Illinois Cops Drag Man Out of Car for Recording and Remaining Silent

[Kal'Stang]

When a cop tells you to empty your hands and put them on the seat...you do it. Don't give them any excuse to jack you up. Be nice, be calm, and walk away clean. THEN you can raise questions about the cops actions.

Sorry, cops do not own me or anyone else. I do not have to empty my hands of a recording device no matter what a cop says. Even the Supreme Court says that you do not have to stop recording when a cop tells you to. It is in fact a violation of your rights if a cop attempts to make you do so. And I for one would rather get roughed up than set aside my rights. Besides, that way I can sue.

 

[Lutherf]

What crime was being investigated?

It started with doing 35-40 in a 25 and then you can't really tell what else was going on. I suspect that the cop wanted to see what was in the plastic bag on the back seat.

 

[Henrin]

This is why I never have anything visible in my car. It will just encourage a cop being nosy if you ever get stopped and you might end up with a cop like this.

 

[Howler63]

Sorry, cops do not own me or anyone else. I do not have to empty my hands of a recording device no matter what a cop says. Even the Supreme Court says that you do not have to stop recording when a cop tells you to. It is in fact a violation of your rights if a cop attempts to make you do so. And I for one would rather get roughed up than set aside my rights. Besides, that way I can sue.

I would much rather get a ticket and be on my way. Hassle free.

 

[reinoe]

I would much rather get a ticket and be on my way. Hassle free.

I'm not at all surprised that someone such as yourself would sacrifice your rights for convenience.

 

[Hari Seldon]

He wasn't hooked up for exercising his rights. He was hooked up for obstructing a lawful investigation.

How is videoing the stop and exercising your right to remain silent obstructing an investigation?

 

[Lutherf]

How is videoing the stop and exercising your right to remain silent obstructing an investigation?

Neither of those acts obstruct the investigation but refusing to put the camera down and comply with the cops instructions compromises the officer's safety. Litigation occurs in a court of law, not a street corner. You can not win your case with the cop that has detained you. If you have a problem with something that he or she did then you file a complaint and sue.

 

[Thorgasm]

It started with doing 35-40 in a 25 and then you can't really tell what else was going on. I suspect that the cop wanted to see what was in the plastic bag on the back seat.

What crime was being investigated?

 

[Absentglare]

Sorry, cops do not own me or anyone else. I do not have to empty my hands of a recording device no matter what a cop says. Even the Supreme Court says that you do not have to stop recording when a cop tells you to. It is in fact a violation of your rights if a cop attempts to make you do so. And I for one would rather get roughed up than set aside my rights. Besides, that way I can sue.

That's pretty bold... I think i'll comply before getting roughed up by a cop.

 

[Lutherf]

What crime was being investigated?

For some strange reason the "victim" in the video doesn't give us that information.

 

[Howler63]

I'm not at all surprised that someone such as yourself would sacrifice your rights for convenience.

What rights am I sacrificing? My right to go home? If the cop is out of line, I'll file formal grievance at a later time. But I'm not going to antagonize a person that our society has given that much power over my person to.

I remain cool, I follow instructions, and I lost no rights, and I get to sleep in my own bed at night.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I would much rather get a ticket and be on my way. Hassle free.

Except in this case the passenger never would have gotten a ticket.

 

[Kal'Stang]

That's pretty bold... I think i'll comply before getting roughed up by a cop.

:shrug: I always stand up for what's right no matter the situation or the odds against me. Its one of the reasons I'm called a racist at times because I believe in freedom of association, even with all the ills it has attached to it that I'm personally against such as racism. :shrug:

 

[Utility Man]

What rights am I sacrificing? My right to go home? If the cop is out of line, I'll file formal grievance at a later time. But I'm not going to antagonize a person that our society has given that much power over my person to.

I remain cool, I follow instructions, and I lost no rights, and I get to sleep in my own bed at night.

Your formal grievance would state that they forced you to act like a little girl ?

:lamo

Good luck winning that argument !

 

[Lutherf]

Except in this case the passenger never would have gotten a ticket.

You can't possibly know that. Hell, speeding could have just been part of the reason they were stopped.

Here's the way this stuff works in the real world. A cop gets a complaint that three guys were spotted leaving the scene of a robbery. There's a vehicle description and a general description of what the suspects were wearing. A cop spots a car with three occupants. Both the car and the occupants meet the general description from the complaint. The cop looks for a reason to stop the car and, as luck would have it, the car is doing 10mph over the posted speed limit. He's now got probable cause to make the stop. When he engages the individuals in the vehicle they avoid answering questions, have trouble coming up with vehicle and personal identification and there is a bag on the back seat resembling something mentioned in the complaint. The cop starts asking more questions and gets more evasion so he decides to investigate a little further.

