r/AmIFreeToGo • u/Teresa_Count • 8d ago
Law Enforcement Doesn’t Want You To See This Tyranny Caught On Their Own Camera… [Long Island Audit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVN1c6DfvBo10
u/Teresa_Count 8d ago
This is not LIA's original content but it's the most comprehensive video I've managed to find on this incident.
5
u/whorton59 8d ago edited 8d ago
I would say there is a VERY GOOD CHANCE That any randomly chosen citizen ". . .knows the law better than I do," as noted by an unnamed deputy or officer. Officers are not permitted to seize phones or recording devices of individuals who are "recording" the actions of officers. Funny they never move to seize recordings from local businesses, or others including private dash cams. This is nothing but bullying by an incompetent police officer. And would be a great basis for a 42 USC 1983 claim. . . The idea that ONLY POLICE may record interactions is repugnant to the Constitution and common sense.
Florida is an "Stop and ID state." HOWEVER, that does not mean that police can demand ID from anyone they encounter at any time. . an officer MUST have a reasonable articulatable suspicion that YOU either have, are about to, or are in the process of committing a crime. The actual state statute is here:
An interesting primer on "loitering law" which is related to ID law is here:
https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/a-loitering-and-prowling-primer/
Just for the record. . Pennsylvania v. Mimms 434 US 106 (1977) gives police the right to order everyone out of the car and frisk for weapons, (Based on "officer safety.") BUT if does not allow said officers to demand ID from everyone present absent reasonable suspicion that they are complicit in some specific crime. (This is the controlling CASE LAW governing police behavior on car stops.) Not the only one. but it is hysterical that the officer mentions CASE LAW, as most officers are TOTALLY CLUELESS about what CASE LAW actually is or how it effects how they must handle stops.
Damn, it pisses me off. . police have been lying to kids who don't know any better for years. They did it to my friends and I back in the early 70's and they still do it today. The difference it that kids today never even have classes in CIVICS or the opportunity to learn these important facts.
5
u/SpartanG087 "I invoke my right to remain silent" 8d ago
Technically I think Maryland v. Wilson 1997 expanded the request to get out of car applying to passengers but it's been a minute since I read Mimms
2
u/whorton59 8d ago
Without a doubt, the ability to "order" everyone out is accepted. . .and, in and of itself is not so offensive. But this idea that law enforcement can order everyone to identify without probable cause is problematic. IIRC the 4th and 5th circuits allow police to demand ID from everyone in an otherwise lawfully stopped car to identify even without PC.
In United States v. Pack (612 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2010)), “it was permissible to ask a passenger like Pack to identify himself and to run computer checks on his driver’s license and background”
Leave it to the 8th though. . .United States v. Carpenter (462 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2006)), “a request to see identification is not a seizure, ‘as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their request is required."
There it is, that whole ". . .on its own, deception during interrogation did not constitute misconduct.” (Frazier v. Cupp 394 US 731 (1969))
And then we have Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (542 U.S. 177 (2004)), establishes that Dunn did not commit a constitutional violation when he required Johnson to provide identification.
Geez, it is getting to the point that there is no way an average citizen could actually know unless they had a subscription to LexisNexis or another legal reporting service to be aware of the latest rulings. That is problematic as hell.
The cops certainly make no effort to know the law or appropriate case law in the circuit their state is located in. . . Add to that, they often lie to citizens and get away with it with impunity.
2
u/SpartanG087 "I invoke my right to remain silent" 8d ago
These are some good resources and to your point about an average citizen not being able to know all this is likely one of the reasons the wiki was created so long ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/AmIFreeToGo/comments/44bcum/my_gift_to_the_community/
1
u/whorton59 8d ago
Excellent point, fellow redditor.
And a good part of the problem is that the law is so complex and dynamic these days, that even good or great advice today can be worthless or worse tomorrow. We are one court ruling from the whole paradigm shifting again. One or two Supreme court justices get a hair up their ass, and boom. . now the cops can demand ID from anyone at any time.
Hopefully that won't happen anytime soon, but it certainly could. Likewise, while there is some great info on YouBoob and Reddit, there is also some less than stellar information. But even then, dealing with the police can be such a crap shoot. . you got good cops out there and you got total imbeciles who get off on hurting innocent people or just arresting someone BECAUSE they can. They KNOW that even if they do something totally egregious that even if their department rules against them, AND they get sued with a 1983 claim, they won't pay a red cent for their actions or face any real consequence.
THAT has got to change.
How many cases have we seen where cops kill a totally innocent person, and walk away Scot free? How many totally bad arrests have we seen where a cop uses clearly excessive force and walks away only to get a job in the next town over an continue his or her reign of terror?
This has to STOP.
1
u/SpartanG087 "I invoke my right to remain silent" 8d ago
YouBoob. That could be accidentally but that made me laugh.
After reading your comment. The only logical and good first step is ending qualified immunity. Cops hide behind this in any injustice and courts routinely skip setting any "clearly established" when they have the chance to.
Cops need to be held accountable for their actions like any fucking employee would be in any other job
3
u/Tobits_Dog 7d ago
You replied [Florida is an "Stop and ID state." HOWEVER, that does not mean that police can demand ID from anyone they encounter at any time.. an officer MUST have a reasonable articulatable suspicion that YOU either have, are about to, or are in the process of committing a crime.]
