Cops dealing with people, understanding your rights...by a dude

This thread is inspired from the numerous threads and posts by members claiming to be police officers who feel compelled to lecture, (or inform depending upon your point of view), other people as to what their rights are, and how they should act when confronted by a police officer. While every nation, or state, has some form of legislation, and most cops would be inclined to show reverence to that legislation, and claim they can only speak intelligently to the legislation by which they have taken an oath to enforce, regardless of this legislation, all people everywhere across the world are free and independent and have been endowed by birth with certain unalienable rights that preexist governments. It matters not what legislation has to say on the matter, for legislation is not law, but merely evidence of law.

For police officers in the United States, all legislative acts have derived their authority directly from the people, and are regulated by Constitution. Police officers in the United States are generally expected to take an oath of office, and part of that oath is to uphold the Constitution. Every state within the United States comes with their own Constitution, and it is fairly presumed that the oath taken by police officers references this State Constitution in terms of what is being upheld. All of these State Constitutions have within them either a Bill of Rights, or some form of a Declaration of Rights. Perhaps the single most important Section of any one of these Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Rights is the Section that echoes the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America.

The Ninth Amendment reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What does this mean? What it means is that just because rights have been listed this does not mean that those rights listed were granted by a legislative body, but are acknowledged rights that preexist any legislative body, and that the rights are not limited merely to what has been listed, and most importantly that rights are, at all times, retained by the people.

Examples of State Constitutions that echo the Ninth Amendment are as follows:

Alabama State Constitution

SECTION 36

Construction of Declaration of Rights.

That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.

Arizona Constitution

33. Reservation of rights

Section 33. The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.

Arkansas Constitution

Text of Section 29: Enumeration of Rights of People Not Exclusive of Other Rights - Protection Against Encroachment This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; and to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, or any transgression of any of the higher powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of the government; and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the other provisions herein contained, shall be void

Arkansas' Declaration spells it out quite succinctly and makes clear what should be clear even without it being spelled out, and that is any subsequent legislation that denies or disparages the rights of an individual is null and void and does not at all carry the force of law. Of course, law such as it is, can get rather sticky, as people have the right to contract, and here is where it gets really sticky.

Police officers are rather fond of saying; "You must realize that driving is a privilege and not a right". They are really just echoing what they have been told, often times by statutes written and codified by state legislatures, but what they are parroting is merely an opinion, and based upon law is not at all rooted in fact...unless, of course, a person is carrying a license to drive along with a title of registration to the vehicle they are driving, then the right to drive retained by the people is moot, as that person carrying the license to drive has entered into a contract and in effect waived their right to drive in exchange for being granted the privilege to drive.

It is fairly presumed that those who have entered into a contract to be a licensed driver and have their vehicle registered with a state Department of Motor Vehicle have agreed to play along with certain rules and regulations regarding driving a vehicle. However, it is also equally fairly presumed that certain traffic regulations need not any licensing schemes or registration schemes in order to carry the force of law. Driving recklessly, for example, is a threat to individuals, both driving in traffic and walking as pedestrians. It matters not whether a person has a license to drive or not, if they are endangering other people, they are not acting by right, but acting criminally, and as a police officer it is your sworn duty to deal with such people.

However, if a person is driving by right, as opposed to entering into a contractual agreement and driving by privilege, that means that person is not endangering or harming any other person, and therefore not acting criminally. Lawful actions do not require any licensing scheme, regardless of what legislatures say about the matter. If legislation on its own were law, then judges would not have the authority of judicial review and could not strike down legislation as being unlawful.

All people have the right to due process of law. Aspects of law enforcement, such as "probable cause" can be a part of due process of law only when the police officer relying on probable clause is acting lawfully. Using probable cause to act under color of law and simulate a legal process is not lawful. The problem with many police officers is they don't truly seem to understand what "probable cause" is. Some will even go as far as to claim that a person running a red light, or speeding in a reckless manner gives them probable cause. The fact is that when a driver is driving recklessly this gives a police officer actual cause. Such actual cause may be contested in a court of law by the person who has been detained by the police officer, but if that person detained was actually driving recklessly, then the cause to detain them is actual and not probable. If a police officer is not sure of the actuality of a crime, but there is enough evidence to point to a crime, then the cause can be probable, depending upon the circumstances.

