It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Florida Man Records Himself Getting Attacked by Cop for not Rolling Down Window all the way

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:07 PM

originally posted by: Kevinquisitor
a reply to: Kevinquisitor

Also, One night I was pulled over here in FL by a Sheriff for driving with a suspended license. After providing DL + Registration the officer asked me if he could search my car. I respectfully declined. He said "OK no problem, sit tight." About 10 minutes later, 3 more sheriffs arrived with a K-9 unit. A second officer asked me to step out of my car.

I asked: "why?"

He said: "So we can perform a search of the vehicle."

I replied with: "I was asked if it could be searched and I said no."

He replies: "Well you don't have that option anymore. You can either step out of the vehicle, or you can take a ride to downtown."

So, I got out and waited while they searched, which produced nothing. They explained I wasn't legally able to drive my car back home so I had to call someone to pick me up while my car was left there. I eventually had my license reinstated, and after leaving the courthouse saw a group of cops sitting outside eating lunch together. I approached them asking if I had the right to decline a request to search if being pulled over in FL?

Their response: If you were pulled over for doing something illegal, then no.

Just FYI if you ever get stopped & asked to search in FL. This cop could have chosen a better approach to this situation.

You were lied to. They do NOT automatically have the authority to search your car in ANY state just because of breaking a law. There has to be reasonable cause to believe that there is something in the car that would be germane to a crime being committed.

They either need justifiable cause or they need a warrant.


posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 05:22 PM
The police can search you and the immediate area under your control for their own safety. It is a courtesy to ask permission.

posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 06:35 PM
Instead of starting another thread:

LiveLeak description:

Twin Cities Daily Planet brings our attention to this story: St. Paul cops allegedly taser and arrest black male for sitting in public space. City Pages provides some details: St. Paul police roughly arrest black man sitting in skyway Do you have to identify yourself to the police? It depends. When driving yes – driving is a privilege. When walking (in Minnesota) no – “police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in illegal activity.” Minnesota is not a stop and identify state, unless the police have “reasonable suspicion"

Video repeats at about 4:49

Again, didn't see what he did on video. Supposedly sitting there. I suspect a paranoid racist called the cops on him. Well, the cops say they were called, supposedly. Can't see if he was putting up any resistance, but it doesn't sound like it.

But again, not enough evidence, although with whats seen and heard here, Comme Possitatus.
edit on 28-8-2014 by thirdcoast because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 08:22 PM
It's a simple question to me. It's all about showing respect. If a officer shows respect, he'll receive respect. I also don't need someone else to decide the situation. I know when i'm being dissed. The ole "big me...little you" mentality has never worked and it never will. a reply to: Iamthatbish

posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 10:51 PM

originally posted by: dagann
It's a simple question to me. It's all about showing respect. If a officer shows respect, he'll receive respect. I also don't need someone else to decide the situation. I know when i'm being dissed. The ole "big me...little you" mentality has never worked and it never will. a reply to: Iamthatbish

I know what you mean, it's similar to what other posters have posted. Although, "The ole "big me...little you" mentality" does work, more times than not i'm afraid. Due to most people being oblivious to their rights.

It's been tried against me. Though thew following is not an example of that:

Personal encounter:

Buzzed on beer, i stop to buy a cigarillo, drive 2 miles and park on the shore of a nearby lake. Begin rolling my "drug" of choice. Next thing I know, I see a light. An officer pulled up with his lights turned off. He walked up pointing his flashlight in my vehicle and I basically froze. After answering every question he had with the truth (he made me pour me greenery out in the dirt), he said, "call your parents to come get you."

Just to add my car has been basically torn apart twice for officers looking for marijuana. Because it smelled like marijuana. According to the law, it is acceptable for an officer to search your car if it smells like marijuana. Ok, it's law, go ahead. Well they never found it because it was smoked before hand.

don't have weed in your car if it smells like weed in your car.
edit on 28-8-2014 by thirdcoast because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 11:03 PM
I just had an insight into some of the problem with the american police force this morning.

My nephew just posted his acceptance into the police academy. He spent most of his childhood and adolescence in a psychiatric hospital. He has a history of violence and suicide attempts. I never would have guessed they'd let him in.
He is a sweet person, but has problems that should, normally, be an obstacle to becoming a police officer, I would think.
This says a lot about why there is so much police brutality in the US.....

posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 01:12 AM
Not true. Every single state allows the search of a vehicle if it is intended for impound. Once it was determined that poster was driving illegally, his car temporarily became the property of the police.

And what is justifiable cause? Do you mean reasonable cause? Even then only probable cause is needed. Probable cause includes smelling alchohol or drugs, seeing paraphanellia's easier and more legal than you think. Many states allow reasonable suspicion which requires even less reason.

Now, you can force them to get a warrant or k-9 for a locked trunk/glove box.

Searches of Cars and Their Occupants
Cars may be searched without a warrant whenever the car has been validly stopped and the police have probable cause to believe the car contains contraband or evidence. If the police have probable cause to search the car, all compartments and packages that may contain the evidence or contraband being searched for are fair game.
While a police officer cannot search a car simply because the car was stopped for a traffic infraction, the police can order the driver and any passengers out of the car for safety considerations, even though there is no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing other than the traffic infraction. The police also can "frisk" the occupants for weapons if the officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that the occupants are involved in criminal activity and are reasonably concerned for their safety

a reply to: Masterjaden

Never consent to a search. You should always cooperate but politely say you do not consent. Sort it out in court whether it was a lawful search or not.
edit on 29-8-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 05:22 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

Yes true, absolutely nothing you stated there contradicts anything that I stated. They have to have probable cause to conduct a search legally, you're right that you should make it clear that you do NOT consent to a search but not attempt to hinder them from conducting a search if they choose to.

