CA not a must ID

[Oneaudiopro]

Oh I do love ad hominem.

Been pulled over dozens of times and never had a ticket. Why? Because I extensively researched the law and my rights after I was given a felony by a corrupt system.

I?ll stick to my rights, thanks.

Oh, such an ironic signature btw.

Given a felony by a corrupt system?? LOL......Why is it that street corner attorney's always seem to dole out the best advise UNTIL someone decides to take it. You're one of those guys that thinks it's more important to make a stupid point than to walk away with a warning and call it a day. I'm glad you say you know your rights, but it only cost ya a felony?? That's laughable.

[CSACANNONEER]

And that's the rub of it.

One can show the ID and, since you're a passenger in the vehicle that was stopped, you really have no issue to worry about (cop stopped them, not you). You'll probably be on your way immediately after the ticket, etc, or...

You can have your time completely wasted going back and forth over whether or not you really have to show ID for however long the officer wants to waste time doing this and possibly have your LTC suspended or revoked for all of this by the IA. Up to this point, it's not a civil rights case.

If they do arrest you, then you go to jail, get identified anyway and eventually released because they really were after the driver and you ultimately were doing nothing wrong. You risk losing the LTC, even if you win any sort of civil suit you file, depending on your IA's policy.

Which brings me to the suit. Maybe you have the money and time, but civil suits are time consuming and very expensive. I work for a living and can't afford $100,000+ to file a civil suit that, even if I win, the state will just appeal, we do it all over again, I could lose on the appeal, another $100,000+ etc.

Again, if you want to relinquish your 4A rights, you can do so but, if you want to exercise your rights, NO ONE should criticize you for doing so.


I find it very interesting, concerning and sad that so many here claim to support people exercising their 2A rights but, when it comes to any other Constitutional right, they tend to believe that those rights can and should be able to be violated by LEOs.

[Oneaudiopro]

Again, if you want to relinquish your 4A rights, you can do so but, if you want to exercise your rights, NO ONE should criticize you for doing so.


I find it very interesting, concerning and sad that so many here claim to support people exercising their 2A rights but, when it comes to any other Constitutional right, they tend to believe that those rights can and should be able to be violated by LEOs.

First, it's not very common for LE to intentionally violate your rights. There are also MANY rules, not specifically spelled out in the constitution, that allow certain actions by LE to be perfectly legal. I've been stopped several times in my life and not once ever thought my rights were being violated. If you want to go through life acting like one of those SovCit idiots telling everyone that you know your rights, better make sure you actually do! There are certain acts like interference, obstruction, resisting, and disorderly conduct that LE could easily articulate against you if they choose depending on your actions. I will continue to be polite and respectful and probably just get a warning. You do what you want to do.

[Oneaudiopro]

A traffic stop IS a lawful detainment. smh. I?m done.

[CSACANNONEER]

First, it's not very common for LE to intentionally violate your rights. There are also MANY rules, not specifically spelled out in the constitution, that allow certain actions by LE to be perfectly legal. I've been stopped several times in my life and not once ever thought my rights were being violated. If you want to go through life acting like one of those SovCit idiots telling everyone that you know your rights, better make sure you actually do! There are certain acts like interference, obstruction, resisting, and disorderly conduct that LE could easily articulate against you if they choose depending on your actions. I will continue to be polite and respectful and probably just get a warning. You do what you want to do.

I'm not anti LE but, I'm VERY anti bad LEOs. There are plenty of examples of LEOs either intentionally or ignorantly violating people's rights. It is more common than you think. Now, if only one out of every 1000 LEOs is a bad LEO, that one LEO could be committing multiple violations every day. Just think about that. An average of 3 violations per day equates to over 1000 violations every year. Yes, LEOs can and do come up with bogus charges all the time just to flex their perceived authority. Those charges normally end up getting dropped and the LEOs are not normally reprimanded for wasting everyone's time. I do see plenty of charges made when they do NOT fit the legal definition of the crime one is being accused of. One great example is when Kyle R. was charged with crimes associated with SBRs when, CLEARLY his rifle was NOT a SBR. I also agree that LEOs tend to charge people with "obstruction" when the actions of the accused clearly do not fit the crime. You can continue to act however you like while giving up your rights without a fight. I will continue to be polite and respectful while standing up for my rights, your rights, the rights of every good LEO and everyone else. All one has to do is be polite and respectful during an encounter with LE. NO one has to blindly relinquish any of their rights no matter what some power hungry, misguided idiot with a badge demands.