However, if a police officer detains a person driving, and when all is said and done, the only citation written up by the police officer is "driving without a license", then what was the probable cause? By what reasonable suspicion did the police officer surmise that the person driving was actually a contracted member of the DMV country club but was driving without the required license? Of course, there will be plenty of police officers, and other government officials who will vehemently contest the point that driving is a right and not a privilege, but when it comes to burden of proof in backing up their contentions, those arguing that driving is a privilege and not a right fall way short of the mark, and can only point to legislation to support their argument.

Too often, the argument regarding law gets muddled, and those defending their licensing schemes rely upon "social contracts" and other such nebulous notions of "governmental social control". Of course, "social contract" does not at all act in the same way that the law of contracts works, and the drivers licensing scheme is not lawful because of a "social contract" but is lawful because of the law of contracts. An agreement was made between two or more parties, and that agreement was signed and officially recognized as a contract. This is far different than the "social contract" where a person is "obligated" to society based upon an imaginary contract where "society" has not signed any agreement, nor has the person supposedly obligated to that "society".

So, what is a cop to do, when confronted with a person who has not entered into any contractual agreement with a DMV but is driving around in an unregistered vehicle without any license? Most cops will insist that it is their duty to either cite that person with a ticket, and/or impound their vehicle without any due process of law. Is this lawful? Pointing to legislation can be evidence of its lawful act, but it is merely evidence, and given that the legislation being pointed to is an act of legislation subsequent to the Constitution that gave the legislature authority to legislate, what is senior to that legislation that would insist that driving is a "privilege and not a right" is the assertion that rights are retained by the people and need not be listed by Constitution in order to be a right.

As a cop, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and while there are many cops that are willing to pass on the responsibility of unlawful legislation to the courts, this is not at all upholding the Constitution. As a police officer, I have no doubt that you run into people on a daily basis that think they know their rights and in truth have no understanding of what a right is and what it is not, but in fairness, I have run into plenty of police officers, many of them my friends, who have no idea what a right is, and some of them could care less anyway. It is my firm belief that most people who become cops do so to "protect and serve" and by that I mean protect and serve everyone, not just those who they deem worthy of protection and service. Even so, there has for so long been a decided propaganda campaign to convince people that rights are things given to people by government and that government officials exist to control people and keep them in place.

It is easy to lose sight of what the aim is, but as Aristotle once put it, all things aim towards the greater good, and cops are no different. I believe all cops aim towards the greater good, but the problem is that their aim for that greater good is not nearly as good as their aim with a gun. There will always be people who have no regard for others, and those people have a proclivity towards doing things that require the services of a police officer. However, if Aristotle is right, and all things aim towards the greater good, it is fairly presumed that most people actually do have regard for others, including police officers. Even so, in the end, it is not the badge that is worthy of respect, it is the person. While not all police officers are rogue outlaws who have decided that their brute force is authorized by the badge they wear, regardless of the lawlessness of that brute force, these officers do exist, and it would seem increasingly so.

It appears to be that it is uncommon valor for police officers to break ranks and challenge unlawful legislation or orders and flat out refuse to deny or disparage a persons right/s, but they exist, and tragically many of them wind up leaving the force because of this. There are bad people, and there are good people, but in the end, all people are basically good, and the bad ones are the ones whose aim - when aiming towards that greater good - is just bad aim. Police officers spend an awful lot of the time dealing with these people with bad aim, and I suppose because of this it can leave one jaded regarding humanity as a whole. Yet, the mark of greatness is the compassion one holds for others. I have seen plenty of police officers who have this compassion, and it is easy to see their greatness. This greatness does not leave them immune from mistakes and misunderstandings of the law. Indeed, plenty heroes have fallen, and all heroes who fall, do so because of hubris. Sometimes greatness is not enough.

