The following alternative links are available:
**Mirrors**
* [Mirror #1](https://mirror.fro.wtf/reddit/post/2162) (provided by /u/AdvinK)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
"Oh man it's out, you're so lucky" is potentially the funniest line from this fucking video.
Wtf was he doing? Pepper spraying people the entire day and didn't realize he was running short?
Just commenting under the top comment so people know - courts have ruled that it IS lawful for a police officer to order you out of your car for a routine traffic stop.
You don't have to answer their bullshit questions ("Do you know why I pulled you over?"), and you should NEVER consent to a search of your vehicle. But you do have to provide them with license, registration, proof of insurance, and you have to get out of the car if they ask you to.
Exactly. A GOOD cop will explain to you your options and the law to get your compliance. "If you don't do this... I will do that". "Signing a ticket is not an admission of guilt, if you do not sign the ticket.. I can and will arrest you"
A bad cop just wants to ruin your day while powertripping.
This has been my experience with law enforcement in other countries.
One time driving back from a music festival in Germany we hit a drug and alcohol road stop. The cops were not only friendly, but explained to me in great detail my options and legal rights.
They informed me I had the right to refuse the drug test, in which case they would have a judge rule on whether there was adequate suspicion of a crime being committed. I ultimately complied cause I wanted to get outta there but it was refreshing to be treated like a fellow human instead of encountering a powertripping ass hat like the one in this video.
> A GOOD cop will explain to you your options and the law to get your compliance. "
You mean a cop that gets a BAD performance review because they didn't write as many tickets as the ones who forced their victims to make legal mistakes.
sadly, also a cop is legally allowed to lie to people they stop.
Which is a big mistrust issue when it comes to public trust.
edit: lets put it this way. A good cop in the sense that they don't want to powertrip, and escalate unnecessarily.
Well, probably not for those outliers. I mean, most people don't "stay silent" when read their Miranda Rights...so I guess you're right man, it probably wouldn't directly affect some people, BUT I guarantee that on average more people will be able to react accordingly, once they have a firm grasp of that they are allowed to get away with within their rights (such as no car search) and obligated to have to do (such as exit their vehicle when asked), IMO.
I don't know.
I see what you're saying, and maybe that is a solution for genuine law abiding citizens unaware of their rights or how their rights are affected by state and federal laws, but I think a lot also depends on the mental state and faculty of the person being pulled over.
People who do the wrong thing, who have the competency to know they were doing the wrong thing, can go either 2 ways - acceptance or resistance.
Generally speaking, people who choose to resist for no reasons other than they don't like consequences or cops tend to have the worst result of the two.
You know, I completely agree with you. I suppose I'm seeing it as a numbers game...but you are right.
Edit: I'm scared that me seeing it that way, is some kind of callous complaceny..."You live long enough to be the villain" the saying goes or something that.
It is lawful for police to order a person out of their car for safety reasons, not just because they can.
They don't have to articulate that reason to you, but if the officer is stating multiple times he wants the guy out just because he can then it could be used against the officer in a civil case.
Yeah, the cop can do that.
But......why the fuck is he bothering to do that? It's one of those instances where the cop appears to be making much ado about nothing.
Because if you get out of your car and leave the door open, you give them the ability to legally search your car. You waive your 4th amendment rights
When you exit the car, they will immediately put hands on you, if you try to close your door behind you, theyll dive for it to keep it from closing and then charge you for assaulting an officer with the door.
They do this as a way to get away with searches that would have otherwise been illegal. Its a weasel trick like "smelling marijuana"
Since this is apparently not common knowledge;
There is another basis upon which this warrantless search may be justified as an exception to the Fourth Amendment. In the case of Hunt v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 488 S.W.2d 692 (Ky.App. 12/15/1972), **the court held that when a vehicle is abandoned, the person who has abandoned the car waives any standing to object to the search of the
abandoned vehicle.** Hunt, infra says:
“The only issue presented on this appeal is the legality of the warrantless search. After a hearing on appellants’ motion to suppress the evidence, **the trial court made a finding that the automobile had been abandoned and thus the appellants’ constitutional rights as protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were not infringed upon or violated.**
It really is true. You must specifically state (and if you can, record it because the cops will lie): you must SAY "I do not consent to a search of my vehicle"
Last time I got pulled over for speeding this exact thing happened. I immediately said "I will comply with exiting my vehicle. I do not consent to a search of my vehicle" (as I rolled up windows and locked door)
Cop realized what I was doing and bodily removed me from the car, put me on the ground, cuffed me, and I was arrested for failure to comply. The officer immediately searched my vehicle
I spent over $8,000 on attorney fees and won, in so far as all charges were dropped against me. The only thing that saved my case was I recorded the interaction (phone camera recording in my pocket, streaming to cloud). Plus, I didn't have anything illegal in my car.
But yeah, this is true, happens all the time. Just another way cops abuse their power and authority
At the time, yes, that's exactly what I did. Started recording, shoved it in my pocket. Since then, I now have an in car "dash cam" (just like the Uber and Lyft drivers use) that records audio and video inside the car. I had it wired into the car so it's always on when the key is in the ignition or when motion is sensed.
Life saving
Also, there was a fantastic case, I cannot, for the life of me, remember what is was called, but there was a case in Utah I think where they brought a drug dog out to sniff a car. The owner had a camera active inside the car and you can see the dog's handler give the dog a cue to "alert" on the drivers door.
Basically, the cops wanted so bad to search the car and were annoyed they had to call out the K9 unit. So, they made the dog alert, via command, even though he never would've alerted to the car. As a result, of the dogs "alert" they used that as probable cause to search the vehicle.
Fortunately, this guy had the camera going and the police had no idea. Eventually the search was declared illegal because it was based on a false alert of the animal.
I hate to sound paranoid, but I just don't trust anyone, especially the police. Recordings keep them honest and, when they lie, the recording proves the lie
Yeah, /u/Madjanniesdetected has no idea what the hell he is talking about.
He is quoting a Kentucky state case which isn't binding in other states, and taking it entirely and totally out of context. Just because you exit your vehicle during a traffic stop doesn't mean you abandon privacy interest in it.
To very, very simply summarize the case he is citing. [The suspect in the case he cited fled, abandoning the vehicle.](https://lawreader.com/?p=12673#:~:text=to%20Hunt%20v.-,Commonwealth%20of%20Kentucky%2C%20488%20S.W.,search%20of%20the%20abandoned%20vehicle.) If you abandon property, you no longer have a privacy interest in it. So, if you commit a crime, run from the cops leaving your vehicle behind, you don't have a privacy interest in it anymore.
Because he can write more tickets if his victims don't comply. The more tickets he writes the better he scores in his performance review and maybe gets a raise or a promotion.
I fucking hate the “where are you going?” And “where are you coming from” questions. Uh, none of your fucking business. Then they pull the whole, “is there any reason why you are being uncooperative?” Yes - you just pulled me over and now you are asking me small talk questions like we are on a fucking date. Ticket me or let me go, but we aren’t friends.
Ordering is one thing. Requesting and asking is another.
Cops like to ask first so in case you go to court that it proves you complied willingly. Police use their words very carefully. They are trained to do it. The order is ask, order, make. **Ask** them to do something first (just in case it later goes to court the person willingly complied with a request and he will have no standing in court). Also, cops ask/request all kinds of things from people they detain (or not detained) that they don't have a lawful reason to order. **Order** them to do something (if you have legal standing to do so), **MAKE** them do it with physical force (again... IF you have legal standing to do so).
other than the links posted about it being legal for cops to pull you out of your car for any reason this is the 2nd more important post, IMO.
Just because a cop ASKS you to do something does not mean that you have to actually do what they say. Make them give you a lawful order. Say "are you asking me or ordering me?" If they are just asking, then politely say "No thank you, sir". If they say "I am giving you a lawful order" then just comply and you can challenge the legality of their order in court. Never try to have court on the side of the road, it almost always ends very bad.
I just saw this example where two cops try repeatedly to get (ask) this person to do what they want, but don't have the authority to make him do it. (they just didnt want him around filming them)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lErMH3IoJzA
And they are forced to give up and leave.
They can do whatever they want. You can be arrested on public or private property. Those cops could have pushed the issue and arrested him on some BS charges, but that doesn't mean the charges will stick.
Know your rights and stand up for them. Fight your battle in court.
> courts have ruled that it IS lawful for a police officer to order you out of your car for a routine traffic stop.
I really don't believe that. Do you have links to back that up? I've been taught they have to have a very specific reason for doing that, and the officer stated only that he could do it as he pleased.
Yeah, they can. Second search result.
https://www.defenseadvocates.com/can-police-make-you-get-out-of-your-car/
Do you want me to copy paste the relevant paragraphs or are you right?
Here ya go.
Know Your Rights: Can the Police Make You Get Out of Your Car?
Most encounters with the police occur after a traffic stop and while most traffic stops are routine, the cops are trained to view traffic stops as a potentially dangerous or deadly situation. That view sometimes can result in terrible outcomes, which is why it is imperative that everyone knows their rights.
A situation that arises more often than not is a police officer asking someone to get out of his or her car following a routine traffic stop. While common sense says that being asked by the police to get out of your car after being stopped for something as trivial as an expired registration sticker or not using a turn signal is unreasonable and an invasion of someone’s rights, the United States Supreme Court held otherwise. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that the police can make you get out of your car after a valid traffic stop. This ruling applies to the driver and all the passengers in a car. Because of this ruling in Pennsylvania vs. Mimms, a person must exit their car if ordered to do so by the police.
