an officer can ask for your ID at any time if you are doing something that requires an ID such as driving a car. If this punk were walking down the street than no, but he was not - he was driving a car.

Is that the justification for DWI checkpoints?

Harvey wrote

Is that the justification for DWI checkpoints?

I am not sure - DWI checkpoints are covered by their own statute which I listed already, however the fundamental justification may be this.
NY is considered a pretty liberal state, but with regards to these laws we are pretty conservative.

PeeTex wrote

Harvey wrote

Is that the justification for DWI checkpoints?

I am not sure - DWI checkpoints are covered by their own statute which I listed already, however the fundamental justification may be this.
NY is considered a pretty liberal state, but with regards to these laws we are pretty conservative.

Once a cop pulls your vehicle over for a valid reason, of course he can ask for ID. A cop cannot pull you over for the sole purpose of asking for ID. You do not forfeit your Fourth Amendment rights just because you're driving a car.

DWI checkpoints are a different and very controversial situation. Whether a checkpoint is valid depends on the facts. A checkpoint set up on the main road after a free concert where people were drinking to excess - very likely OK. A checkpoint set up in YOUR driveway because you're dating the cop's ex-wife - very likely no OK.  

Spongeworthy wrote

Once a cop pulls your vehicle over for a valid reason, of course he can ask for ID. A cop cannot pull you over for the sole purpose of asking for ID. You do not forfeit your Fourth Amendment rights just because you're driving a car.

Good luck with that line of reasoning. It has been upheld by the US supreme court in several cases that a cop can pull you over if he even thinks you may have at some point in time committed a crime or that at some point in the future you will commit a crime. This was just upheld again in a case in NC (Heien Vs North Carolina, Oct 2014) where a cop pulled someone over for a broken tail light. In NC you only need one functioning tail light by law so that cop did not understand the states law. The person had drugs which were later found after the cop pulled them over. This arrest was upheld by the US supreme court because the cop only thought they needed both tail lights - cops don't need to understand the law they are paid to enforce. So in reality, a cop can pull you over just to verify that you are driving with a valid license if he has any suspicion, real or fabricated, that you might not be and they can pull you over if they think the law says they can, right or wrong. Again, there seems to be consistent rulings by the US Supreme court that support this.

One thing you need to consider, driving a car is not a 4th amendment right. Driving a car requires that you are of a certain age, have been tested by the state and have obtained a valid license and that it is current.

PeeTex wrote

 One thing you need to consider, driving a car is not a 4th amendment right.

Driving is considered a privilege as opposed to a right.

The examples you gave are ones of probable cause.

Snowballs wrote

Driving is considered a privilege as opposed to a right.

The examples you gave are ones of probable cause.

Correct on both fronts. Consider the NC case cited, the "probable cause" the driver was stopped for was not because they were violating a law, but rather the office didn't know the law and thought they were violating it and pulled them over. In this case the officer cited a law incorrectly as the reason and still it stood the judicial test. There are so many reasons that an officer could use to pull you over - hell, they could make up anything like "I just wanted to see if you have a valid drivers license to operate this vehicle".

I'm not saying that either of the shitbird victims in this thread are model citizens, but the police should put the emphasis on 'serve' far more than they do right now -- which imo is to act in their best interests to justify their own existence through meaningless tickets 90% of the time. And that's because I'm white. I'm sure if I was getting stopped and frisked three times a year going to work, I'd feel differently again.

As far as professional agitators go... i doubt this guy is a 'pro' in any sense of the word, but this is a new hobby for people for sure.  check these guys out at the border checkpoints, which apparently go as far as 200 miles in from the border of mexico:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg

ml242 wrote

As far as professional agitators go...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg

More like professional douchebags

PeeTex wrote

One thing you need to consider, driving a car is not a 4th amendment right. Driving a car requires that you are of a certain age, have been tested by the state and have obtained a valid license and that it is current.

 The Fourth Amendment prohibits searches and seizures without probable cause. I'll say it again - a cop cannot pull you over just to check your license. A cop needs a reasonable suspicion - not just a hunch - that a violation of the law has occurred. The Supreme Court case you cited is a narrow holding that the cop in that case was reasonable in believing that one broken tail light was a violation, so the stop was supported by probable cause. It doesn't mean a cop can pull you over for no reason or any reason at all.

Just a wild guess here. You're not a lawyer, right?

Spongeworthy wrote

PeeTex wrote

One thing you need to consider, driving a car is not a 4th amendment right. Driving a car requires that you are of a certain age, have been tested by the state and have obtained a valid license and that it is current.

 The Fourth Amendment prohibits searches and seizures without probable cause. I'll say it again - a cop cannot pull you over just to check your license. A cop needs a reasonable suspicion - not just a hunch - that a violation of the law has occurred. The Supreme Court case you cited is a narrow holding that the cop in that case was reasonable in believing that one broken tail light was a violation, so the stop was supported by probable cause. It doesn't mean a cop can pull you over for no reason or any reason at all.

Just a wild guess here. You're not a lawyer, right?

No, but he plays one on TV.