There is a great divide in the United States, and I suppose there always has been, but lately there has been an increasing sense that we live in a police state. There are plenty of good people who do not trust police officers, and plenty of good police officers who do not trust people. Not all great people are hero's, and considering the times we live in, there cannot be too many hero's. If a cop intends to be a hero, this can happen by protecting and serving in the line of duty while upholding legislative acts that actually reflect the law, but when a cop believes he is heroic by upholding legislative acts that are contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land, reflected in their State Constitution, the likelihood of them being hero's has been greatly diminished.

As legislatures continue to write legislation that is contrary to the Constitution that gave them the authority to legislate to begin with, more and more people will begin to engage in non-acquiescence. Police officers are capable of doing the same, and were they to engage in non-acquiescence while in the line of duty, I have no doubt that they put their career and lives on the line, but too many are all ready doing so while acquiescing to dubious legislative acts, why not try a little non-acquiescence? Why not hold total regard for all people and give them the benefit of the doubt until all doubt has been removed? This is what it means to respect the rights of others. To understand that even when we don't understand the actions of others, as long as that action has caused no harm, then what they are doing that we don't understand, they do by right.

What are the rights of a police officer? Why they are the exact same rights as any other person, because that what rights are. They are universal, and apply to all people across the world. Indeed, across the whole universe! Beyond this police officers have been endowed with certain privileges. Privileges should never, ever, trump rights. Privileges are what they are and their very nature creates a risk of abuse. Rights, on the other hand, do not run any risk of abuse because they cannot be abused. Rights are black and white, and they are either rights, or they are not. Any abuse does not come in the form of enjoying a right too much, it comes in the form of abusing other people's rights. No one has the right to deny or disparage other people's rights. Not I, not other people, and certainly not police officers, regardless of what a legislative act might have to say to the contrary.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


My! What an original title. Well written post sir. I don't know what state you live in so obviously I cannot speak for that state. I can tell that in NC if you drive without a license it is a jailable offense. If you drive without insurance your car will be towed. When you go to court and tell the judge constractual, freeman wet pork he will laugh you out of the court room or back to your cell.
It's great on paper but it simply will not hold water in a court of law. Now, I know that you are going to hit me with a lot of case law, but show me some where someone actually got off scott free. If you can find one, it will not be in NC.
Again, nice post, if I were a moderator I would probably close it and put it on my thread since you guys derailed it anyway. Same stuff, different thread
Seeashrink

How is driving a car a constitutionally protected right? Under what specific part of the constitution of the USA is it said "...have the right to bare cars..."

I must be missing something here.

Ok, so what is the point?
The point of the threads from the cops is kind of a "please understand" thread.

Cops don't know you from Adam. They are paid to uphold the law and enforce the same.
But, they are paid to win and go home at the end of the day.
If you want to fight a cop, do it so after the traffic stop, ticket or arrest. Work your way through the chain of command, then to Internal Affairs onto the Chief of Police. Nothing hurts a cop more then an IA investigation.

If you want to physically fight a cop, doom on you.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It's so much easier to just humble yourself, take the ticket and, have a lawer deal with it. Sorry but, I am the former Queen of citations as a former trash hauler and I have tried it all. My advice "Lawer up and keep on truckin"

Originally posted by mrwiffler
How is driving a car a constitutionally protected right? Under what specific part of the constitution of the USA is it said "...have the right to bare cars..."

I must be missing something here.

You missed the whole point about the 9th amendment and un-enumerated rights.

People have rights because we are people, not slaves of the government. We don't need a piece of paper from the government to grant us rights or privileges, those rights are intrinsic to our existence as free men.

The problem today is; too many people believe the government line of bull that they are the ones that grant us our rights and they can take them away if they deem it necessary.

The fact is; We the People gave the government their authority and We the People can take it away from THEM if we deem it necessary.


That is the founding principle of this country.

Originally posted by macman
Ok, so what is the point?
The point of the threads from the cops is kind of a "please understand" thread.

Cops don't know you from Adam. They are paid to uphold the law and enforce the same.
But, they are paid to win and go home at the end of the day.
If you want to fight a cop, do it so after the traffic stop, ticket or arrest. Work your way through the chain of command, then to Internal Affairs onto the Chief of Police. Nothing hurts a cop more then an IA investigation.

If you want to physically fight a cop, doom on you.

