According to court documents, the police and the judge in this case all have "absolute immunity" and therefore Mrs Newman's complaints are moot and thus denied. Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution guarantees to the States a "republican form of government," to which the concept of "absolute immunity" for authorities is anathema, given that a republican form of government implies absolute equality under the law, particularly the US Constitution.
It demands that they run towards the gunfire instead of away like pussies like you two would do. It demands that they give their life to save others if necessary. You two should only wish that your life of working at Mcdonlads amounted to anything more than smoking pot every night. So just remember that whenever you need cops to come save your sorry ass for whatever reason......don't call.
@mystikast @ jewishkid009 Both of you have made statements about cops that shows that you have been taught to hate them simply because they chose to sign up for a job that demands that they do certain things. It demands that they deal with ignorant people day in and day out.
@Outrjs: SOME checkpoints in the USA are legal, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Michigan v. Sitz, or United States v. Martinez-Fuerte.
If it WAS a legal checkpoint for drivers license, insurance, and registration, then they are allowed to ask for those, and if not supplied, that is a crime.
I, too, am disappointed at the erosion of our rights.
I think more numerous and lengthier videos may help stem the erosion. For example, a longer videotape of this incident may well have established that this was an illegal checkpoint, for example, by allowing the officers to use their discretion in deciding whom to stop. Also helpful would be more lawyers helping to defend people like Abby Newman, to use the law as a good defense, rather than demagogy as a useless defense.
@Outrjs: I think the USSR broke up because their communist government lacked the checks and balances of many other governments, and therefore encouraged corrupt and very inefficient government. Combine that with an arms race their economy could not support in the long run and consequences of extreme pollution, they reached a point where they could not maintain enough military to hold on to all their states.
@Outrjs yes i have read the communist manifesto. i gues from a proletariat point of vue communism seems great. but if your a middle class or at least have some money your going to dissagree. im sorry im poor and communism would be the best thing for me
In my opinion, the communist manifesto that our country is now starting to follow, is the very reason you are poor. I am not of great wealth but still have freedoms. Don't let them convince you that the only way to be free is to be a slave. You are special and valuable to me despite your financial situation.
Unacceptable. These pigs deserve to lose their jobs (they make good officers look bad). Hopefully she filed a formal complaint and a lawsuit. Some cops think they can make up the law as they go.
The video does not show why she was stopped, and without seeing court documents I will not reach the conclusion that she was stopped for no reason. Officers know that a vehicle stop absent any law violation has been held unconstitutional and so will avoid doing so, this does not appear to be a checkpoint type situation either. Given the video posters ignorance of the law, I am not inclined to take the description given as gospel.
@PhatFarm60: Your Hiibel comment is false as stated. Please research the Terry requirement in Hiibel.
Yuor Chimel reference is about a house search, not vehicle. Arizona v. Gant is about vehicle searches and states: "requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest... in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest"
@PhatFarm60: You misunderstand Hiibel in several ways. For one, the requirement was not to "present proper identification". It was to "identify" onesself. For another, the state had to have a constitutional Stop-and-ID law meeting the requirements of Terry v. Ohio. Third, the officer had to actually have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. This Hiibel is distinguished from this incident.
@PhatFarm60: You also misunderstand Pennsylvania v. Mimms. The right of a police officer to order a driver or passenger out of their vehicle is accorded police only for LEGAL detentions. This video has all the earmarks of an ILLEGAL detention—the driver did nothing wrong, and other cars whizzing pass show that she was stopped at the discretion of the officer (i.e., it was an unconstitutional checkpoint).
@PhatFarm60: To elaborate on Pafoofnik1's excellent response to your Chimel claim:
Her car was searched only AFTER she was removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and held by an officer. She COULD NOT HAVE reached inside the vehicle for a weapon or to destroy evidence (not that they could have found evidence supporting the arrest inside, anyway). So Chimel does not support the constitutionality of the officers' behavior.
@DavidForthoffer Perhaps, but remember that New York v Belton was used to extend Chimel to vehicles. whereas before it had only applied to arrests made at a dwelling; and in Belton SCOTUS holds that: "when a [police officer] has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, [the officer] may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. "
@PhatFarm60: If you reread the cases cited in Belton, you will realize that Chimel had already been used to justify searches within automobiles. The point of Belton was to try to establish a bright line rule that could be followed by law enforcement officers. LEOs tend to forget that the Court ALSO said the holding "in no way alters the fundamental principles established in the Chimel case regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests."
@DavidForthoffer Your argument that an officer could not search the area of immediate control because she was handcuffed and in the patrol car is basically the same issue that was raised in Belton. Also, Arizona v Gant only applies to complete vehicular searches, extending beyond the area of immediate control (eg: the trunk etc.). In this case the officers did not appear to search beyond this area therefore the search was valid
@PhatFarm60: I challenge you to find any quote from Gant that supports your preposterous claim that Arizona v Gant only applies to complete vehicular searches.
Under Belton (including the fundamental principles regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests), the search of Abby's vehicle was clearly unconstitutional. She had no access to weapons. No evidence further proving driving without a license could have been found.
@DavidForthoffer I just looked at the date on this video: 2000... Gant doesn't even apply here, Belton and Chimel were the law of the land back then, so the arguement that the officers were in the wrong is out the window. Notice that the video starts at the point the officer states "I need to know who you are," cutting out the entire stop and approach, which would have shown why she was being detained.. an edit likely done by the video poster to bend the truth
@PhatFarm60 I concede that Gant would have very possibly rendered the search illegal, however it was completely within the holding of Belton; and to judge two officers based upon a then-non existant ruling (Gant) is pointless.