[RickD427]

You do realize not all traffic stops are legal right? Usually it?s under the guise of ?being suspicious? which in itself is not an actual crime nor a traffic infraction to constitute a traffic stop.

Illegal traffic stops such as those you cannot be convicted of resisting, or obstruction because it is an unlawful detainment. You are not required to relinquish any identification, nor do you have to answer any questions in such stops.


It?s like you cannot mentally fathom these kinds of things happen in reality very often.

Let?s see where you move the goalpost now.

Please review Terry v Ohio and subsequent lineage of cases.

Reasonable suspicion, and absent an actual crime (which would include traffic infractions) can form the basis for a lawful detention, which would include traffic stops.

There are certainly traffic stops which are illegally made, but the test to identify those stops is not whether there was crime being committed, but rather whether there was a "Reasonable Suspicion" that a crime was being committed, or was about to be committed.

[CSACANNONEER]

The amount of people that will die for the 2nd amendment but will pass on the first, fourth, and fifth amendment is extremely concerning.

But hey! Remember! Just roll over for any police officer whatsoever, they?re there to protect you! They would NEVER do any wrong doing or violate any of your constitutional rights.

Not long ago, not far away, there were many people who blindly followed the orders of police and other government officials as they loaded themselves into cattle cars to be "relocated". Yes, I agree that many here appear to feel they should simply follow any orders or even requests made by LEOs including surrendering their rights and possibly even following LEO's requests to load up in cattle cars in an orderly fashion. They obviously seem to believe that is a better option than standing up for themselves or their rights. I wonder if they'll be OK with their new free tattoos????? At least they won't upset the government officials who are only trying to do what's best for them, lol.

[Gymtech]

I have tons of respect for good LEs.
Judging a person by how he looks or what he drives is totally wrong..
I was involved in a car accident back in the days where all I could afford was a beater... I was wearing a tank top so my 2 tattoos were showing.. One officer said that they were gang tattoos and that I was on probation... The officer was I gave my license to told the other officers that I tried to flee and I didn't have a license..
I almost when to jail for the first time ever... On top of that I was found to be at fault for the accident...
It took me 6 months to get it reviewed and changed...
I'm not a sheep... I follow the laws and play but the rules... I expect the same thing from LEs...
Yes it's easier to just ID...
When you give up one right they take another one...
That's why most gun laws don't make sense..They are working on taking away ammo...If you don't think that can happen...You may want to look at what's happening in the ammo market

[Oneaudiopro]

You do realize not all traffic stops are legal right? Usually it?s under the guise of ?being suspicious? which in itself is not an actual crime nor a traffic infraction to constitute a traffic stop.

Illegal traffic stops such as those you cannot be convicted of resisting, or obstruction because it is an unlawful detainment. You are not required to relinquish any identification, nor do you have to answer any questions in such stops.


It?s like you cannot mentally fathom these kinds of things happen in reality very often.

Let?s see where you move the goalpost now.

Ahhh.........Another SovCit idiot. smh

[Oneaudiopro]

Please review Terry v Ohio and subsequent lineage of cases.

Reasonable suspicion, and absent an actual crime (which would include traffic infractions) can form the basis for a lawful detention, which would include traffic stops.

There are certainly traffic stops which are illegally made, but the test to identify those stops is not whether there was crime being committed, but rather whether there was a "Reasonable Suspicion" that a crime was being committed, or was about to be committed.

Thank you Rick! Exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous posts. I find it amusing that someone would risk going to jail, or receive a citation (instead of a warning) to try and prove a trivial point that you know more about your rights than LE does. Keep in mind that LE are naturally suspicious because of the nature of their jobs, so if you think by puffing your chest out and telling them what they can do or not do, you'll probably end up getting a life changing experience in your future. Those types of attitudes will only increase their suspicions and draw unwanted attention to yourself. You don't need to give up your rights to be polite, after all, isn't that how you would like to be treated?