Aside from your assurance, how is one to know that "Nothing hurts a cop more then an IA investigation"?
If all cops "are paid to win and go home at the end of the day", it would seem that working your way up the chain of command is little more than an exercise in futility designed to deter the complaintant.

reply to post by seeashrink


As a sworn officer for the Great State of North Carolina, you took an oath of office to uphold the laws of that land, which begin with the Supreme Law of that State, the North Carolina State Constitution:

That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, and that the relations of this State to the Union and government of the United States and those of the people of this State to the rest of the American people may be defined and affirmed, we do declare that:

Section 1. The equality and rights of persons.

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

Do you see the part that say's pursuit of happiness? Who are you, or any one else, to tell the people of the Great State of North Carolina that driving their own automobile does not fall within the parameters of pursuit of happiness?

Sec. 2. Sovereignty of the people.

All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

How is instituting a licensing and registration scheme that by your own admission allows the state to by pass due process of law for the good of the whole? You can smugly brag about how judges have colluded with police officers to willfully disregard this due process of law, and you can brag all you want about how the brute force you rely on trumps the rights of people, but this is precisely why this thread exists, and does not belong merged with your thread. I have no doubt that if you were a moderator you would abuse your power as a moderator and close this thread, and sadly, this gives reasonable people cause to wonder what lack of ethics might be in play in your role as a law enforcement officer for the Great State of North Carolina. I cannot know, and while your own admission that as a moderator you would abuse that power and close this thread serves as incriminating evidence, it is merely evidence and not proof of an impropriety you may, or may not engage in as a police officer, and as an individual, you have the same right to the reasonable expectation of being seen innocent until proven guilty, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Sec. 3. Internal government of the State.

The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.

To the best of my knowledge the people of the Great State of North Carolina have not abolished the Constitution of which I am citing here, and as such, it still stands as the Supreme Law of the Land, and regardless of the high regard you hold for outlaw judges that laugh the Constitutionally recognized sovereignty of the people out of "their" courts, thus far what I have cited seems to refute your assertions. Of course, that is just paper, right? While your driving without a license and driving without proof of insurance is also written on paper, and even though while written on paper it does not look so nice, it will hold water in the courts you described, but apparently the Constitution for the Great State of North Carolina will not hold water in a court of law.

Sec. 19. Law of the land; equal protection of the laws.

No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Equal protection of the laws...unless, of course, you've been pulled over by a cop in North Carolina and don't have a drivers license, or any proof of insurance, then that cop, and according to you the courts will gladly imprison that person, and/or seize their property, and screw the Constitution, your upholding subsequent legislation that you agree with, right?

Sec. 21. Inquiry into restraints on liberty.

Every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the restraint if unlawful, and that remedy shall not be denied or delayed. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Of course, you would advise against taking Section 21 too seriously, right? After all, you as a police officer are armed and dangerous and it doesn't matter if you have unlawfully detained a person, they shouldn't attempt to remove the restraints...not on your watch. Besides, you're relatively certain that after beating the crap out of some clown who attempted to remove the unlawful restraints put upon him that the judge will side with you and laugh that clown right out of court, right?

Sec. 36. Other rights of the people.

The enumeration of rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

Well, well, well, look at that! The Great State of North Carolina is also in agreement that rights need not be enumerated in order to be accepted as a right, and this Constitution has all ready made clear that the power the state government of North Carolina is derived directly from the people, and as Section 36 further makes clear all rights are retained by the people, not granted by the government formed by the people. By what authority does a cop, or judge, or legislature declare what is a right and what is not a right as long as the action involved has caused no harm?

Typical of the petty tyrant, you demand I show you case law where someone gets off Scott free from driving without a license, but these people who do get off Scott free do not enter a plea when confronting the lawfulness of an ordinance declaring the right to drive merely a state granted privilege. Instead what they do is challenge the jurisdiction of the court, and while some courts actually do keep records of preliminary hearings, most kangaroo courts known as traffic courts do not, and rarely, if ever, have a prosecutor on hand, and the judge will act as both prosecutor and judge, and there is rarely, if ever, a court stenographer on hand to provide any public record, but you all ready know this, don't you? When you demand I show you case law of trials that never happened because the only authority a laughing judge has is to dismiss you know full well there is no case law for a trial that never happened and charges were dismissed before any plea was entered in order to move to trial.