I would also suggest having video recording the whole time, so if by chance there is something that is NOT in plain sight that they discover during an illegal non consented search, you can prove that it wasn't in plain sight when they decided to conduct the search.

It's easy for a LEO, if they find something, to just CLAIM that it was in plain sight in order to justify the search.


posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 05:26 PM

originally posted by: Restricted
The police can search you and the immediate area under your control for their own safety. It is a courtesy to ask permission.

BULL#E.... That's what they DO all the time, they cannot legally do so though. courtesy to ask permission lol...

Try reading the fourth amendment... It trumps everything that local, state and federal govt. attempts to implement.


posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 05:55 PM
The Fourth Amendment? How's that working out for you?

You're just the kind of person who turns officers into a**holes.

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 05:59 PM
No, it's absolutely true. An officer is legally allowed to frisk you if you have voluntarily exited the vehicle for their own safety. You can fight the frisk in court if they find something because they do have to legally prove they did not feel safe. However if you read the fine print, even looking funny at an officer can be considered's a bit ridiculous.

And calling on the 4th amendment means NOTHING. The supreme Court of the USA has already determined these types of searches to be legal. If you disagree with the laws, take it to the courts. Arguing with an officer over it just makes for bad situation.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Edit: I agree with you btw. The constitutional laws which were mean to give us liberty and freedom have been convoluted and overwritten by an abusive system seemingly bent on control.

edit on 30-8-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 06:18 PM

originally posted by: Domo1
You are required by law to step out of the car when told to do so by LE.

I have no idea if this guy was actually "assaulted". Maybe. Maybe not. I also have no idea how reasonable the officer was being up to this point. I'm kind of doubting he was. He seemed like a dick.

I would be a little suspicious and jumpy if I went to pull someone over and they didn't do so at the first opportunity. Driving a few extra blocks is a bad idea. Not rolling your window down when asked is a bad idea. Not getting out of the car is illegal, and a bad idea.

Errr, no.

It's supposed to be okay to pull over WHEN IT'S SAFE TO DO SO, and that includes driving to the nearest police station if you fear that the person pulling you over (especially if it's an unmarked car) may not be the police after all. That includes waiting until you're out of heavy traffic, pulling over to a less busy street, and where there are lights.

And I would think it would be within your rights to refuse to exit the car if you feared for your safety if you did so, because of the attitude of the officer.

Obviously, having this all on tape helps a lot.

None of this will stop until the out of line officers have to start paying the lawsuits out of their own pockets, and also face criminal charges. You would think most of them would have learned by now that nearly everyone has a camera handy.

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 06:28 PM
You are confused. You can be arreseted for driving too long after an officer has triggered alert lights. If you have pulled into an area not safe an officer will instruct you to move. You are required by law to comply in a prompt manner. If an officer uses the loud speaker and you still don't comply you're definitely getting clinked. You were just involved in a police chase...

a reply to: signalfire

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 03:27 PM
The only time I was displeased with a leo when I was pulled over for doing 3 miles over the speed I was in disbelief and not too happy as I had to pee. He looked to be a young inexperienced officer.all I got was a warning and finger shaking actually that was the one time I wanted the ticket.
Most time dealing with them I've always been treated with respect for the most part.
But then again I live in a a small town not sure if it makes a difference.

I think every leo should be fitted with a video camera and audio... it may stop crap like this

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 10:06 AM
a reply to: raymundoko

well.....No.....they aren't allowed to. They DO, but there is a distinction there. They are breaking the constitution and overstepping the authority we have vested in them.

It doesn't matter what laws have been written down on paper, their only authority comes with the consent of the governed, it is us ALLOWING them to get away with violating our trust in them and our rights that makes it the way it is done...period.


posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:17 PM
You're an idealist. That doesn't work so well with the human animal.

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 09:53 PM
a reply to: thirdcoast


Interesting how YouTube removed the OP videos...

Either the videos I posted were plagiarized or, an agenda.

I'm lost.

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 12:16 PM

originally posted by: defcon5
Cops down here “make crap up”, and know how to “game the system”, to harass, pull over, arrest, and fine otherwise innocent people to fill their “quota”

Pretty much, quotas (and commissions) are the bane of employment systems.

I don't know how anyone with any integrity can do those sorts of jobs.

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 01:26 PM
a reply to: thirdcoast

They pulled him over "because they wanted to" aka he got pulled over for being black. The cop threatening to break the window because Curtis was "not complying" to the request to provide licesnse and registration is complete and utter bs. Is the officer blind? How is someone not complying when they're handing the information requested to the officer. Why would he have to get out of the car anyway? Let me they can search him for no stinkin reason!!

This type of behavior from law enforcement all over the United States is getting real old real quick. There needs to be some major changes and new laws regarding profiling and police brutality. All officers should be required to wear a camera at all times! something as simple as that would most likely stop some of this behavior since the tapes don't lie.

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 02:35 PM

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: defcon5

I'm interested only in the information of the case law, and what justices have said. Or do they not qualify in your opinion?

There's TONS of case law against the "freeman", "Sovereign" movement:
Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments

new topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in