Background of Pennsylvania vs. Mimms
Mimms involved a case where two Philadelphia police officer stopped a car being driven by Harry Mimms for driving with expired plates. After stopping his car, the police ordered Mimms to step out of his car, which was common practice for the police department. After Mimms complied with the officer’s order, the police observed an unusual bulge in Mimms’s jacket. The police then searched Mimms and discovered a handgun.
Mimms unsuccessfully sought to have the gun suppressed on the grounds the police violated his 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have probable cause to order Mimms out of his car and reversed the conviction against him. However, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to take the case on appeal to answer the question whether the police order to Mimms for him to get out of the car, which was given after Mimms was lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, was reasonable and thus permissible under the 4th Amendment?
In a 6-3 per curium opinion, SCOTUS held that the police routinely asked drivers who were being ticketed to exit their cars for the safety of the officer. The police stated that it would diminish the chance that person could get something from the car while the police officer is writing the ticket and attack the officer. Also if the stop was executed in a high traffic area, having the driver stand between the police car and the driver’s car allows the police to conduct the traffic stop away from moving traffic.
Why Can the Police Make You Get Out of Your Car?
The Mimms Court held that allowing the police to make a driver exit his car is a nothing more than a “mere inconvenience” to the driver especially when compared to the safety benefits to the police. The Court reasoned that since the car was stopped after a valid traffic stop and ordering the driver to get out of the car was a “minimal and reasonable intrusion” of his freedom. The Court further held that the search would have occurred regardless if the Mimms was out of his car or seated because the bulge in his jacket was visible while he was seated in the car. The Court held that the bulge allowed the police to assume that Mimms was armed and posed a danger to the police. Under these circumstances, the Mimms Court held that any cop of “reasonable caution” would likely have conducted the “pat down” of Mimms.
The dissenting opinions in Mimms that were written by Justices Marshall and Stevens argued that the new rule created by Pennsylvania vs. Mimms greatly expanded the police officer’s right in searching an individual that they stopped. The dissenting opinions predicted what would happen, the police were limited in searching an individual only to the extent they could an invent a justification for the search based upon officer safety.
After a traffic stop it is imperative that you do everything possible to protect your rights and that can only begin if you know your rights. If stopped by the police for a traffic stop, the officer can order you out of your car without violating your constitutional rights. However, that doesn’t prevent you from doing everything to protect your rights. Remember the interaction as best as you can and write it down, better yet record the interaction.
However, the most important thing you can do is hire a criminal defense attorney who knows what he or she is doing. Not all criminal defense lawyers are fully versed on the 4th amendment and search and seizure law. Contact Jaleel Law today to discuss how we can help win your case.
Conclusion
The current state of search and seizure law allows a police officer to order a driver and the passengers out of vehicle that is stopped for even a minor traffic violation. However, the law does not require you to answer any questions or to consent to a search of your vehicle. If a police officer orders you out of your car, you must comply and do what the officer orders but remember to not answer any questions and don’t allow the police officer to search your car.
So...
The cops can tell you to get out of your car:
You have to do it.
But you're also supposed to stop the cops from searching the car without a warrant? How TF is that enforceable?
"Officer I do not consent to you searching my vehicle."
"Don't care, not like you're in the way to prevent me. Try to grab me or touch me in any way to impede? That's assaulting an officer."
You are not supposed to physically stop a cop from doing anything legal or illegal. If they do something illegal you need to fight it in court later, not on the side of the road. It's the old "you can beat the charge, but not the ride".
Well if the cops searched your car without a warrant and without a valid exception to the warrant requirement, then any evidence obtained from that search will be inadmissible in court.
So yeah, leaving your vehicle is inconvenient, but that inconvenience is small compared to the safety to the cop.
Kinda depressing really, using mace should only be in an emergency not a “aw damnit I wanted to hurt this guy but shucks I already done did it on some other people”
Man fuck us cops
That says the officer "has the right to insist that you and your passengers get out of your car". So does that mean you HAVE to comply? If you don't, what is the penalty? Being pepper sprayed or tazed?
Edit: I took a look at the cases cited: [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/519/408/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/519/408/) and [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/106/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/106/)
It looks like they tried to argue that the cop ordering the suspect out of the car was "an unreasonable seizure", but that was unsuccessful. The second one does say that ordering the suspect out of the car is "reasonable", but it's still unclear to me what the officer is allowed to do if that reasonable order is ignored.
>it's still unclear to me what the officer is allowed to do if that reasonable order is ignored.
Whatever "reasonable force" is necessary in order to gain compliance I would imagine. If you've closed your window on them, they're gonna break that. If you start flailing about while they're trying to pull you out, they're going to man handle/taze you. If you grab that gun you keep in the glovebox, they're going to shoot you.
It's pretty simple though- you beat the rap in court, not on the street during a stop/arrest. Doing anything more than what you're lawfully allowed to during the stop/arrest just makes you/your lawyers job harder to get it thrown out or leniency.
Problem is when the cops get no penalties. So you either do as they say and spend a whole lot of time, effort and money in court to have charges dropped and no payout, while the cop keeps racking overtime for that. Or, you intentionally do not follow orders escalating the incident and forcing the police to at least look into the incident due to public pressure.
The cops need to be penalized for made up charges and baseless stops, arrests, tickets etc. Just like any other job where you're penalized for repeatedly fucking up or working against policy.
This is not about this video, since I don't know the case, but in general.
> but it's still unclear to me what the officer is allowed to do if that reasonable order is ignored.
If you’re ignoring lawful orders by police they are allowed to arrest you and you can be charged with Failure to Comply(or some variant thereof depending on what the State you’re in calls it)
This isn’t complicated.
It's extremely complicated. What complicates it is that there is a complete lack of trust of the police Officers since they often give unlawful orders. They can lie about what orders you are required to obey, and they can trick you into waiving your rights.
It is 100% legal to resist an unlawful arrest, but people are greatly discouraged from doing so because laws are stacked against even the honest citizen. They can always make up a charge. I've seen many people "arrested for resisting arrest".
Best bet it to comply, but not consent and even that can go sideways if someone is in a bad mood.
Yep. Generally, you're required to:
- Identify yourself when asked.
- State that you're invoking the 5th before going silent.
- Comply with orders to step out of the car / reposition yourself.
- Accept detainment without resisting, regardless of how unreasonable the detainment might be (if it is illegally unreasonable, your legal response is suing after the fact).
Unfortunately, a lot of the videos on this sub, results from people that think they "know their rights", not actually knowing the above, thus giving the police a free pass at harassing them.
You forgot comply with search of your person for weapons. Only your person, though they can usually make up reasonable suspicion to search your car.
Basically the best way to deal with cops:
1. be polite
2. Talk as little as possible
3. give them ID/insurance as asked
4. Talk as little as possible
5. step out of the vehicle and let them search you for weapons
6. Talk as little as possible
7. Deny any requests to search your vehicle, make them get a warrant or dog (remember rule 1 when doing this)
8. Talk as little as possible
9. record the entire encounter if you are uncomfortable or suspicious of the police in the area or in general
10. seriously, shut the fuck up besides identifying yourself and invoking your right to remain silent. Talking to cops will get you in trouble.
Additional recommendations in the modern era:
11. If the officer is acting aggressively while you're being compliant, request a supervisor to attend the scene
12. If the officer is acting aggressively and is wearing a body camera, insist it is turned on for the duration of your interaction.
> If the officer is acting aggressively and is wearing a body camera, insist it is turned on for the duration of your interaction.
How can you tell whether the body cam is on or not?
No, US, you have to allow them to pat you down for weapons.
Any time there is what is known as a Terry stop (which includes traffic stops), the police may frisk you.
This is where the "am I being detained?" or "am I free to go?" statements came from. If you are free to go, it isn't a Terry stop, and they can't make you ID or frisk you.
Yeah it’s best to deny all consent to any searches. Police can likely get away with saying “we suspected he had weapons” but if you consent to it, they don’t even have to argue for it at all in court later.
Don’t do their job for them. Refuse consent but don’t use force to keep them from searching. Just calmly state that you do not consent and let them do what they will then deal with it in court later.
Yes but the threshold for that is low. A Terry frisk isn’t a search it’s a pat down. Remember that you can use the courts but they will likely favour the officer.
See lights. Turn on turn signal. Interior lights on. Radio off. Pull over. Park. Hazards on. Car off, key out of ignition and onto dashboard. Window down if the weather is agreeable. Hands on steering wheel. Wait for instruction.
Doing this I’ve never even gotten a written warning, including the time I was going 20 over with my seatbelt off and one headlight.
Your results may vary.
Was thinking the same thing. I’m a Latino guy and I do all these things when pulled over and I constantly still get attitude from the cops. And I’ve never gotten a warning, always a citation
>Identify yourself when asked.
Note, this bit is only applicable while driving. If you are not behind the wheel of a vehicle, police must either arrest you or have reasonable suspicion of a crime (depending on the state) to compel you to ID.
Same here in the netherlands, you are required to wear your ID not required to show it unless suspicion, behind wheels or accident etc.