[RickD427]

I?m well versed on Terry v. Ohio. Thanks.

Im not talking about ?reasonable suspicion?

I?m talking about the common police tactic where there they deem you suspicious without actually having any evidence of a crime attached to the suspicion. If you?d have read the part in my previous comment where I said ?suspicion by ITSELF is not a crime? you would have come to the conclusion that I?m not talking about reasonable suspicion nor probable cause.

You can see this tactic first hand in almost every one of those audit videos where the police say that filming in a public building is ?suspicious? and therefore they try to use that as leverage for taking someone?s ID without permission.

Refusal to cooperate with the police without actual reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not valid reasonable suspicion as ruled by Florida v. Bostick when police deemed him suspicious of hiding something because he refused to allow them to randomly search his bag as police boarded a bus.

Not having eye contact alone is not reasonable suspicion.

Being nervous alone is not reasonable suspicion.

Driving through town at 3am is not reasonable suspicion.

You cannot have reasonable suspicion unless you?re reasonably suspicious OF something. That something has to be a crime.

Thanks though

Cheers.

Groovy, but you're forgetting one key point.

You are not he "All-Seeing" and "All Knowing" person that you're trying to present yourself as.

The law requires that "Reasonable Suspicion" be present in order for there to be a lawful detention under Terry.

Please note the absence of any requirement that the subject of the detention be aware of the existence of the "Reasonable Suspicion."

Without being privy to the LEO's knowledge, no other person can reach a conclusion as to whether the "Reasonable Suspicion" standard is met. That point applies to yourself, and to the participants in the videos that you describe.

If you are "well-versed" in the Terry decision, why then did you make the false statement "...actual crime nor a traffic infraction to constitute a traffic stop" in the context of the legal standard to make a stop?

[Oneaudiopro]

Ahh more ad hominem

Thought you were done?

I am with you. <yawn> You've already established what an uneducated idiot you are.

[CSACANNONEER]

Thank you Rick! Exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous posts. I find it amusing that someone would risk going to jail, or receive a citation (instead of a warning) to try and prove a trivial point that you know more about your rights than LE does. Keep in mind that LE are naturally suspicious because of the nature of their jobs, so if you think by puffing your chest out and telling them what they can do or not do, you'll probably end up getting a life changing experience in your future. Those types of attitudes will only increase their suspicions and draw unwanted attention to yourself. You don't need to give up your rights to be polite, after all, isn't that how you would like to be treated?

Wow, just because YOU believe someone's civile rights are "trivial" it doesn't mean everyone believes the same. It's obvious to me who will blindly follow the crowd as their loaded onto cattle cars and who will try to stop it from getting that far in the first place.

[RickD427]

Does anyone know what happened to Mr. "17bb"?

I just finished doing my legal research to respond to his latest posting. It took me a while because there was quite a bit of "Stoopid Stuff" to respond to.

I see that he has deleted all of his postings and seems to have gone into hiding from this thread.

I don't want to take away from those who have raised legitimate concerns about LEOs making traffic stops where they lack adequate grounds to do so, but Mr. "17bb" was so far out in the legal "Left Field" that I felt the need to play with him a bit. His most recent misunderstanding comments regarding the Penal Code were just too juicy to pass up.

Now he's gone.

So sad.

[Oneaudiopro]

Wow, just because YOU believe someone's civile rights are "trivial" it doesn't mean everyone believes the same. It's obvious to me who will blindly follow the crowd as their loaded onto cattle cars and who will try to stop it from getting that far in the first place.

I never said your rights are trivial, what I said was someone like yourself trying to tell LE what they can/can?t do is a trivial mission which will never benefit you in anyway positive. I don?t have anything to hide from LE, do you? There?s a difference between ?knowing? your rights and acting like a complete asshat street corner attorney like yourself. Good luck on your next traffic stop! (Take a video and share!) smh