Top Five Misconceptions About Interacting with Police

[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what in the right and wrong of police interactions this episode will be somewhat different from our normal format and if you are a longtime subscriber of this channel much of the content of this episode will be familiar to you but this video is filled with useful information that bears repeating and deep understanding this episode will serve as part one of a two-part series that explores common misconceptions about civilian rights and interacting with police if you are new here and find any of these topics interesting i urge you to take a look at the other content available on this channel as i regularly take a deep look at the legal nuance surrounding police encounters and explain the intricacies of interacting with members of law enforcement now let's get right into the video with the first topic it is extremely common to see videos where citizens demand to know an officer's name or badge number and this can be important information for filing a complaint or lawsuit the reality is that police officers are not required by law to provide their identity and an officer cannot be sued for failing to do so the question of whether a member of law enforcement is required to present identification is one of policy not law each department drafts their own policies regarding many aspects of their respective officers conduct and although most all departments do have policies that direct their officers to give their name and batch number upon request if an officer refuses to identify themselves to a member of the public the consequences of such an act are at the department's discretion police departments do not have the greatest track record for punishing officers who refuse to identify and given that there are no legal repercussions associated with it officers can get away with refusing to identify themselves in many circumstances all that said an officer's name and badge number is a public record and can be obtained through filing a public records request with your local office the transparency of departments varies from location to location and it may be more difficult to obtain the appropriate information depending on the department and city you file your request through if an officer ever refuses to identify himself then the best course of action is to file a complaint with the department they are employed by and also file a public records request with the appropriate office beyond that there's not much that can be done [Music] traffic stops are one of the most common interactions with police that citizens are subjected to according to stanford university's open policing project police conduct approximately 20 million traffic stops every year while most traffic stops are relatively brief and only involve the officer issuing a citation and moving on to the next call some traffic stops are more complex and require more than the driver's signature on a ticket many traffic stops lead to deeper investigations once an officer has discovered some evidence of other crimes taking place and citizens stopped by police often find themselves being ordered to exit their vehicle but can an officer order a citizen to exit their vehicle during a traffic stop the supreme court of the united states says yes in the 1977 supreme court case of pennsylvania versus mims the court held that officer safety is a paramount concern in ordering a suspect out of a vehicle during a traffic stop is a minimal intrusion into their fourth amendment liberties the court declared that ordering a citizen out of their car is only a minor inconvenience given that they have already been pulled over and the minor inconvenience is trivial compared to the additional safety granted to an officer by issuing such an order in what many considered to be a sister case to the mims ruling the supreme court extended an officer's ability to remove citizens from their vehicle to also include passengers in the 1997 case of maryland vs wilson once again the court cited officer safety as the primary reasoning and labeled the action as a minor inconvenience police officers are well within their authority to order all occupants of a stopped vehicle to exit or remain inside a stopped vehicle and disobeying such an order could land you in jail if an officer tells you to exit or remain inside your vehicle it is best to obey their orders a vehicle is not a safe haven and refusing to exit your vehicle has the potential to unnecessarily escalate the encounter into a physical altercation not only are police authorized to order citizens out of their vehicle but they may also physically remove the citizen if they fail to obey the command which will likely result in additional charges there are many elements of police interactions that rely on an officer's ability to effectively communicate with the citizen they have stopped whether it be issuing commands questioning a suspect or developing an investigation good communication is a critical element to ensuring that a stop goes according to plan but there are circumstances where withholding certain information is the best course of action for an officer for example imagine a scenario where an officer is dispatched to a call about a bank being robbed by a group of men driving a white truck the officer spots a white truck in the area and initiates a traffic stop it would be unwise to approach the truck and tell the driver that his vehicle matches the description of a robbery getaway vehicle instead the officer would likely withhold that information until they can confirm whether or not it is the vehicle they are looking for although withholding information about a stop can serve a legitimate investigatory purpose it often creates tension between the officer and the citizen they have stopped there is no legal requirement for an officer to inform a citizen of why they have been stopped at any time while police officers must have reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop and probable cause to make an arrest they are under no legal obligation to inform the person they have stopped or arrested of why they are doing so suspects do have a right to know the potential charge they face however not necessarily on scene and the law only requires that suspects be informed within a reasonable amount of time or when practical furthermore officers do not have to explain how they came to their conclusion that a stop was valid or what evidence they have to prove their allegations the only people that an officer must justify their actions to is the judge or jury all that said there is no harm in asking an officer why they have stopped you but bear in mind that they are not required to tell you and there's nothing to gain by escalating a stop because of that [Music] the right to remain silent has enjoyed a long and illustrious career within the hollywood renditions of the legal process and the real-life high-profile court cases of prominent figureheads but there are still many misconceptions about this right that circulate amongst the general public the right to remain silent is derived from a clause of the fifth amendment hence the phrase pleading the fifth the clause states that no person quote shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself all citizens of the united states have a right to refuse to answer questions from state agents whether they are speaking to a police officer or sitting in a courtroom but this right does have some limitations for example if you have been legitimately suspected of committing a crime you cannot invoke your right to remain silent in order to avoid giving an officer your identifying information the right to remain silent can be a powerful tool when interacting with law enforcement and carelessly answering the questions of law enforcement officials can serve to incriminate you beyond whatever evidence is at hand in the 1966 supreme court case of miranda vs arizona the court developed the doctrine of the miranda warning which requires officers to advise citizens in police custody of their right to refuse answering questions and remain silent simply advising a suspect that they have the right to remain silent is not enough to satisfy the miranda rule a citizen must voluntarily waive their right to silence before any questioning can be admissible in court contrary to popular belief officers are not required to read a suspect a miranda warning before an arrest can be effectuated and not being read your miranda warning will not result in the case being dismissed miranda warnings only apply to questioning by police and if an officer fails to read the miranda warning to a suspect then none of the suspect's statements can be used in court as mentioned before not only must an officer read the miranda warning before questioning a suspect but the suspect must acknowledge that they waived their right to remain silent for the questioning to be admissible in the 2010 supreme court case of burgai vs tompkins the court confirmed that if a suspect is aware of the right to remain silent but does not invoke that right then their statements are admissible in court so if an officer reads a suspect the miranda warning and the suspect fails to verbally state that they wish to remain silent or invoke their right to silence then anything they say may be used in court the right to remain silent is a two-way street and just as an officer has the duty to read a suspect their miranda warning the suspect has a duty to verbally acknowledge that they wish to invoke that right miranda warnings typically end with the phrase do you understand these rights as i have read them to you and an appropriate way to answer this question would be something along the lines of yes and i wish to invoke my right to remain silent [Music] since the dawn of the internet humans have flooded its digital landscape with information ideas and priceless memes but with such an open and democratized forum much of the material circulating the internet's endless cyberchasm is misleading or blatantly untrue as the proliferation of the internet expanded into the homes of america so too did it expand into its various industries and the law enforcement industry is no exception citizens of the united states are more exposed to the significance of civil liberties now more than ever but they are also exposed to a wealth of misinformation surrounding their rights and the duties of police officers one example of the deceptive content that floods search bars in social media is this meme which attempts to inform citizens that they have a right to resist an unlawful arrest this meme derived its information from a blog that was established in 1996 by computer scientist john roland who was linked to anti-government and militia movements mr rowland drew his conclusion from several state supreme court cases that are now considered antiquated and invalid and have since been struck down by higher courts many times all 50 states have laws that forbid resisting an arrest but only in one state north dakota does the law provide a legitimate defense for resisting arrest if the arrest is found to be unlawful however even in north dakota if the person resisting arrest makes the false assumption that the arrest is unlawful then no defense for a charge of resisting would be valid and resisting an arrest that results in injury to an officer would still result in criminal charges 15 other states also provide some leeway for a citizen who is charged with resisting arrest if the arrest is unlawful but the decision of whether the arrest is lawful or not resides with the courts on the contrary 14 states have drafted laws that explicitly state that the legality of an arrest is not a factor in a resisting arrest charge and that any resistance to an arrest whether it be lawful or not is still illegal in a vast majority of the country it is patently illegal to resist an arrest under almost any circumstances and taking it upon yourself to judge whether an officer's arrest is lawful or unlawful is reckless and will likely result in a conviction if you believe that you are being unlawfully arrested the best course of action is to comply with the officer and seek justice within the courtroom not on the street there is so much more to learn beyond these five topics and the legalities surrounding police encounters are extremely complex and highly circumstantial as mentioned in the introduction to this video i encourage you all to take a look at some of the other content on this channel to gain a deeper understanding of your rights and the actions of police officers and be on the lookout for part two of this series in such a highly polarized society there has never been a better time to take an interest in your rights and the intricacies of law enforcement almost every citizen makes contact with a police officer at some point in their lives and having a basic understanding of your civil liberties and the fundamental aspects of policing can serve to aid you during any police encounter thank you for taking the time to watch this episode and if there are any police interactions or legal topics you would like us to discuss be sure to leave a comment down below stay tuned for new episodes of ata every week and don't forget to like and subscribe for more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 416,209