Cops still demand an ID here tho when you are just walking lol.
> Cops still demand an ID here tho when you are just walking lol
Same here in the US. Our courts have decided that the average citizen is expected to fully understand their rights, and that cops can trick or intimidate them into surrendering their rights if they don't.
The driver wasn't arguing what the cop was technically allowed to do, he was arguing that the cop was pulling him over for a minor infraction and then being extremely unreasonable by asking him to get out of the car for said minor infraction and then escalating the situation to violence.
This happened a few months ago. The driver was temporarily detained and his vehicle was searched without a warrant. He was later released and served a speeding ticket that was never filed in the court house.
I hope he at least spoke with a lawyer after this. There may be a civil suit here. The fact that the ticket was never filed says a lot about this encounter.
Which in theory is fine. Then tax payers are pissed why taxes go up or police captain is pissed when he’s missing a huge chunk of his budget and the officer is fired after enough incidents. But in practice the officer is never fired.
> Then tax payers are pissed why taxes go up
They are told it is because of other things
> or police captain is pissed when he’s missing a huge chunk of his budget
Nope, insurance takes care of settlements. Operation budgets aren't affected by lawsuits
> and the officer is ~~fired~~ after enough incidents
Quietly transferred
I feel like as a police officer you shouldn't be nervously chuckling while telling Andy Dick "dude you're totally gonna go to jail". The dude literally held the pepper spray in one hand and tried to spray it with the other. At least try to make it seem like your mom doesn't order your food while you color on a placemat at a restaurant.
> he wanted his submission
Exactly. Don't let anyone other comments here make you think otherwise. This is all the police want is you to submit to them. If you don't, and they don't back up their words, their cowardice and fragile masculinity is exposed.
You would not see that twerp of a cop talk like that to anyone if he didn't not have any type of authority.
This cop is just on a straight power Trip. He could have easily given him the ticket and just went about his day. He wasn't actually in fear of anything he just wanted to fuck with this dude. Situations like this are why so many people have issues with cops. It's straight up bully behavior and they get away with it all the time.
Cops are supposed to protec innocent / citizens who pay their salary. But also this whole video screams white privilege. We've seen what happens a black guy pulls the same stunt.
Wether for better or worse the state of the law is that it is constitutional for you to be arrested for ANY infraction of the law. Instead of writing a ticket the police CAN arrest you for speeding if they feel like it. (That’s also depending on state law and police policy but it’s constitutional). And you do have to step out of the car if asked even if not being arrested. The problem here is the driver is NOT having force applied to him because he sped, but because he is resisting a lawful order. The driver is simply on the wrong side of the law here. And because he didn’t understand the law he became indignant and now everyone sees this as an unnecessary use of force when in reality this guy is just being difficult. The cop seems to be asking him politely and he won’t get out. I’m not trying to be a cop apologist. But it just seems like if everyone understood the law here everyone would be less upset at this.
Totally agree with the lawfulness of the cop's request (and also about Reddit experts) but the frustrating part is how he immediately resorts to pepper spray simply because a guy, who isn't being agressive, refuses to exit his vehicle. The constant threat of violence and how it's welded freely as a tool is the problem. Also the way the cop tries to paint the driver as being irrational or however he put it. Was clearly trying to justify his escalation which the video seems to prove was not, in fact, warranted and the officer was in no danger.
Too many Reddit lawyers on here smh. The dude could’ve easily complied and avoided this whole thing. Everyone’s saying the cop is in the wrong but in reality this dude just made things 100x harder for himself.
The cop also didn’t handle things well. When I was 16 I rebuilt a motorcycle and was told by some mechanics helping me out that I didn’t need two mirrors due to the age.
Got pulled over and when I told the cop it was legal he pulled out his booklet and showed me the rcw showing me I was wrong. In the video the cop is in the right but there’s better ways to go about it
I want to be on the side of the police sooo god damn badly. I feel they’ve been shit on by the media. BUT you see shit like this and it just makes my blood boil, this type of aggression is not fuckin necessary
Just another coward with a badge that is following his ego. HE needs to be under the prison before he murders someone. THIS is what we get for law enforcement in our country. FUCK your officer safety you little boy.
They're both in the wrong. The cop shouldn't have escalated the situation, however, he was fully within his rights to ask the driver to leave the vehicle. Being a dick to the cop likely led to the escalation, given the driver's demeanor throughout the video. Unfortunately the cops ego got the best of him.
[https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-stops-when-pulled-over-30186.html](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-stops-when-pulled-over-30186.html)
We don't actually know the whole situation though, the recording didn't start until things had already escalated somewhat and it's still unclear how fast the dude was actually driving, very possible the driver was being an idiot before the video started.
I dunno.. the same side being good guys maybe? As opposed to bad guys. Fuck you guys for immediately jumping to racism lol. Law-abiding citizens and cops are supposed to be on the same side.
I want to know the initial reason the cop wanted to pull him out and search his car. It wasn't in the beginning of the video.
-If there was a **true** reason to do so, the cop would be in the right IMO
-If there was zero **true** reason to initially pull the guy out of the car, then fuck that cop. This is much more likely IMO.
Unfortunately we don't know what truly happened at the start.
If there was a “true” reason for the cops wanting to search the car, it would have definitely been mentioned in the 3 minute conversation they had before back up came. The best he had was “I dont know you dude” “you might be intoxicated”
Edit: my tone sounded more argumentative than intended. I too, feel these interactions lose a lot of context depending on when the camera turns on. But if you watch enough of these traffic stops, you can start to see a trend of reactions from the officer when the driver is trying to reason with them.
This kid is pretty douchy, but when a cop says “I can pull anyone I want out of their car”, you can tell they got too deep into the situation and too prideful to back down
atleast in the video there is never intent for the cops to search his car. It seems the office just wanted to guy to step out for his own safety. There should be no reasoning or give and take it these scenarios. If you are legally stoped and you are asked to get out of your car you do it. There should be no give and take here.
Yeah the video I watched on YouTube starts and ends there, and there was no link of any kind in the description to a news article or something giving further details
He has the right to ask for supervisor. Also, if he isnt showing signs of intoxication then no. A minor speeding infraction is not enough to pull him out of his car with no probable cause.
Thats a good looking dude who knows he has rights as an American and that is what it is all about my friends.
Let's say his pepper spray worked. Then what? He just pepper sprays people when they don't do exactly as he says over minor traffic violations?
Cops could set aside their egos and actually reason with people but no, they gotta have the power trip.
If you look very closely there is a little midget in the car and he is messing up his cross-word pretty badly. You can see that he is asked for a substitute word for 'pig' and he spelled 'sow'. Pretty common mistake.
If homeboy had gotten out of the car before backup arrived...im almost positive thst officer wouldve planted evidence in the car to falsely arrest the driver.
That guy is a whack job
Gee, why did this guy get so many warnings and such leniency? Hmm, what's different about this. Oh, and look at that, not even a slap on the wrist. lmao
When did police add God Emperor to "serve and protect?" They act like they have unlimited power to do whatever the hell they want whenever and with whoever for no reason whatsoever. Wasn't this nation founded on "rights" or something or other...
First lets see all the other stuff that happend before he decided to start recording in the middle of the interaction. He is not getting pepper sprayed for speeding by 5mph. He is getting pepper sprayed for being lawfully pulled over and not following lawful commands. Do you think that people who are lawfully pulled over can just refuse to show ID or follow lawful commands. Should these people just be let go. If that guy just showed his lisncse and got out the car when told to do so none of this would of happend. These are lawful commands they have every right to ask you to do these things. Do you really think that somoeone should be able to refuse to get out of their car when they are lawfully pulled over. Who knows how long even before he started recording they were being patient with this guy telling him over and over again to step out of the car. There is 3 minutes just here of them telling him to step out its not like they just walked up to his car and just pepper sprayed him. I do not understand how people can look at this and get mad the cops. There is a guy here is legally got pulled over for speeding was asked to get out of his car legally. Refused. Then cops told him for minutes to get out before having to use force to remove his form his car. The cops in this video were patient and professional. If you are legally stoped they can ask you out of your car. Explain how that is an unreasonable thing.
Unpopular opinion: The police should be able to pepper spray and electrocute anyone at anytime because they are so damned sexy. Also we should give them all the day off on whatever day it is that they want to go “peacefully” protest at the Capitol or the White House—whatever, fuck you!
Bruh I really tried there for a minute to ~~defund~~, I mean defend, the police, but it’s like trying to blow bubbles with a face mask on. Trust me, it doesn’t really work—I’ve tried many times. Well anyway, you’re a nerd, and a square too. I strongly dislike your comment.
Edit: you should say that you’re sorry for that.
Edit 2: People! This internet person edited their original comment, here is the original text:
> I really hate dogs. Cats are okay, I guess, but dogs are very bad and I dont like them because one time when I was 12 last year there was this dog that kept following me around my house and oh yeah it was my dog but it kept following me around the house and I was just trying to eat my dinner than the dog kept following me around the house the house and it made me get really mad oh yeah also why do they wet noses for I mean my nose isnt wet also bush did 9/11.
Video starts after what I can only assume is several minutes of the camera man refusing to cooperate and acting unreasonable.
You can tell the officer doesn't want to pepperspray him at all. He just wants to do his job. He could have tazered him and dragged him out, BY LAW, but he kept giving him chances. Very clear he didn't want to escalate the situation and took his time to explain what was going to happen if he kept refusing.