Originally posted by mrwiffler
How is driving a car a constitutionally protected right? Under what specific part of the constitution of the USA is it said "...have the right to bare cars..."

I must be missing something here.

Yes, you must be missing something. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

Dude your cool..

you should PM me.. i want to ask u like 1 million questions...

You are real smart in this kinda thing... I wanna pick your brain for a little while..

I forgot to mention.. There is an old video that talks about what happens if you get stopped by the police and how to protect yourself.. I cant think of the name of hand because i haven't seen it in a few yrs.. If i can find or remember the title i will post it here.. Its kinda the same thing your talking about.. A real good piece to see...

The OP is ignorant of the Supreme Court's precedent-setting "Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965."

The 9th Amendment cannot be construed as an independent source of rights, (it merely enumerates and limits federal power, while indicating that the bill of rights is not an exhaustive inventory of federal power), and that the 14th amendment similarly applies to state's powers, but is not an independent source of personal liberties.

Likewise, James Madison, who personally introduced the tenth amendment, thought it was merely a truism, a statement of existing fact; and the Supreme Court has enshrined his sentiment in both United States v. Sprague, 1931 and United States v. Darby (1941)

First semester of law school. So they tell me.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


The O.P. is not only NOT ignorant of Griswold v Connecticut the O.P. has actually taken the time to READ this Supreme Court ruling, not once, not twice, but now thrice in order to cite here in this thread, beginning with opinion of MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring:

The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Amendment is almost entirely the work of James Madison. It was introduced in Congress by him and passed the House and Senate with little or no debate and virtually no change in language. It was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights 3 could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential [381 U.S. 479, 489] rights and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected.

In presenting the proposed Amendment, Madison said:

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the [381 U.S. 479, 490] last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment]." I Annals of Congress 439 (Gales and Seaton ed. 1834).

Mr. Justice Story wrote of this argument against a bill of rights and the meaning of the Ninth Amendment:

"In regard to . . . [a] suggestion, that the affirmance of certain rights might disparage others, or might lead to argumentative implications in favor of other powers, it might be sufficient to say that such a course of reasoning could never be sustained upon any solid basis . . . . But a conclusive answer is, that such an attempt may be interdicted (as it has been) by a positive declaration in such a bill of rights that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." II Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 626-627 (5th ed. 1891).

These statements of Madison and Story make clear that the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights which the Constitution guaranteed to the people.

While this Court has had little occasion to interpret the Ninth Amendment, 6 "t cannot be presumed that any [381 U.S. 479, 491] clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174. In interpreting the Constitution, "real effect should be given to all the words it uses." Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 151 . The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution may be regarded by some as a recent discovery and may be forgotten by others, but since 1791 it has been a basic part of the Constitution which we are sworn to uphold. To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states that [381 U.S. 479, 492] "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And what follows would be the part you are attempting to construe as a ruling by the Supreme Court that "it cannot be construed as an independent source of rights"

A dissenting opinion suggests that my interpretation of the Ninth Amendment somehow "broaden[s] the powers of this Court." Post, at 520. With all due respect, I believe that it misses the import of what I am saying. I do not take the position of my Brother BLACK in his dissent in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68 , that the entire Bill of Rights is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, and I do not mean to imply that the Ninth Amendment is applied against the States by the Fourteenth. Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.

Contrary to what you claim, Justice Goldberg did not hold that the Ninth Amendment "cannot" be construed to be an independent source of rights, but merely claimed that he was not arguing such. Further, I am not arguing this either. There is no where in my posts that I have argued that the Ninth Amendment is to be construed as an independent source of rights. Indeed, such an argument would require to first name the source of rights in order for there to be an "independent" source. "Our Creator" is often used as the source of rights, to make clear that no human being or human artifice is capable of granting rights that come from a higher authority. I am not claiming that the right to drive comes from any source independent than the same source all other rights come from, and they sure as hell don't come from government.