Видео

Right

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Garland v VanDerStok this fall. It seems likely based on recent SC decisions that any warrant issued for missing or altered SN will soon be overturned. While the SC did decide to leave the ATF rule in place while the challenge proceeded in the lower court, Bruen established that "text as informed by relevant history and tradition" is the only permissible standard for 2A, and SN were not mandated until 1968 so that's big problem #1. Problem #2, the ATF has already lost Chevron Deference in the June 28th ruling on Loper. ATF rules are not laws and a lot of them are going away. (the same for any other federal agency that has been misapplying Chevron to replace legislation and especially with regards to ignoring lenity.) You might get some traction with that warrant today, but it's got a limited shelf life, it's probably not going to survive longer than this year.

I posted on "Civil Rights Lawyer" channel that you and he ought to have a discussion and make a vid about it.. You and he are 90% in agreement, it would be interesting to hear where you're not.

The answer is NO.

If you have probable cause, get a WARRENT! Otherwise, your case evaporates.

As a member of the public, if I am wrongly or mistakenly detained by an officer on the basis of an anonymous 911 call (and my name ends up in reports and databases), am entitled to the caller's identity?

"Should you follow the constitution, due procsess, civil rights? Technically, you know, I'm legally obligated to say so but don't be stupid."

Car insurance rates in CA are rapidly rising. Car reg is already nuts. I remember car tag theft was rampant back in the early 90s. I imagine it is again on the rise.

so can police run a k-9 with persons in a car, and if so can the search passangers or purses?

Why she in the back of the police car with the window open and no cage? *AI, go to your room and think about what you've done.*

a securety door is worthless if it is not locked. just like a gun is only as good as a rock. if the gun is unloaded, but just costs a lot more.

Thanks for the show I am so tired of being probed every time I leave my house. Cause I really don't do shit but retaliation is a bitch. Just another thing I got roped into

What if the officers receive a call about a open Carry in the county reported as a shot guy. Then the officer says it is a 22 with serial number that show's it's stolen. But then after further inspection of weapon the officer claims the serial number vanished.... Open Carry is legal in Colorado, and I don't believe that PC even existed for the stop to begin with?

I just can't get enough of this 😊

No trespassing means no damn trespassing you the cops the and girl scouts too only a cop would think the fence the gate and the no trespassing sign means you can open the gate and knock on my door

I was really hoping for the officer to be put on hold then told his car warranty was about to expire!

I don't care whether you agree or not numbnuts, its a Supreme Court Ruling. The fact that cops still don't know about this ruling and still want to conduct car searches and detainments is abhorrent! Mesa police do it routinely and they actually treat you like a criminal if you bring it up. Don't tell me that you're going to get your dog, don't tell me that you need to call back up. Its a TRAFFIC STOP, give me my ticket and let me go, KNOW THE LAW COP, DIDN'T YOU LEARN ANYTHING?

Privacy fences are your best friend. Don't ever open your door for cops unless you called them yourselves.

Love the content 👮

Gets snatched while within the curtiledge. Looks like just one more reason to never open the door for a cop without a warrant.

"How do I trick a juvenile into not invoking the rights that they probably don't understand?" Parents need to teach their kids to never talk to police without a parent present. Then again, most parents don't understand their rights, either.

Naaah. Too easy!

If walking by a darkened out building (on private property) can an officer use a flashlight to inspect the inside of a building without having a warrant or any probable cause?

I would tend to agree that per the law seizing the car in a public area seems fair game. I would question if it could be deemed a 8th amendment violation later, but to the status now, I think your good. But on private land, by a house, just get the warrant, saves the hassle for everyone. There was I think a fairly recent circuit case for a civil asset was returned where the car was not owned by the arrestee and I could see that being a major issue here. Losing a 80k car because I someone used my car in a way I would never have allowed seems way to excessive to me.

The "Legal limits" don't matter because courts choose to not enforce the legal limits.

I really like this channel for telling the truth to officers. Even if it goes against the policies and practices of current law enforcement activities.