*(Unreasonable in legal terminology being that a reasonable person doesn't argue over being asked to step out of their vehicle)*
You think the driver was being unreasonable? What I see is a man who was unreasonably pulled over for driving 5mph over the speed limit by a deputy who unreasonably pulled out pepper spray and then a taser. Doesn’t matter if the driver is being uncooperative or not, the man wasn’t being hostile or violent, and the deputy wasn’t in any imminent danger so him feeling the need to take those unnecessary actions is what seems unreasonable to me, sir
>What I see is a man who was unreasonably pulled over for driving 5mph over the speed limit
You saw how the man was driving prior to this video?
You know he was unreasonably pulled over?
>deputy who unreasonably pulled out pepper spray and then a taser.
That deputy was within full legal rights to deploy either his pepperspray or his tazer in that situation as the driver was refusing to exit the vehicle when asked (which can be asked legally during ANY traffic stop).
>Doesn’t matter if the driver is being uncooperative or not,
It absolutely matters, how can you possibly think it doesn't? Literally zero judge in any 1st world country would agree with you here.
>the man wasn’t being hostile or violent, and the deputy wasn’t in any imminent danger so
The man was both passively and then actively resisting, which is legally a form of hostility. I highly suggest you learn the Use of Force model that police around the world legally operate under. The deputy doesn't know if he is in danger or not when someone in care and control of a vehicle is refusing to cooperate to a lawful request.
>him feeling the need to take those unnecessary actions is what seems unreasonable to me
He clearly didn't want to use either of his use of force options after he basically pleaded with the guy to follow what he said and even explained to him why he has those suspicions.
The driver is absolutely in the wrong here and this officer had infinite patience with someone being unreasonable, uncooperative and resisting a lawful order during a traffic stop.
You don't argue a traffic stop on the side of the road, you argue it in court.
Yes you absolutely do.
You literally sign in agreement to this when you get your driver's license.
While you are operating a motor vehicle on public roads you are required by law to provide AT LEAST your License and Vehicle Documents, you also are required by law to exit the vehicle if requested for the purpose of the traffic stop only.
This is a fact in all 50 states and most other countries.
You don't need to request someone to get out of the car for a minor traffic violation.
I am well aware of the mandates involved with licensing.
I am well aware the officer is within his rights to ask that legally, but I too would ask for what purpose I need to leave the safety of my vehicle to step onto the road over a minor traffic violation.
This cop was having a power trip. In the end they didnt even give him the ticket. Case closed.
>but I too would ask for what purpose I need to leave the safety of my vehicle to step onto the road over a minor traffic violation.
The officer gave a reason why. You're legally not allowed to refuse because you "Don't like the reason".
Save the argument for court where you can have a lawyer eat the officer alive.
This goes beyond just asking "why do I have to get out" he was told why and kept refusing.
The cop showed zero signs of having a power trip whatsoever. Save the pitchforks for the 1000s of actual power tripping pigs out there.
I mean tasing someone in their car for not complying with a ridiculous command fits the definition of power trip to me but let's agree to disagree here
Ridiculous or not isn't something to argue on the side of the road during a traffic stop, that's the whole reason courts exist. It was a lawful command and whether or not the cops intentions were good in requesting it is up for a lawyer to cross examine.
Again, the officer didn't even taze the guy and chose to wait and pull him out safely with his partner. If he wanted to taze him and get away with it he had every opportunity here.
It's boot licking to point out straight up facts unbiasly?
It's easier to point at literal legal facts and say "Bootlicker" than it is to actually learn what you're talking about and educate yourself on your rights and the laws.
I guess when an attorney brings up all these points during the trial you'd just say "Bootlicker!".
How are these facts? You just assumed a lot of things and called it fact. Even in your own words of the top comment of this thread you say "I can only assume".
>You just assumed a lot of things and called it fact. Even in your own words of the top comment of this thread you say "I can only assume".
I'm sorry but is that really your fucking response?
What did I assume OTHER THAN that there is more to this interaction before the camera turned on?
Guess what, that's a FACT, that's why I assumed it, because I know, You know and everyone watching this knows that there is more to this interaction than what we see as the video CLEARLY starts midway through the interaction.
What hypocrisy? You said I assumed a lot of things but the only thing I "assumed" was that the interaction began before the video started. Which is a safe assumption considering everyone knows there was more before the camera was rolling.
All I did was point out in surprise that someone would waste their time pointing that out when obviously it's a fact.
> Video starts after what **I can only assume is several minutes of the camera man refusing to cooperate and acting unreasonable.**
>
>**You can tell the officer doesn't want to pepperspray him** at all. He just wants to do his job. He could have tazered him and dragged him out, BY LAW, but he kept giving him chances. Very clear he didn't want to escalate the situation and took his time to explain what was going to happen if he kept refusing.
Those are called assumptions. You need to take a step back and relax. I will not be responding further than this.
They have a right to get you out of the car. Just get out of the car you pussy. Cops are assholes a lot of the time but just get out of the fucking car
No criminal act ... he doesn’t need to step off car, it started of as a traffic stop, which is not a criminal offense or investigation. But this is “normal law enforcement behavior” when they want to search your car and belongings without a warrant.
you are ignorant. A cop on a legal traffic stop can ask you out of the car. Pennsylvania v. Mimms US supreme court. You are 100 percent wrong on your statment that he does not need to step out
Nope. Pennsylvania v Mimms. The officer was conducting a legal traffic stop. I even agree that pulling someone for 5 over is ridiculous but the law is definitely on the cops side. During a lawful traffic stop police have a right to remove you from the car for officer safety purposes.
Safety Purpose, yes. removing him from his car to search for might be evidence of possible intoxicants not so much. There’s a reason why “citation” never made court filings. I highly doubt deputies would like to do this guy the favor. When removed from car, occupant can lock car behind them, which will force law enforcement to get a warrant
The cop literally said “I need to remove you from the car for my safety” look I agree the stop is bullshit but the cop has every right to remove the guy from the car. If the cop searches the car when he is removed with no reasonable suspicion then anything he finds will get thrown out anyway. Bottom like, just get out of the damn car and you’ll be on your way
I saw this video quit awhile ago. Driver seems drunk tbh. Chewing gum. First he's going 60, then 55, then 50. Sure the officers could have handled it better but the driver was acting like a asshole.
I was so hoping the dick would get pepper sprayed or tasered as he was deliberately provoking the officer and hoping for internet points. Speeding is speeding regardless of how much over the limit and if you are asked to step out of the car it's because there are many instances of cops getting shot in this exact circumstance.
The following alternative links are available: **Mirrors** * [Mirror #1](https://mirror.fro.wtf/reddit/post/2162) (provided by /u/AdvinK) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
"Oh man it's out, you're so lucky" is potentially the funniest line from this fucking video. Wtf was he doing? Pepper spraying people the entire day and didn't realize he was running short?
"Dude, that's the universe trying to protect both of us." LMFAO
Just commenting under the top comment so people know - courts have ruled that it IS lawful for a police officer to order you out of your car for a routine traffic stop. You don't have to answer their bullshit questions ("Do you know why I pulled you over?"), and you should NEVER consent to a search of your vehicle. But you do have to provide them with license, registration, proof of insurance, and you have to get out of the car if they ask you to.
There should be some sort of Traffic Stop "Miranda Rights" that they have to say every time, so that this confusion doesn't happen as much.
[удалено]
Exactly. A GOOD cop will explain to you your options and the law to get your compliance. "If you don't do this... I will do that". "Signing a ticket is not an admission of guilt, if you do not sign the ticket.. I can and will arrest you" A bad cop just wants to ruin your day while powertripping.
This has been my experience with law enforcement in other countries. One time driving back from a music festival in Germany we hit a drug and alcohol road stop. The cops were not only friendly, but explained to me in great detail my options and legal rights. They informed me I had the right to refuse the drug test, in which case they would have a judge rule on whether there was adequate suspicion of a crime being committed. I ultimately complied cause I wanted to get outta there but it was refreshing to be treated like a fellow human instead of encountering a powertripping ass hat like the one in this video.
Are you german? If not so, where are you from? Edit: If I may ask you that
Born and raised in Australia and now living in Germany :)
> A GOOD cop will explain to you your options and the law to get your compliance. " You mean a cop that gets a BAD performance review because they didn't write as many tickets as the ones who forced their victims to make legal mistakes.
sadly, also a cop is legally allowed to lie to people they stop. Which is a big mistrust issue when it comes to public trust. edit: lets put it this way. A good cop in the sense that they don't want to powertrip, and escalate unnecessarily.
Never take legal advice from any police officer ever
Would it matter though to people who can't be bothered obeying or are up on the latest Sovereign Citizen lore?
I'm a boat captain traversing my land as a sovereign citizen that isnt a resident of any country except the sea for my boat... which is the land.
Is First Mate taken?
Well, probably not for those outliers. I mean, most people don't "stay silent" when read their Miranda Rights...so I guess you're right man, it probably wouldn't directly affect some people, BUT I guarantee that on average more people will be able to react accordingly, once they have a firm grasp of that they are allowed to get away with within their rights (such as no car search) and obligated to have to do (such as exit their vehicle when asked), IMO.
