Former Cop Challenges Reckless Officers

[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers passenger identification spotlights and impersonating a police officer and is brought to us by real world police's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve in the early morning hours of june 6 2016 an unidentified driver along with two passengers was traveling along west cayley street in orlando florida when they passed a patrol vehicle from the orlando police department as the vehicles passed one another the opd patrol car shined its spotlight directly into the front windshield of the unidentified citizen's car and then proceeded to turn around and initiate a traffic stop hello guys how you doing good how are you doing good good morning do you want to stop me today no the speed limit on kayla's 30 miles an hour so you stopped me i was speeding yes sir when you were coming toward me no sir i got behind you and pace clocked like 40 miles an hour no i was i'm asking because when you're coming toward me you had shined your light in my face you were right i visually estimated your speed that's why i turned around and got behind you and confirmed my visual estimate with the pace clock in my vehicle do you have your driver's license yeah can you get my my bag right there are there any weapons or anything in the car no i don't i'm not saying it's against a lot of weapons i just want to know about no no whose car is it it's a rental oh it's a run off can you have your id on yourself oh wait wait wait where you guys going tonight we're dropping off some stuff at one of the local clubs in illinois i'm sorry yeah does everyone still live in illinois i do oh okay i didn't know if you guys were local or tourists give me the idea on youtube don't get it for me please thank you that's not your wallet where is is it on the floor yeah is anyone from florida no we drove down here my id is illinois but i just moved here oh you did yeah okay do you have your id on you is this my bag in the trunk um i used to be a pleaser i'm just asking why everybody's been asked for their id if you stop i'm just asking where everybody's been that's why i know who we're out with that's all okay because i'm used to being a police officer i've never had to deal with everybody in the car getting their id as well yeah we just like to know who we're out with if it's just for speeding that's why i'm trying to see what's going on like i said we just like to know who we're out the officer requests ids from the driver as well as the passengers in the vehicle and the driver who identifies himself as a former police officer asks why the passengers are being required to show their ids although the supreme court has not specifically ruled on the issue lower level courts have applied previous supreme court decisions to conclude that passengers are not required to show their ids or identify themselves during an ordinary traffic stop for example in the 2019 case of united states vs landeros the ninth circuit court of appeals determined that a police officer was not justified in extending a traffic stop because a passenger refused to identify themselves holding that quote the officers insisted several times that lenderos identify himself after he initially refused and detained him while making those demands at the time they did so the officers had no reasonable suspicion that landeros had committed an offense accordingly the police could not lawfully order him to identify himself to reach this conclusion the ninth circuit relied heavily on the precedence set by two supreme court cases brown versus texas which was decided in 1979 and hybal versus sixth judicial district court of nevada which was decided in 2004. in brown versus texas an individual was arrested for refusing to identify themselves to police and the supreme court found that quote to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the fourth amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct accordingly appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself the high bull decision upheld nevada's stop and identify statute as constitutional and further defined the criteria for when an officer has the authority to demand that an individual identify themselves the court concluded that quote the principles of terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a terry stop the request for identify has an immediate relation to the purpose rationale and practical demands of a terry stop a state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid terry stop is consistent with fourth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures it's important to note that these cases all involve verbal identifications rather than situations involving police demands for identifying documents and higher courts have yet to rule on this issue however in this encounter it's clear that the officer had no reasonable suspicion that the passengers were involved in criminal activity and a court would likely conclude that the passengers would have been well within their rights to refuse to identify themselves or provide id okay is there something going on in the area not that i'm aware of anything particularly now okay okay because when you were coming toward me i saw the light it kind of blinded me i thought something was wrong because i saw the light flashing in my face well i like i said i visually estimated your speed and at that point i looked to see who was driving because let's just say you know the car runs from me or whatever i want to be able to identify the driver and i got behind you and pace clocked you and that's why i'm stopping you today okay all right the officer claims that he flashed his spotlight at the driver so that he could positively identify him if he ran despite the fact that the video clearly shows that he was not speeding when the officer shined his light into the vehicle shining any light into oncoming traffic can be incredibly dangerous and many individuals experience discomfort and visibility reductions when bright lights enter their field of vision this sensation is known as glare nighttime glare or disability glare according to the national highway traffic safety administration quote glare reduces seeing distance because it causes light scatter in the eyes which in turn reduces the contrast of roadway objects the greater the intensity of the glare light and the closer the glare light is to where one is looking the greater the disability glare will be disability glare can impact an individual's ability to drive by decreasing the distance at which objects can be seen and increasing reaction and recovery times because of the dangers of glare the florida motor vehicle code repeatedly prohibits blinding other drivers with the various types of lights that can be attached to a vehicle while florida law allows motor vehicles to be equipped with one or two spotlights section 316.233 of the florida statutes requires that quote every lighted spot lamp shall be so aimed and used that no part of the high intensity portion of the beam will strike the windshield or any windows mirror or occupant of another vehicle in use given the dangers and potential illegality created by an officer shining his spotlight into oncoming traffic it is difficult to imagine a sufficient justification for taking that risk to identify the driver of a vehicle that was not violating any traffic laws and it would still be questionable at best if the officer had a more compelling explanation for his actions where was your id partner in my bag it was true in your bag in the trunk okay where were you a police officer st louis and the city of atlanta st louis missouri and then again in atlanta yeah i moved i transferred because i kind of got tired of being in st louis and what do you mean a transfer a transfer they were paying more okay yeah