Maybe these guys are completely unrelated to the crime in the complaint but their behavior is indicative of some kind of coverup. The cops have an obligation to investigate and if their investigation is being obstructed they have every right to detain the suspects until they can get clarification. The more the suspects obstruct the investigation, even if such obstruction is well within their rights, the more the cops are going to be inclined to take physical action. Temporary detention incidental to the investigation of a crime is not a violation of the 4th Amendment since it's reasonable. Using physical force to effect that detention is also reasonable and lawful so long as the amount of force used is not excessive based on the facts and circumstances of the engagement.

I'll go one step further. In cases where one cop is engaging multiple suspects he has to be VERY careful not to allow himself to get distracted by one as it's a fairly common tactic prior to an assault. In this kind of situation, even though another unit was on scene, gaining control of the situation was critical to officer safety and the steps taken were fully warranted.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You can't possibly know that. Hell, speeding could have just been part of the reason they were stopped.

Here's the way this stuff works in the real world. A cop gets a complaint that three guys were spotted leaving the scene of a robbery. There's a vehicle description and a general description of what the suspects were wearing. A cop spots a car with three occupants. Both the car and the occupants meet the general description from the complaint. The cop looks for a reason to stop the car and, as luck would have it, the car is doing 10mph over the posted speed limit. He's now got probable cause to make the stop. When he engages the individuals in the vehicle they avoid answering questions, have trouble coming up with vehicle and personal identification and there is a bag on the back seat resembling something mentioned in the complaint. The cop starts asking more questions and gets more evasion so he decides to investigate a little further.

If a cop suspects that a car and people in the car match the description of a robbery that just happened they don't need a reason of "speeding" to pull them over. They already have probable cause to stop a vehicle that not only looks like the car from a robbery but the occupants look like it also. And in such a situation the cop or any cop for that matter is not going to go up to the window without a gun drawn because robbers are automatically assumed dangerous. I know, I was pulled over one night after leaving work due to a robbery that happened at the place I worked at (a casino). It was only the intervention of the people that worked in surveillance where I worked that assured the cops that they had the wrong car. I had a good laugh at the mistake.

Maybe these guys are completely unrelated to the crime in the complaint but their behavior is indicative of some kind of coverup. The cops have an obligation to investigate and if their investigation is being obstructed they have every right to detain the suspects until they can get clarification. The more the suspects obstruct the investigation, even if such obstruction is well within their rights, the more the cops are going to be inclined to take physical action. Temporary detention incidental to the investigation of a crime is not a violation of the 4th Amendment since it's reasonable. Using physical force to effect that detention is also reasonable and lawful so long as the amount of force used is not excessive based on the facts and circumstances of the engagement.

Except in this case we know exactly the type of behavior that the people in the car had. Simply exercising ones Rights is never a valid cause to suspect any criminal goings on. People have a Right to not answer cops questions no matter the situation. People have a Right to record all encounters with cops also. No cop has the Right or Power to escalate things simply because someone is exercising their Rights. They do and they can get into trouble.

I'll go one step further. In cases where one cop is engaging multiple suspects he has to be VERY careful not to allow himself to get distracted by one as it's a fairly common tactic prior to an assault. In this kind of situation, even though another unit was on scene, gaining control of the situation was critical to officer safety and the steps taken were fully warranted.

No, the steps taken were not warranted. The guy was well with in his Rights to continue to record and not put the phone down. And he did comply with putting his hands on the seat in front of him. Again, the cop has no Right or Power to force someone to stop recording unless that person is being arrested for a reason other than recording them. Any cop that respected peoples Rights would not have pushed the issue the way that cop did.

 

[JANFU]

You can't possibly know that. Hell, speeding could have just been part of the reason they were stopped.

Here's the way this stuff works in the real world. A cop gets a complaint that three guys were spotted leaving the scene of a robbery. There's a vehicle description and a general description of what the suspects were wearing. A cop spots a car with three occupants. Both the car and the occupants meet the general description from the complaint. The cop looks for a reason to stop the car and, as luck would have it, the car is doing 10mph over the posted speed limit. He's now got probable cause to make the stop. When he engages the individuals in the vehicle they avoid answering questions, have trouble coming up with vehicle and personal identification and there is a bag on the back seat resembling something mentioned in the complaint. The cop starts asking more questions and gets more evasion so he decides to investigate a little further.

Maybe these guys are completely unrelated to the crime in the complaint but their behavior is indicative of some kind of coverup. The cops have an obligation to investigate and if their investigation is being obstructed they have every right to detain the suspects until they can get clarification. The more the suspects obstruct the investigation, even if such obstruction is well within their rights, the more the cops are going to be inclined to take physical action. Temporary detention incidental to the investigation of a crime is not a violation of the 4th Amendment since it's reasonable. Using physical force to effect that detention is also reasonable and lawful so long as the amount of force used is not excessive based on the facts and circumstances of the engagement.

I'll go one step further. In cases where one cop is engaging multiple suspects he has to be VERY careful not to allow himself to get distracted by one as it's a fairly common tactic prior to an assault. In this kind of situation, even though another unit was on scene, gaining control of the situation was critical to officer safety and the steps taken were fully warranted.