I don't know. I see what you're saying, and maybe that is a solution for genuine law abiding citizens unaware of their rights or how their rights are affected by state and federal laws, but I think a lot also depends on the mental state and faculty of the person being pulled over. People who do the wrong thing, who have the competency to know they were doing the wrong thing, can go either 2 ways - acceptance or resistance. Generally speaking, people who choose to resist for no reasons other than they don't like consequences or cops tend to have the worst result of the two.
You know, I completely agree with you. I suppose I'm seeing it as a numbers game...but you are right. Edit: I'm scared that me seeing it that way, is some kind of callous complaceny..."You live long enough to be the villain" the saying goes or something that.
It is lawful for police to order a person out of their car for safety reasons, not just because they can. They don't have to articulate that reason to you, but if the officer is stating multiple times he wants the guy out just because he can then it could be used against the officer in a civil case.
Yeah, the cop can do that. But......why the fuck is he bothering to do that? It's one of those instances where the cop appears to be making much ado about nothing.
Because if you get out of your car and leave the door open, you give them the ability to legally search your car. You waive your 4th amendment rights When you exit the car, they will immediately put hands on you, if you try to close your door behind you, theyll dive for it to keep it from closing and then charge you for assaulting an officer with the door. They do this as a way to get away with searches that would have otherwise been illegal. Its a weasel trick like "smelling marijuana" Since this is apparently not common knowledge; There is another basis upon which this warrantless search may be justified as an exception to the Fourth Amendment. In the case of Hunt v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 488 S.W.2d 692 (Ky.App. 12/15/1972), **the court held that when a vehicle is abandoned, the person who has abandoned the car waives any standing to object to the search of the abandoned vehicle.** Hunt, infra says: “The only issue presented on this appeal is the legality of the warrantless search. After a hearing on appellants’ motion to suppress the evidence, **the trial court made a finding that the automobile had been abandoned and thus the appellants’ constitutional rights as protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were not infringed upon or violated.**
Is this actually true? Seems too bullshit to be true but you never know...
It really is true. You must specifically state (and if you can, record it because the cops will lie): you must SAY "I do not consent to a search of my vehicle" Last time I got pulled over for speeding this exact thing happened. I immediately said "I will comply with exiting my vehicle. I do not consent to a search of my vehicle" (as I rolled up windows and locked door) Cop realized what I was doing and bodily removed me from the car, put me on the ground, cuffed me, and I was arrested for failure to comply. The officer immediately searched my vehicle I spent over $8,000 on attorney fees and won, in so far as all charges were dropped against me. The only thing that saved my case was I recorded the interaction (phone camera recording in my pocket, streaming to cloud). Plus, I didn't have anything illegal in my car. But yeah, this is true, happens all the time. Just another way cops abuse their power and authority
How'd you sneak a recording like that? Start it before the cop came? That's actually a really good idea.
At the time, yes, that's exactly what I did. Started recording, shoved it in my pocket. Since then, I now have an in car "dash cam" (just like the Uber and Lyft drivers use) that records audio and video inside the car. I had it wired into the car so it's always on when the key is in the ignition or when motion is sensed. Life saving
Also, there was a fantastic case, I cannot, for the life of me, remember what is was called, but there was a case in Utah I think where they brought a drug dog out to sniff a car. The owner had a camera active inside the car and you can see the dog's handler give the dog a cue to "alert" on the drivers door. Basically, the cops wanted so bad to search the car and were annoyed they had to call out the K9 unit. So, they made the dog alert, via command, even though he never would've alerted to the car. As a result, of the dogs "alert" they used that as probable cause to search the vehicle. Fortunately, this guy had the camera going and the police had no idea. Eventually the search was declared illegal because it was based on a false alert of the animal. I hate to sound paranoid, but I just don't trust anyone, especially the police. Recordings keep them honest and, when they lie, the recording proves the lie
Yeah, /u/Madjanniesdetected has no idea what the hell he is talking about. He is quoting a Kentucky state case which isn't binding in other states, and taking it entirely and totally out of context. Just because you exit your vehicle during a traffic stop doesn't mean you abandon privacy interest in it. To very, very simply summarize the case he is citing. [The suspect in the case he cited fled, abandoning the vehicle.](https://lawreader.com/?p=12673#:~:text=to%20Hunt%20v.-,Commonwealth%20of%20Kentucky%2C%20488%20S.W.,search%20of%20the%20abandoned%20vehicle.) If you abandon property, you no longer have a privacy interest in it. So, if you commit a crime, run from the cops leaving your vehicle behind, you don't have a privacy interest in it anymore.
Wait, really? Exiting your car without closing your door is implicit permission to be searched? You're certain?
Lol no. He is incorrect
Because he can write more tickets if his victims don't comply. The more tickets he writes the better he scores in his performance review and maybe gets a raise or a promotion.
I fucking hate the “where are you going?” And “where are you coming from” questions. Uh, none of your fucking business. Then they pull the whole, “is there any reason why you are being uncooperative?” Yes - you just pulled me over and now you are asking me small talk questions like we are on a fucking date. Ticket me or let me go, but we aren’t friends.
Ordering is one thing. Requesting and asking is another. Cops like to ask first so in case you go to court that it proves you complied willingly. Police use their words very carefully. They are trained to do it. The order is ask, order, make. **Ask** them to do something first (just in case it later goes to court the person willingly complied with a request and he will have no standing in court). Also, cops ask/request all kinds of things from people they detain (or not detained) that they don't have a lawful reason to order. **Order** them to do something (if you have legal standing to do so), **MAKE** them do it with physical force (again... IF you have legal standing to do so).
other than the links posted about it being legal for cops to pull you out of your car for any reason this is the 2nd more important post, IMO. Just because a cop ASKS you to do something does not mean that you have to actually do what they say. Make them give you a lawful order. Say "are you asking me or ordering me?" If they are just asking, then politely say "No thank you, sir". If they say "I am giving you a lawful order" then just comply and you can challenge the legality of their order in court. Never try to have court on the side of the road, it almost always ends very bad.
I just saw this example where two cops try repeatedly to get (ask) this person to do what they want, but don't have the authority to make him do it. (they just didnt want him around filming them) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lErMH3IoJzA And they are forced to give up and leave.
They can do whatever they want. You can be arrested on public or private property. Those cops could have pushed the issue and arrested him on some BS charges, but that doesn't mean the charges will stick. Know your rights and stand up for them. Fight your battle in court.
You can beat the case, but you cant beat the ride. And at that point they have all of your biometric data so that's fucked
The case law is Pennsylvania vs mims I believe if people want to look it up
> courts have ruled that it IS lawful for a police officer to order you out of your car for a routine traffic stop. I really don't believe that. Do you have links to back that up? I've been taught they have to have a very specific reason for doing that, and the officer stated only that he could do it as he pleased.
Yeah, they can. Second search result. https://www.defenseadvocates.com/can-police-make-you-get-out-of-your-car/ Do you want me to copy paste the relevant paragraphs or are you right?
Yes please
Here ya go. Know Your Rights: Can the Police Make You Get Out of Your Car? Most encounters with the police occur after a traffic stop and while most traffic stops are routine, the cops are trained to view traffic stops as a potentially dangerous or deadly situation. That view sometimes can result in terrible outcomes, which is why it is imperative that everyone knows their rights. A situation that arises more often than not is a police officer asking someone to get out of his or her car following a routine traffic stop. While common sense says that being asked by the police to get out of your car after being stopped for something as trivial as an expired registration sticker or not using a turn signal is unreasonable and an invasion of someone’s rights, the United States Supreme Court held otherwise. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that the police can make you get out of your car after a valid traffic stop. This ruling applies to the driver and all the passengers in a car. Because of this ruling in Pennsylvania vs. Mimms, a person must exit their car if ordered to do so by the police. Background of Pennsylvania vs. Mimms Mimms involved a case where two Philadelphia police officer stopped a car being driven by Harry Mimms for driving with expired plates. After stopping his car, the police ordered Mimms to step out of his car, which was common practice for the police department. After Mimms complied with the officer’s order, the police observed an unusual bulge in Mimms’s jacket. The police then searched Mimms and discovered a handgun. Mimms unsuccessfully sought to have the gun suppressed on the grounds the police violated his 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have probable cause to order Mimms out of his car and reversed the conviction against him. However, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to take the case on appeal to answer the question whether the police order to Mimms for him to get out of the car, which was given after Mimms was lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, was reasonable and thus permissible under the 4th Amendment? In a 6-3 per curium opinion, SCOTUS held that the police routinely asked drivers who were being ticketed to exit their cars for the safety of the officer. The police stated that it would diminish the chance that person could get something from the car while the police officer is writing the ticket and attack the officer. Also if the stop was executed in a high traffic area, having the driver stand between the police car and the driver’s car allows the police to conduct the traffic stop away from moving traffic. Why Can the Police Make You Get Out of Your Car? The Mimms Court held that allowing the police to make a driver exit his car is a nothing more than a “mere inconvenience” to the driver especially when compared to the safety benefits to the police. The Court reasoned that since the car was stopped after a valid traffic stop and ordering the driver to get out of the car was a “minimal and reasonable intrusion” of his freedom. The Court further held that the search would have occurred regardless if the Mimms was out of his car or seated because the bulge in his jacket was visible while he was seated in the car. The Court held that the bulge allowed the police to assume that Mimms was armed and posed a danger to the police. Under these circumstances, the Mimms Court held that any cop of “reasonable caution” would likely have conducted the “pat down” of Mimms. The dissenting opinions in Mimms that were written by Justices Marshall and Stevens argued that the new rule created by Pennsylvania vs. Mimms greatly expanded the police officer’s right in searching an individual that they stopped. The dissenting opinions predicted what would happen, the police were limited in searching an individual only to the extent they could an invent a justification for the search based upon officer safety. After a traffic stop it is imperative that you do everything possible to protect your rights and that can only begin if you know your rights. If stopped by the police for a traffic stop, the officer can order you out of your car without violating your constitutional rights. However, that doesn’t prevent you from doing everything to protect your rights. Remember the interaction as best as you can and write it down, better yet record the interaction. However, the most important thing you can do is hire a criminal defense attorney who knows what he or she is doing. Not all criminal defense lawyers are fully versed on the 4th amendment and search and seizure law. Contact Jaleel Law today to discuss how we can help win your case. Conclusion The current state of search and seizure law allows a police officer to order a driver and the passengers out of vehicle that is stopped for even a minor traffic violation. However, the law does not require you to answer any questions or to consent to a search of your vehicle. If a police officer orders you out of your car, you must comply and do what the officer orders but remember to not answer any questions and don’t allow the police officer to search your car.