Rating: 4.8677163 out of 5

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: mglw6xjNkWw

Length: 12min 31sec (751 seconds)

Published: Fri Sep 18 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/GunzAndCamo]

Indiana's law is actually called "The Right to Resist" and stems from a storied case of police misconduct against a homeowner.

[u/IndyColtsFan]

Everyone should watch this entire video.

[u/[deleted]]

Welcome to America STOP RESISTING

Land of the Free OFFICER SAFETY and home of the Brave I AM IN FEAR FOR MY LIFE.

With Liberty QUALIFIED IMMUNITY and Justice AUTHORITARIANISM for All OFFICERS

[u/that_reddit_username]

While there is plenty of good info in this video. It is simply wrong with regard to resisting arrest in Pennsylvania.

Resisting arrest is a specific charge that only applies to lawful arrest in Pennsylvania. You are not committing the crime of resisting arrest if the arrest is unlawful.

What you could be convicted of, in Pennsylvania, is assault. Impeding the duties of a law enforcement is considered assault in Pennsylvania. The traditional, common law, wording of resisting arrest as only applying to lawful arrest remains on the books in Pennsylvania. In was not considered politically expedient to change that wording. Instead, the assault statute was changed, as an explicit end run around the right of citizens to defend themselves from unlawful arrest during the drug war years.

See COM v. Biagini. Despite engaging in a physical altercation with an officer while the officer was attempting to make an arrest, Biagini was NOT convicted of resisting arrest. Since the arrest was unlawful, he could only be convicted of assault, disorderly conduct, etc.