In RUclips videos, we have seen portrayed any number of times officers grabbing persons on the threshold of their residence front door and hauling them out. Even Blue and Gold has spoken of such "body snatching" with approval albeit recommending against pushing the boundaries. I don't see how the snatched person's presence inside the threshold, on the threshold or slightly outside of it is relevant it under Banks the officer has no authority to arrest one on their curtilage, well absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. But how is body snatching a person standing slightly exterior of the threshold authorized given Banks' holding disallowing an arrest on that person's curtilage?

Anthony, Last I heard, SCOTUS decisions are instructive according to the language by which their decisions are written, not the commentary from the law enforcement community. Also, when an officer swears to uphold the Constitution, are we now to understand that oath as only applying when law enforcement agrees the SCOTUS, and not otherwise?

This sounds like theft to me. Some places require a license to conceal a firearm.so you want to break into a person's vehicle and steal his firearm that he keeps in public view, avoiding the idea of concealment. The exception i see is a car belonging to a person who is not allowed to be in possession of a firearm?

So these mfers are sitting talking about HOW to violate a persons rights. Straight trash.

Except in MN where our brilliant lawmakers banned us from using it except on stolen vehicles.

do traffic stops of bicycles and fabricating reasonable suspicion

Gosh as a police officer, this just sounds like a nightmare lawsuit waiting to happen. If you find something, file at large. It’s simple

Thanks your my boy ; Blue

I am not a cop. I have a couple in my family and am engaged to a retired Sheriff's Deputy. She and I have had a few lively discussions over police conduct and, misconduct. You touched on something towards the end of your discussion, and it has to do with empathy. I would like to think that police are taught to use discernment in their everyday encounters. The taking away of somebody's vehicle by towing, just because, can leave individuals who were stopped, in the moment struggling with their life and all that comes with having had legs cut out from under them. Cops make good money. Nobody will convince me otherwise. Many other people have to pray for their daily bread and cops with cavalier or an indifferent approach to their work makes me wonder about our state of affairs. The fact that our frantic government and with Newsome signing just last year over 980 new laws and orders puts a burden on us is what is either going to crush us or begin a serious revolt. I'm out.

that department badly needs to be sued.. they make routine practice of this? i''l bet appearance factors play in quite a bit.

Sounds like that police force is routinely violating people's right and should immediately stop this practice.

“The LORDS work”? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Control Holds - Sounds like unwanted touching aka BATTERY. Putting them in cuffs in the back of a cruiser, sounds like KIDNAPPING to me.

Anthony, more cases on inventory searches at traffics stops would be good. This was a good discussion

I'm a retired CA cop living in Texas. Former Army officer and longtime church elder. I look like I stepped out of central casting for the role. A Texas cop stopped me for a BO tail light; spoke to me like I was a criminal and wanted to search my car. I was insulted and formed a very negative opinion of the officer and his abilities. This goes to the issue of putting your hands on people who don't need it.

I always read Miranda rights in they are in handcuffs. When it goes to court, they will say I felt or thought I was under arrest in they were in handcuffs

Is your PC because the shopkeeper/store security said so, or do you need more. If/when you search based on this and find nothing, are you arresting/citing the shopkeeper/security for making a false statement?

Can you do a supplemental video about LEOSA (also people in comments) regarding LEOSA as it applies to reserves ?? I am a reserve deputy in Indiana, and both agencies that I was with told us that we are considered qualified under the statue. We are fully sworn, have arrest powers, and by Indiana code have all the same powers as full time officers. My concern is the wording ….. the first one states we must be “EMPLOYED” by a government agency. I work for a government agency yes ….. but being that I am not paid, am I really an “employee” ?? that’s where I can see a prosecutor using that gray area in the right situation against us.

Yes! Once the person has broken the law, he’s lost rights. I believe that officers have the right to pursue till the end of chase.

o site Avanco social é perfeito para comprar seguidores

compro curtidas pra minha página no site do Avanco social

What did your mother do to you? Hitler likely had a similar upbringing. Hall Monitor Law would be a better moniker.

It's no wonder the public doesn't trust the police. Towing a vehicle because the owner is not present is NOT a valid caretaking reason. There is zero evidence that the owner would not want someone in the car to drive it. The third party could have easily drove it prior to the stop without issue. It is an excuse to tow, and "everyone" knows it. 🙄

One of those rare instances where the 9th got it right!