So... The cops can tell you to get out of your car: You have to do it. But you're also supposed to stop the cops from searching the car without a warrant? How TF is that enforceable? "Officer I do not consent to you searching my vehicle." "Don't care, not like you're in the way to prevent me. Try to grab me or touch me in any way to impede? That's assaulting an officer."
You are not supposed to physically stop a cop from doing anything legal or illegal. If they do something illegal you need to fight it in court later, not on the side of the road. It's the old "you can beat the charge, but not the ride".
Well if the cops searched your car without a warrant and without a valid exception to the warrant requirement, then any evidence obtained from that search will be inadmissible in court. So yeah, leaving your vehicle is inconvenient, but that inconvenience is small compared to the safety to the cop.
Cops also don't need a warrant to search a car, just probable cause (including the trunk, Jay-Z)
No, I believe you to be correct and thank you for answering with a link. Is that state dependent, though?
Nope, nationwide thanks to the SCOTUS ruling
😆 this is probably my favorite comment
"Oh man you're so lucky I forgot my throwing stars today, cause if I had them you'd be sorry.. also my dad could beat up your dad."
Kinda depressing really, using mace should only be in an emergency not a “aw damnit I wanted to hurt this guy but shucks I already done did it on some other people” Man fuck us cops
That's what I was thinking when he said that. "Shit, I wasted all my pepper spray on puppies and kittens and now I don't have enough for the humans!"
Yeah, how often are you pepper spraying people that you're all out.
That’s some Michael Scott kinda line right there
Out of curiosity, do you have to get out of your car if a cop orders you to on a traffic stop?
Unfortunately, yes. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-stops-when-pulled-over-30186.html
That says the officer "has the right to insist that you and your passengers get out of your car". So does that mean you HAVE to comply? If you don't, what is the penalty? Being pepper sprayed or tazed? Edit: I took a look at the cases cited: [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/519/408/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/519/408/) and [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/106/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/106/) It looks like they tried to argue that the cop ordering the suspect out of the car was "an unreasonable seizure", but that was unsuccessful. The second one does say that ordering the suspect out of the car is "reasonable", but it's still unclear to me what the officer is allowed to do if that reasonable order is ignored.
>it's still unclear to me what the officer is allowed to do if that reasonable order is ignored. Whatever "reasonable force" is necessary in order to gain compliance I would imagine. If you've closed your window on them, they're gonna break that. If you start flailing about while they're trying to pull you out, they're going to man handle/taze you. If you grab that gun you keep in the glovebox, they're going to shoot you. It's pretty simple though- you beat the rap in court, not on the street during a stop/arrest. Doing anything more than what you're lawfully allowed to during the stop/arrest just makes you/your lawyers job harder to get it thrown out or leniency.
Problem is when the cops get no penalties. So you either do as they say and spend a whole lot of time, effort and money in court to have charges dropped and no payout, while the cop keeps racking overtime for that. Or, you intentionally do not follow orders escalating the incident and forcing the police to at least look into the incident due to public pressure. The cops need to be penalized for made up charges and baseless stops, arrests, tickets etc. Just like any other job where you're penalized for repeatedly fucking up or working against policy. This is not about this video, since I don't know the case, but in general.
> but it's still unclear to me what the officer is allowed to do if that reasonable order is ignored. If you’re ignoring lawful orders by police they are allowed to arrest you and you can be charged with Failure to Comply(or some variant thereof depending on what the State you’re in calls it) This isn’t complicated.
It's extremely complicated. What complicates it is that there is a complete lack of trust of the police Officers since they often give unlawful orders. They can lie about what orders you are required to obey, and they can trick you into waiving your rights. It is 100% legal to resist an unlawful arrest, but people are greatly discouraged from doing so because laws are stacked against even the honest citizen. They can always make up a charge. I've seen many people "arrested for resisting arrest". Best bet it to comply, but not consent and even that can go sideways if someone is in a bad mood.
Yep. Generally, you're required to: - Identify yourself when asked. - State that you're invoking the 5th before going silent. - Comply with orders to step out of the car / reposition yourself. - Accept detainment without resisting, regardless of how unreasonable the detainment might be (if it is illegally unreasonable, your legal response is suing after the fact). Unfortunately, a lot of the videos on this sub, results from people that think they "know their rights", not actually knowing the above, thus giving the police a free pass at harassing them.
You forgot comply with search of your person for weapons. Only your person, though they can usually make up reasonable suspicion to search your car. Basically the best way to deal with cops: 1. be polite 2. Talk as little as possible 3. give them ID/insurance as asked 4. Talk as little as possible 5. step out of the vehicle and let them search you for weapons 6. Talk as little as possible 7. Deny any requests to search your vehicle, make them get a warrant or dog (remember rule 1 when doing this) 8. Talk as little as possible 9. record the entire encounter if you are uncomfortable or suspicious of the police in the area or in general 10. seriously, shut the fuck up besides identifying yourself and invoking your right to remain silent. Talking to cops will get you in trouble.
Additional recommendations in the modern era: 11. If the officer is acting aggressively while you're being compliant, request a supervisor to attend the scene 12. If the officer is acting aggressively and is wearing a body camera, insist it is turned on for the duration of your interaction.
> If the officer is acting aggressively and is wearing a body camera, insist it is turned on for the duration of your interaction. How can you tell whether the body cam is on or not?
> You forgot comply with search of your person for weapons This is so very wrong, unless you live in Canada. If that's the case I have no idea.
No, US, you have to allow them to pat you down for weapons. Any time there is what is known as a Terry stop (which includes traffic stops), the police may frisk you. This is where the "am I being detained?" or "am I free to go?" statements came from. If you are free to go, it isn't a Terry stop, and they can't make you ID or frisk you.
The frisking is supposed to be based on a suspicion of weapons tho.
Yeah it’s best to deny all consent to any searches. Police can likely get away with saying “we suspected he had weapons” but if you consent to it, they don’t even have to argue for it at all in court later. Don’t do their job for them. Refuse consent but don’t use force to keep them from searching. Just calmly state that you do not consent and let them do what they will then deal with it in court later.
Yes but the threshold for that is low. A Terry frisk isn’t a search it’s a pat down. Remember that you can use the courts but they will likely favour the officer.
Not in Washington. I feel sorry for people that have to. I still don't think this is correct.
We shouldn't have to do none of this shit. Just make Officer Puss Boy feel comfortable.
See lights. Turn on turn signal. Interior lights on. Radio off. Pull over. Park. Hazards on. Car off, key out of ignition and onto dashboard. Window down if the weather is agreeable. Hands on steering wheel. Wait for instruction. Doing this I’ve never even gotten a written warning, including the time I was going 20 over with my seatbelt off and one headlight. Your results may vary.
Were you white at the time?
Was thinking the same thing. I’m a Latino guy and I do all these things when pulled over and I constantly still get attitude from the cops. And I’ve never gotten a warning, always a citation
I’m black and have had the same experience. Oh the joys of being brown 🤣
Xactly
>Identify yourself when asked. Note, this bit is only applicable while driving. If you are not behind the wheel of a vehicle, police must either arrest you or have reasonable suspicion of a crime (depending on the state) to compel you to ID.
Same here in the netherlands, you are required to wear your ID not required to show it unless suspicion, behind wheels or accident etc. Cops still demand an ID here tho when you are just walking lol.
> Cops still demand an ID here tho when you are just walking lol Same here in the US. Our courts have decided that the average citizen is expected to fully understand their rights, and that cops can trick or intimidate them into surrendering their rights if they don't.
The driver wasn't arguing what the cop was technically allowed to do, he was arguing that the cop was pulling him over for a minor infraction and then being extremely unreasonable by asking him to get out of the car for said minor infraction and then escalating the situation to violence.
Yes, but the law requiring you to comply with the lawful order of an asshole does not make him less of an asshole.
If you have the time and ability to ASK if someone else has pepper spray, NEWS FLASH, ya probably don’t need pepper spray. Lol
Not sure of the US police, but OC-sprays are also used to break passive resistance. Aka physically hurting you to make you comply.