i was making like like 38 000. and atlanta was playing like 45. i mean they take like laterals like a few times yes what did you do about getting this certificate um i after i got after i resigned i didn't think about doing it anymore no i mean like how did you how did you carry over your certificate oh well doing the ladder program they just did their accreditation from st louis police academy because you get same credits as you do they have like training kind of thing yeah i only did like eight weeks okay that's what i was asking i didn't know if they like honored it or yeah yeah yeah okay what was that for so how long were you total um st louis is about four and a half years and what's your favorite atlanta was about four okay what were your assignments um i did some intern in uh car theft and i did a little bit of homicide and but mostly i just a b-cop okay the officer asks the driver a series of questions about his career in law enforcement that seem to be aimed at validating his claim of being a former police officer and the driver answers the questions without protest while it can be a crime to falsely claim to be an active police officer in some situations it ordinarily is not an offense to claim to be a former officer in fact impersonating a police officer laws generally require that an individual do more than simply claim to be an officer rather an individual must take some action that is facilitated by their false status as a police officer in order to commit a crime for example section 843.08 of the florida statutes defines the criminal offense of false personation stating that quote a person who falsely assumes or pretends to be a sheriff an officer of the florida highway patrol a deputy sheriff a police officer or a federal law enforcement officer and takes upon himself or herself to act as such commits a felony of the third degree therefore even if the driver had falsely claimed to be an active police officer it is likely that he could not be convicted of false personation for simply saying that he was an officer under both the florida statute and the requirements of the first amendment in the 2012 case of united states vs alvarez the u.s supreme court found that the federal stolen valor act which criminalized lying about receiving a congressional medal of honor violated the first amendment by unlawfully prohibiting speech content-based restrictions on speech which criminalize mere speech because of its subject matter have generally only been permitted for a few historic and traditional categories such as obscenity defamation fighting words and true threats after reviewing the list of permissible content-based restrictions the court observed that quote absent from those few categories where the law allows content-based regulation of speech is any general exception to the first amendment for false statements the court has never endorsed the categorical rule that false statements receive no first amendment protection our prior decisions have not confronted a measure like the stolen valor act that targets falsity and nothing more applying this standard the court went on to conclude that quote the stolen valor act infringes upon speech protected by the first amendment because now quoting again one of the costs of the first amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace though few might find respondent statements anything but contemptible his right to make those statements is protected by the constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and expression the opd officers had no reason to doubt the driver's story and the officer's line of questioning may very well have been driven by curiosity rather than investigation but even if the driver had been lying he was well within his rights to do so thank you i was just curious oh no no problem no problem just to tell you guys as long as your license has come back about and stuff okay no tickets tonight i don't really like enjoy buying tickets or anything i understand i appreciate it just one of those things okay all right just sit tight for us thank you you're welcome we're just gonna let you off with verbal warning okay appreciate everything you guys have done being cooperative with us be safe tonight okay i appreciate it take care thank you have a good one after the officers checked the driver and passengers ids he informed the driver he was letting him off with a quote-unquote verbal warning and did not issue a citation for the alleged speeding violation the driver then resumed his trip without any further issues overall the orlando police department officers get a c-minus because although they ultimately released the citizens without an arrest or citation they recklessly blinded the driver of a vehicle as it was traveling down the road and unnecessarily compelled the passengers to present their id not only was the officer's decision to use his spotlight on an oncoming vehicle dangerous and ineffective but his reasoning for doing so is even more illogical the officer claimed that the spotlight was used so that they could identify the driver in the event that the vehicle fled however the driver was not committing any crimes at the time of the officer's flash and the officer had no reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot the officer's claim suggests that he intended to stop the vehicle before he used his spotlight but it is unclear what if anything prompted him to do so there is a strong argument to be made that the officer likely initiated a pre-textual stop on the vehicle based on the observations made by using the spotlight you are free to draw your own conclusions regarding the racial implications of this interaction but it is extremely difficult to imagine a world where capturing a glimpse of a potential future suspect's face is a rational justification for blinding a driver operating a vehicle in an oncoming lane of traffic the driver and passengers of the vehicle get an a-plus for remaining calm and collected throughout the encounter engaging in a civil dialogue with the officers and for challenging the conduct of the officers without becoming rude or vulgar although remaining silent is the general rule of thumb when navigating traffic stops the driver's decision to challenge the opd officer's conduct and inform them that he was a former police officer seemed to help this encounter reach a positive conclusion the driver maintained a demeanor that was serious and skeptical while also remaining courteous and compliant and his attitude combined with his knowledge and credentials certainly had an impact on this encounter's outcome i believe that the driver's decision to answer the officer's questions about his law enforcement background was calculated the driver likely knew that he had the right to remain silent but made the conscious decision to answer the officer's questions in an effort to establish credibility dispel suspicion and end the detainment as soon as possible not everyone can take advantage of having a background in law enforcement during a traffic stop but there are still many lessons to be learned from the driver's conduct be sure to give your support to real world police's channel you can find a link in the description below let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,293,008

Keywords: amagansett press, first amendment audit, 1st amendment audit, auditing america, news now california, sgv news first, high desert community watch, anselmo morales, photography is not a crime, san joaquin valley transparency, first amendment audit fail, walk of shame, news now houston, police fail, 1st amendment audit fail, public photography, auditor arrested, police brutality, highdesert community watch, pinac news, cops triggered, news now patrick, east hampton

Id: 3hdh5gTgAUM

Length: 14min 38sec (878 seconds)

Published: Mon Aug 09 2021