Is any of the above pertinent to this stop? Nothing but conjecture on this specific incident?? Yes- No
If it was, the LEO would have called for assitance and it would have been their quickly.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

When a cop tells you to empty your hands and put them on the seat...you do it. Don't give them any excuse to jack you up. Be nice, be calm, and walk away clean. THEN you can raise questions about the cops actions.

Sure but the civil suit payoff will be greater if he jacks you up.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

It started with doing 35-40 in a 25 and then you can't really tell what else was going on. I suspect that the cop wanted to see what was in the plastic bag on the back seat.

Reasonable suspicion?

 

[Caine]

The guy got pulled over for doing 10-15 over the limit in a residential area, hedged on answering questions and had a trash bag on the back seat that could easily have contained a couple of pounds of weed. The stop wasn't unreasonable and neither were the questions. If the jackass had just said "There's nothing illegal in my car and I don't consent to a search" he'd have been perfectly within his rights. The cop would then have to make a determination whether he had probable cause to request a warrant and call in a K9 unit. If he didn't find anything then everyone could have just gone on their way with a speeding ticket. Instead the idiot decided to play lawyer and ended up with his face in the pavement.

No sympathy.

You don't have to get a warrant to search a vehicle that was pulled over in transit. You just have to have probable cause.

Now to search a vehicle parked at a residence that you didn't pull over... you do.

 

[Caine]

Nope, probable cause has to exist before the demand for identification - note the emphasized part below. Also note the other requirements for the demand.



Illinois General Assembly - Illinois Compiled Statutes

You are getting the request for identification confused with the stop.

The STOP requires that the officer reasonably infer from the circumstances that the person is commiting about to commit or has commited an offense.

Its the difference between an investigatory detention and a voluntary contact.

During a voluntary contact, a citizen is free to walk away from an officer and free to refuse to identify themselves.

State law determines whether or not a passenger of a vehicle that was stopped (traffic stops also require reasonable suspicion) is required to identify themselves or not.

 

[Caine]

That's not a definition of probable cause that is reasonable suspicion. similar but certainly different.
As to the issue at hand. the US Supreme Court has said (Muehler v. Mena) that simply asking for identification does not violate the 4th Amendment. Police can ask people questions and for identification at any time.
This of course does not mean that you have to comply. This is where the state laws come in.
Now there was already probable cause for the traffic stop because of speeding. However.. in United States v. Slater which was somewhat similar... traffic stop.. passenger was asked for ID and actually provided it and they found warrants.. it was ruled that there was no reasonable suspicion that the passenger was involved in a crime and and couldn't be arrested the reasoning being had no reasonable suspicion to believe that the passenger was involved in criminal activity; he was merely a passenger in a vehicle stopped for motor vehicle violations. As such, Hiibel would not justify his arrest since the rule from Hiibel requires that the person(s) being asked to identify themselves must be the subject of a valid Terry stop, i.e. they must be suspected of criminal activity and that suspicion must be supported by reasonable suspicion.

You got more info on US V Slater? Because that sounds suspicious..... How can an arrest on warrant (which means a judge found probable cause for an unrelated charge) be dismissed due to the manner in which they apprehended him?

 

[Caine]

With his hands on the seat. You can hold something while your hands are against something ya know. Also the cop had no reasonable excuse to order the guy to put the cell phone down as its most certainly not a dangerous object that would threaten his life...his career yes, not his life. Which is probably why the cop wanted him to put it down as he didn't want to risk his job because he did something stupid. This cop definitely went over the line and the video is proof of that.

A police officer can ask him to put a cell phone down at any time. Doesn't mean he has to comply.

I swear some people think police need probable cause to do anything. Those people would be wrong.

 

[Caine]

He got jacked up for exercising his rights. If the officer had probable cause he wouldn't have had to ask permission to search. He asked permission because he knew he didn't have probable cause. When he got a 'no' answer, he should have let it go. But he didn't let it go, did he? No, he kept pushing. That's not an investigation, that's harassment.

Not necessarily so. Some officers think it is better to ask for permission, even if they have probable cause.

I've always told those officers they are idiots, because if you have probable cause to search, you search, you don't ask first, that creates another trust issue/barrier/altercation with a subject that you don't need.

 

[Caine]

How many times have we seen stories where the cop tries to stop someone from recording them, then get slapped down in a lawsuit afterward? I'm starting to believe that SOP before giving a cop a badge should be signing a public document stating that they know recording is legal and allowed.

The difference is trying to forcefully stop someone from recording. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a police officer asking someone not to record. Hell, I didn't want to be recorded either. Not because I was doing something wrong, but I don't trust what they may do with that video these days with youtube. You saw how easy it was for NBC news to make Zimmerman out to be a racist by cleverly editing the 911 recording.

But when police officers go threatening, that is another problem.

I once had to explain to my own supervisor that I can't take people's phones from them while they were recording a house fire where a woman was inside burning alive while Firefighters tried to save her. (She died btw). Is it ****ing rude and disgusting of them to record? Yes. But can I take their phone? No.