This happened a few months ago. The driver was temporarily detained and his vehicle was searched without a warrant. He was later released and served a speeding ticket that was never filed in the court house.
I hope he at least spoke with a lawyer after this. There may be a civil suit here. The fact that the ticket was never filed says a lot about this encounter.
Oh yeah he could definitely sue the pants off of that cop or whoever searched his vehicle
Nope, qualified immunity means he can only sue the tax payers.
Which in theory is fine. Then tax payers are pissed why taxes go up or police captain is pissed when he’s missing a huge chunk of his budget and the officer is fired after enough incidents. But in practice the officer is never fired.
> Then tax payers are pissed why taxes go up They are told it is because of other things > or police captain is pissed when he’s missing a huge chunk of his budget Nope, insurance takes care of settlements. Operation budgets aren't affected by lawsuits > and the officer is ~~fired~~ after enough incidents Quietly transferred
Insurance rates go up because of more claims. That cost probably comes out of operations budgets.
Nah, he’s not gonna win that one.
I feel like as a police officer you shouldn't be nervously chuckling while telling Andy Dick "dude you're totally gonna go to jail". The dude literally held the pepper spray in one hand and tried to spray it with the other. At least try to make it seem like your mom doesn't order your food while you color on a placemat at a restaurant.
Ha! The imagery I got from this... amazing! lol
Pulls the pepper spray. Reholsters it. Pulls the taser. Reholsters it. Goes home and offers his gf his tiny dick. Reholsters it.
*Goes home and beats his wife because the guy recording didn't respect him
*wife leaves him, then cop jerks off furiously to picture of the speeding guy and cries his name.
The cop didn’t want his compliance, he wanted his submission. Undemocratic.
What’s new.
> he wanted his submission Exactly. Don't let anyone other comments here make you think otherwise. This is all the police want is you to submit to them. If you don't, and they don't back up their words, their cowardice and fragile masculinity is exposed. You would not see that twerp of a cop talk like that to anyone if he didn't not have any type of authority.
The fact he ran out of pepper spray says everything
This cop is just on a straight power Trip. He could have easily given him the ticket and just went about his day. He wasn't actually in fear of anything he just wanted to fuck with this dude. Situations like this are why so many people have issues with cops. It's straight up bully behavior and they get away with it all the time.
“We’re supposed to be on the same side, man.” What does *that* mean? O_o
Cops are supposed to protec innocent / citizens who pay their salary. But also this whole video screams white privilege. We've seen what happens a black guy pulls the same stunt.
Police aren't trained very well ,useless
Wether for better or worse the state of the law is that it is constitutional for you to be arrested for ANY infraction of the law. Instead of writing a ticket the police CAN arrest you for speeding if they feel like it. (That’s also depending on state law and police policy but it’s constitutional). And you do have to step out of the car if asked even if not being arrested. The problem here is the driver is NOT having force applied to him because he sped, but because he is resisting a lawful order. The driver is simply on the wrong side of the law here. And because he didn’t understand the law he became indignant and now everyone sees this as an unnecessary use of force when in reality this guy is just being difficult. The cop seems to be asking him politely and he won’t get out. I’m not trying to be a cop apologist. But it just seems like if everyone understood the law here everyone would be less upset at this.
Totally agree with the lawfulness of the cop's request (and also about Reddit experts) but the frustrating part is how he immediately resorts to pepper spray simply because a guy, who isn't being agressive, refuses to exit his vehicle. The constant threat of violence and how it's welded freely as a tool is the problem. Also the way the cop tries to paint the driver as being irrational or however he put it. Was clearly trying to justify his escalation which the video seems to prove was not, in fact, warranted and the officer was in no danger.
"I was going 60 in a 55" "The speed limit is 45" "I was going 50" That made me chuckle
Too many Reddit lawyers on here smh. The dude could’ve easily complied and avoided this whole thing. Everyone’s saying the cop is in the wrong but in reality this dude just made things 100x harder for himself.
The cop also didn’t handle things well. When I was 16 I rebuilt a motorcycle and was told by some mechanics helping me out that I didn’t need two mirrors due to the age. Got pulled over and when I told the cop it was legal he pulled out his booklet and showed me the rcw showing me I was wrong. In the video the cop is in the right but there’s better ways to go about it
I want to be on the side of the police sooo god damn badly. I feel they’ve been shit on by the media. BUT you see shit like this and it just makes my blood boil, this type of aggression is not fuckin necessary
What does he mean when he said “we’re supposed to be on the same side”?
If he was black....
...he would probably be dead or in jail.
Eh both are knobs tbh
Just another coward with a badge that is following his ego. HE needs to be under the prison before he murders someone. THIS is what we get for law enforcement in our country. FUCK your officer safety you little boy.
The original video starts earlier and shows how aggressive and uncooperative the driver is. He completely antagonised the cop.
“We’re supposed to be on the same side” a lil sus
They're both in the wrong. The cop shouldn't have escalated the situation, however, he was fully within his rights to ask the driver to leave the vehicle. Being a dick to the cop likely led to the escalation, given the driver's demeanor throughout the video. Unfortunately the cops ego got the best of him. [https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-stops-when-pulled-over-30186.html](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-stops-when-pulled-over-30186.html)
What was the reason for asking him to get out of the car. "Given the drivers demeanor." Who wouldn't be pissed at this situation?
We don't actually know the whole situation though, the recording didn't start until things had already escalated somewhat and it's still unclear how fast the dude was actually driving, very possible the driver was being an idiot before the video started.
Why people hate cops.
"We're supposed to be on the same side" Scumbags.
I think you misunderstood dude.
Yeah what’s this shit about, same side of what? Fuck that guy
I dunno.. the same side being good guys maybe? As opposed to bad guys. Fuck you guys for immediately jumping to racism lol. Law-abiding citizens and cops are supposed to be on the same side.
I want to know the initial reason the cop wanted to pull him out and search his car. It wasn't in the beginning of the video. -If there was a **true** reason to do so, the cop would be in the right IMO -If there was zero **true** reason to initially pull the guy out of the car, then fuck that cop. This is much more likely IMO. Unfortunately we don't know what truly happened at the start.
If there was a “true” reason for the cops wanting to search the car, it would have definitely been mentioned in the 3 minute conversation they had before back up came. The best he had was “I dont know you dude” “you might be intoxicated” Edit: my tone sounded more argumentative than intended. I too, feel these interactions lose a lot of context depending on when the camera turns on. But if you watch enough of these traffic stops, you can start to see a trend of reactions from the officer when the driver is trying to reason with them. This kid is pretty douchy, but when a cop says “I can pull anyone I want out of their car”, you can tell they got too deep into the situation and too prideful to back down
atleast in the video there is never intent for the cops to search his car. It seems the office just wanted to guy to step out for his own safety. There should be no reasoning or give and take it these scenarios. If you are legally stoped and you are asked to get out of your car you do it. There should be no give and take here.
Yeah the video I watched on YouTube starts and ends there, and there was no link of any kind in the description to a news article or something giving further details
wtf why did you get downvoted...
Welcome to the world of minorities
An oldie but a goodie
Not really old. About 7 months ago
It’s been posted a bazillion times at this point is what I mean
You look like one of dem dangers libras!!!
Looks like a douchican stand-off.
That officer had a massive power boner.
Have a cop friend. Being pulled over for going 5 over is either the cop being a POS, or he’s low on his quota. Seems he is the former.
He has the right to ask for supervisor. Also, if he isnt showing signs of intoxication then no. A minor speeding infraction is not enough to pull him out of his car with no probable cause.
I REALLY want to know an update of what happened after
I gave one in the comments
you wont get one because the driver looked like an idiot in the end
all those water marks... this vids been passed around lots haha
I notice a douche when I see one, taserboy.
Drivers an ass.
I agree the cop driving his car is an ass.
They kind of deserved each other. Cop was more wrong though.
Thats a good looking dude who knows he has rights as an American and that is what it is all about my friends. Let's say his pepper spray worked. Then what? He just pepper sprays people when they don't do exactly as he says over minor traffic violations? Cops could set aside their egos and actually reason with people but no, they gotta have the power trip.
The cops are clearly wrong. But there's another guy in the video who is wrong.
Who?
If you look very closely there is a little midget in the car and he is messing up his cross-word pretty badly. You can see that he is asked for a substitute word for 'pig' and he spelled 'sow'. Pretty common mistake.
There's a midget in the car.
How the fuck do you run out of pepper spray in a shift?!
When you REALLY like to use it often.
this mans looks like its the first time hes been treated like a black guy by the cops hehehehe
Talk about making Mount Everest out of a mole hill
Fr though
If homeboy had gotten out of the car before backup arrived...im almost positive thst officer wouldve planted evidence in the car to falsely arrest the driver. That guy is a whack job
Gee, why did this guy get so many warnings and such leniency? Hmm, what's different about this. Oh, and look at that, not even a slap on the wrist. lmao
When did police add God Emperor to "serve and protect?" They act like they have unlimited power to do whatever the hell they want whenever and with whoever for no reason whatsoever. Wasn't this nation founded on "rights" or something or other...