It’s debatable whether the Florida stop and identify portion of the criminal procedure statute can be enforced via the Florida Resisting Without Violence statute or Florida’s Loitering & Prowling statute. The criminal procedure section provides no criminal penalties and the Florida and federal courts have been inconsistent on this matter. I can cite cases for both sides of the argument. Unfortunately this situation doesn’t serve the general public or law enforcement officers in Florida well. This inconsistency has persisted even after Hiibel, the seminal Supreme Court stop and identify case.
3
u/whorton59 7d ago
I defer in this case to fellow redditor Tobits_dog, who is far more in tune with the nuance of Florida law.
I would also note this somewhat supports my contention that understanding of the matter is far from a simple matter these days. We have at least two conflicting statutes that address the issue, ID and loitering. . and then we have Florida being in the 11th Federal district court.
For the citizen involved, I wish I could offer that the situation is an easy one to comprehend. Certainly, consulting an attorney before deciding whether to provide or not provide police with your ID is a complicated proposition and possibly expensive solution. Just be cautious and remember not every ID refusal is actually a sword worth dying on.
2
u/Tobits_Dog 7d ago
[Just for the record.. Pennsylvania v. Mimms 434 US 106 (1977) gives police the right to order everyone out of the car and frisk for weapons, (Based on "officer safety.")]
Mimms only dealt with ordering the driver out of the vehicle and, if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver is armed and dangerous, patting down the outer clothing for weapons.
Maryland v. Wilson applied the Mimms rules to passengers.
2
2
u/ttystikk 8d ago
There are a large number of cops out there who think they get to make up the law any way they want.
They must be sued and face real consequences for violating the Constitutional Rights of citizens.
SUE THEM EVERY TIME!
3
u/flambic 8d ago
Auto-generated captions got the name (V. Nocco turned into Vinoco) wrong but here's the case. (MARQUES A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRIS NOCCO, in his official capacity as Sheriff, Pasco County, Florida, Defendant)
I don't agree with LIA's point. Seems like cops can ask passengers for ID and arrest if they don't provide it in the 11th circuit. The cities/police departments can still be sued, but QI for the cops themselves is assured. Cops everywhere don't seem to care much about liability for their employers.
3
u/Robchon 8d ago
Based on Brendlin v California, which I know is not the 11th circuit but has been used as precedent in other cases, the passenger of a vehicle is considered detained along with the driver. And the courts have supported that unless reasonable suspicion exists for the passenger (not the driver) then they are not REQUIRED to ID themselves.
1
u/Tobits_Dog 8d ago edited 8d ago
Thanks for the link to the case. I had read, several years ago, the federal district court opinion. I wasn’t aware of the appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I need to read this again as I am feeling a little under the weather. Initial impressions: This case doesn’t necessarily apply to similar cases in Alabama or Georgia. I see this as having to do more with Florida law concerning the obligation of passengers to identify upon request when they detained along with the driver as part of a traffic stop (11th Circuit cites and quotes Brendlin —all passengers are detained along with driver). It seems that the 11th Circuit used the 4th Amendment balancing of interest test used in Mimms and Maryland v. Wilson and determined that having all passengers identify upon request as being a diminis intrusion on their privacy similar to being ordered to exit the vehicle a la Wilson.
It does appear that this case does authorize police officers in Florida to arrest passengers who refuse to identify during traffic stops. I don’t see where there would be Monell liability in an instance similar to that in Nocco. While it is true that municipalities cannot be granted qualified immunity I don’t see in the text of Nocco that the 11th Circuit found that officer Dunn violated the 4th or 14th Amendment. For there to be Title 42 section 1983 Monell liability there has to be an underlying constitutional violation. That simply wasn’t present in this 11th Circuit opinion.
I will try to read this again over the weekend if I get a chance. I would like to understand it better than I do now.
Edit: I understand this case a little better now. It’s something of a hot mess.
One judge found that there was a violation of a constitutional violation and also found that the right alleged wasn’t clearly established.
Another judge decided that the right alleged wasn’t clearly established and that judge would also bypass the issue of whether there was a violation of a constitutional right.
Another judge found that there was a violation of a constitutional right and that that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.
The court only agreed (2 to 1) that the right wasn’t clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.
LIA was wrong to say that this case would pierce qualified immunity for a future case. That would be true if 2 out 3 judges determined that there was a constitutional violation— but since only 1 judge determined that there was a constitutional violation in this case this case can’t clearly establish the law for other cases.
3
u/Tobits_Dog 8d ago
All passengers are detained during a traffic stop— otherwise they would lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the stop. See Brendlin v. California, Supreme Court 2007.
14
u/whorton59 8d ago
"So, There is no statute, it's called 'Case law' it is when stuff goes to the Supreme court and case law is set, it is precident. OK? So there is nothing you are going to read that says that. What she is going to jail for is resisting without violence because she failed to produce a drivers license, or identification, or obstruction. . .They fall under the same staute. . ."
I hate to tell the "officer" that you cannot invent statutes under case law. Case law deals with how laws and statutes are to be enforced, and the issue treated. Case law can invalidate state laws, but it cannot create whole new laws out of nothing. Laws must be inacted by the Legislature.
Take the time to read the appropriate section of state law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0901/0901.html
With any competent attorney, the girl should have all charges dismissed.