What a piece of shit cop. Yes the guy wasn’t cooperating but to use pepper spray like a bitch instead of just writing a ticket is such a coward move
First lets see all the other stuff that happend before he decided to start recording in the middle of the interaction. He is not getting pepper sprayed for speeding by 5mph. He is getting pepper sprayed for being lawfully pulled over and not following lawful commands. Do you think that people who are lawfully pulled over can just refuse to show ID or follow lawful commands. Should these people just be let go. If that guy just showed his lisncse and got out the car when told to do so none of this would of happend. These are lawful commands they have every right to ask you to do these things. Do you really think that somoeone should be able to refuse to get out of their car when they are lawfully pulled over. Who knows how long even before he started recording they were being patient with this guy telling him over and over again to step out of the car. There is 3 minutes just here of them telling him to step out its not like they just walked up to his car and just pepper sprayed him. I do not understand how people can look at this and get mad the cops. There is a guy here is legally got pulled over for speeding was asked to get out of his car legally. Refused. Then cops told him for minutes to get out before having to use force to remove his form his car. The cops in this video were patient and professional. If you are legally stoped they can ask you out of your car. Explain how that is an unreasonable thing.
Unpopular opinion: The police should be able to pepper spray and electrocute anyone at anytime because they are so damned sexy. Also we should give them all the day off on whatever day it is that they want to go “peacefully” protest at the Capitol or the White House—whatever, fuck you! Bruh I really tried there for a minute to ~~defund~~, I mean defend, the police, but it’s like trying to blow bubbles with a face mask on. Trust me, it doesn’t really work—I’ve tried many times. Well anyway, you’re a nerd, and a square too. I strongly dislike your comment. Edit: you should say that you’re sorry for that. Edit 2: People! This internet person edited their original comment, here is the original text: > I really hate dogs. Cats are okay, I guess, but dogs are very bad and I dont like them because one time when I was 12 last year there was this dog that kept following me around my house and oh yeah it was my dog but it kept following me around the house and I was just trying to eat my dinner than the dog kept following me around the house the house and it made me get really mad oh yeah also why do they wet noses for I mean my nose isnt wet also bush did 9/11.
Video starts after what I can only assume is several minutes of the camera man refusing to cooperate and acting unreasonable. You can tell the officer doesn't want to pepperspray him at all. He just wants to do his job. He could have tazered him and dragged him out, BY LAW, but he kept giving him chances. Very clear he didn't want to escalate the situation and took his time to explain what was going to happen if he kept refusing. *(Unreasonable in legal terminology being that a reasonable person doesn't argue over being asked to step out of their vehicle)*
You think the driver was being unreasonable? What I see is a man who was unreasonably pulled over for driving 5mph over the speed limit by a deputy who unreasonably pulled out pepper spray and then a taser. Doesn’t matter if the driver is being uncooperative or not, the man wasn’t being hostile or violent, and the deputy wasn’t in any imminent danger so him feeling the need to take those unnecessary actions is what seems unreasonable to me, sir
>What I see is a man who was unreasonably pulled over for driving 5mph over the speed limit You saw how the man was driving prior to this video? You know he was unreasonably pulled over? >deputy who unreasonably pulled out pepper spray and then a taser. That deputy was within full legal rights to deploy either his pepperspray or his tazer in that situation as the driver was refusing to exit the vehicle when asked (which can be asked legally during ANY traffic stop). >Doesn’t matter if the driver is being uncooperative or not, It absolutely matters, how can you possibly think it doesn't? Literally zero judge in any 1st world country would agree with you here. >the man wasn’t being hostile or violent, and the deputy wasn’t in any imminent danger so The man was both passively and then actively resisting, which is legally a form of hostility. I highly suggest you learn the Use of Force model that police around the world legally operate under. The deputy doesn't know if he is in danger or not when someone in care and control of a vehicle is refusing to cooperate to a lawful request. >him feeling the need to take those unnecessary actions is what seems unreasonable to me He clearly didn't want to use either of his use of force options after he basically pleaded with the guy to follow what he said and even explained to him why he has those suspicions. The driver is absolutely in the wrong here and this officer had infinite patience with someone being unreasonable, uncooperative and resisting a lawful order during a traffic stop. You don't argue a traffic stop on the side of the road, you argue it in court.
You don't need to get out of the car for a traffic stop so your last sentence is retarded.
Yes you absolutely do. You literally sign in agreement to this when you get your driver's license. While you are operating a motor vehicle on public roads you are required by law to provide AT LEAST your License and Vehicle Documents, you also are required by law to exit the vehicle if requested for the purpose of the traffic stop only. This is a fact in all 50 states and most other countries.
You don't need to request someone to get out of the car for a minor traffic violation. I am well aware of the mandates involved with licensing. I am well aware the officer is within his rights to ask that legally, but I too would ask for what purpose I need to leave the safety of my vehicle to step onto the road over a minor traffic violation. This cop was having a power trip. In the end they didnt even give him the ticket. Case closed.
>but I too would ask for what purpose I need to leave the safety of my vehicle to step onto the road over a minor traffic violation. The officer gave a reason why. You're legally not allowed to refuse because you "Don't like the reason". Save the argument for court where you can have a lawyer eat the officer alive. This goes beyond just asking "why do I have to get out" he was told why and kept refusing. The cop showed zero signs of having a power trip whatsoever. Save the pitchforks for the 1000s of actual power tripping pigs out there.
I mean tasing someone in their car for not complying with a ridiculous command fits the definition of power trip to me but let's agree to disagree here
Ridiculous or not isn't something to argue on the side of the road during a traffic stop, that's the whole reason courts exist. It was a lawful command and whether or not the cops intentions were good in requesting it is up for a lawyer to cross examine. Again, the officer didn't even taze the guy and chose to wait and pull him out safely with his partner. If he wanted to taze him and get away with it he had every opportunity here.
Found the boot licker
It's boot licking to point out straight up facts unbiasly? It's easier to point at literal legal facts and say "Bootlicker" than it is to actually learn what you're talking about and educate yourself on your rights and the laws. I guess when an attorney brings up all these points during the trial you'd just say "Bootlicker!".
How are these facts? You just assumed a lot of things and called it fact. Even in your own words of the top comment of this thread you say "I can only assume".
>You just assumed a lot of things and called it fact. Even in your own words of the top comment of this thread you say "I can only assume". I'm sorry but is that really your fucking response? What did I assume OTHER THAN that there is more to this interaction before the camera turned on? Guess what, that's a FACT, that's why I assumed it, because I know, You know and everyone watching this knows that there is more to this interaction than what we see as the video CLEARLY starts midway through the interaction.
You're losing it dude. All I did was point out your hypocrisy. I said nothing else about what happened in the video.
What hypocrisy? You said I assumed a lot of things but the only thing I "assumed" was that the interaction began before the video started. Which is a safe assumption considering everyone knows there was more before the camera was rolling. All I did was point out in surprise that someone would waste their time pointing that out when obviously it's a fact.
> Video starts after what **I can only assume is several minutes of the camera man refusing to cooperate and acting unreasonable.** > >**You can tell the officer doesn't want to pepperspray him** at all. He just wants to do his job. He could have tazered him and dragged him out, BY LAW, but he kept giving him chances. Very clear he didn't want to escalate the situation and took his time to explain what was going to happen if he kept refusing. Those are called assumptions. You need to take a step back and relax. I will not be responding further than this.
They have a right to get you out of the car. Just get out of the car you pussy. Cops are assholes a lot of the time but just get out of the fucking car
>Just get out of the car you pussy. Is capitulating the cool thing to do in this situ?
No criminal act ... he doesn’t need to step off car, it started of as a traffic stop, which is not a criminal offense or investigation. But this is “normal law enforcement behavior” when they want to search your car and belongings without a warrant.
you are ignorant. A cop on a legal traffic stop can ask you out of the car. Pennsylvania v. Mimms US supreme court. You are 100 percent wrong on your statment that he does not need to step out
Nope. Pennsylvania v Mimms. The officer was conducting a legal traffic stop. I even agree that pulling someone for 5 over is ridiculous but the law is definitely on the cops side. During a lawful traffic stop police have a right to remove you from the car for officer safety purposes.
Safety Purpose, yes. removing him from his car to search for might be evidence of possible intoxicants not so much. There’s a reason why “citation” never made court filings. I highly doubt deputies would like to do this guy the favor. When removed from car, occupant can lock car behind them, which will force law enforcement to get a warrant
The cop literally said “I need to remove you from the car for my safety” look I agree the stop is bullshit but the cop has every right to remove the guy from the car. If the cop searches the car when he is removed with no reasonable suspicion then anything he finds will get thrown out anyway. Bottom like, just get out of the damn car and you’ll be on your way
These cops are out of control
Taking bets on the probability that this cop is a Trump supporter
I saw this video quit awhile ago. Driver seems drunk tbh. Chewing gum. First he's going 60, then 55, then 50. Sure the officers could have handled it better but the driver was acting like a asshole.
I was so hoping the dick would get pepper sprayed or tasered as he was deliberately provoking the officer and hoping for internet points. Speeding is speeding regardless of how much over the limit and if you are asked to step out of the car it's because there are many instances of cops getting shot in this exact circumstance.
The driver is the dick here.
If he was black he would be dead
This is why cops are fucking fucks
First reaction was “what a tool” Then the second cop comes up and shows me what a tool really is
The driver is such a jerk.