@PhatFarm60: You missed my point that even under Belton, the search in this video is unconstitutional. Try rereading Belton, especially the part that the holding "in no way alters the fundamental principles established in the Chimel case regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests."
I assume you are giving up your preposterous claim that Arizona v. Gant only applies to complete vehicular searches.
@DavidForthoffer Where are you possibly getting that the search wouldn't be allowed under Belton? The court held that: (for the second time, I QUOTE) "when a [police officer] has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, [the officer] may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile" How more clear can you get regarding Belton? I see no clear evidence that the stop was anything but a lawful arrest..
@PhatFarm60: From what I've read, she was pulled over after turning to avoid a checkpoint. If that was the case, then someone would have to come up with a statute making such an action unlawful. I've also read that she was not convicted for the reason for the stop, but was for other reasons, like no license.
@PhatFarm60: The Court said in Belton: "Our holding today does no more than determine the meaning of Chimel's principles in this particular and problematic context. It in no way alters the fundamental principles established in the Chimel case regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests."
The scope of a search incident to arrest for failure to show a driver's license does NOT include searching the vehicle.
@DavidForthoffer I already conceded that fact that the search might well have been illegal under Gant. As long as we are throwing the word preposterous around, chew on this: You should know that an officer does not have access to the dash camera tapes, only the supervisor, usually the watch commander or higher. Your claim that the tape was altered by the officer is as preposterous as my admittedly erroneous claim.
@PhatFarm60: You twist my words. I did not say "the tape was altered by the officer". I said "Cutting out the entire stop and approach may well have been done by the officer". The obvious means for doing that would have been to simply not turn on the dashboard camera until the beginning of the video. You'll notice the second officer did not appear in the video for some 30 seconds into the tape; maybe the second officer turned it on.
@PhatFarm60: Cutting out the entire stop and approach may well have been done by the officer, as that was under his control. Maybe the OFFICER cut it out to hide evidence that the stop was unconstitutional, such as at a checkpoint where officers used their discretion deciding which vehicle to stop.
@PhatFarm60 said: "Arizona v Gant only applies to complete vehicular searches,"
Where does it say that in Gant?
In fact, Gant says the opposite:
"Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle inci-dent to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believethat the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest."
@Pafoofnik1 I already admitted that Gant could have rendered this search illegal, however Gant was not in effect at the time of this video. Furthermore, based upon the suspects actions, a reasonable officer might suspect that the reason the defendant was so combative was contraband or other evidence concealed inside the vehicle.
@PhatFarm60 said: "a reasonable officer might suspect..."
I find that introducing what-if and what-might scenarios cloud the issue at hand. Let's stick to the facts of this video.
"Newman was found "guilty" of "driving without a license and obstructing justice" while charges of "assault on a police officer" and "refusing to show a drivers license" were dropped."
What I don't know was the original reason for the stop in the first place.
@Pafoofnik1 Exactly, without knowing the reason for the stop through court papers or seeing the entire video, this cannot be judged as an unlawful search as the video poster claims.
@Pafoofnik1 Ok, found some additional fun facts regarding the defendant. Apparently she had rescinded her Social Security number, therefore making her ineligible for a driver's license. Other than that I can't find any info regarding the case that is not grossly biased and incomplete. I gather the truth is in a law library in VA somewhere..may have to check if I ever pass through there.
@PhatFarm60: Despite reasonable officers possibly suspecting that reason the defendant was so combative was contraband or other evidence concealed inside the vehicle, that is not sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle.
Their search, under New York v. Belton, was illegal.
Most Republicans, TPer's and conservatives think this is just some dandy police work. I am used to hearing the right say "If she has nothing to hide then why would she object to showing ID"?
Llisten how surprised he is to hear that he's not given automatic permission to just reach into someone's car and rifle through their belongings.
The very idea that he needs legal justification to initiate a search, is just so outlandish to him, that he outright ignores it. He sees it as his absolute right to do whatever the hell he wants, to whomever the hell he wants, whenever the hell he wants to do it.
@moredistractions please tell me your not serious. I've been pulled over refused to step out my car because once you do it is titled under abandonment and cops can and will investigate and rummage through an abandoned vehicle. I also own military manuals (because I'm a military buff, not a terrorist) but my hobbies are of no business to any cop without probable cause of criminal involvement. I own over 30 firearms but I'm no threat to society. So are you really serious?
@Set2Survive Don't tell me about laws. The law is a joke. Laws don't matter in the real world unless you have the money and or influence to back them up. In real life terror fighters can and will do anything they god damn well please. Also "I'm a military buff not a terrorist" doesn't count. You can be declared a terrorist at the drop of a hat. Your guns and military stuff will be immediately transformed into terror implements by the federal agents who write your fake terror plot.
@moredistractions I am quite aware that the laws are a joke, they are simply a facade to give the appearance of law and order. I could be declared a terrorist for no other reasoning than they wish to label me as one. But I have no history of violence, no motive to do any such thing, and my firearms are historic collectables. My military volumes are such writings as the memoirs of General Patton, and the like. I have nothing that could be misconstrued as "terror tools"
"I must know who you are." What is this. This asshole should get fired. And this: " You are arrested for resisting arrest." She whas not in arrest at this very moment.. With police officer like this on, should we buy a gun to protect ourselves. And i'm certain this asshole will find something to punish her for not kissing his behind.
She does have constitutional rights, but those can be overridden if the State can prove they had a "compelling interest" to override them. The Supreme Court has ruled that the State has a compelling interest to prevent drunk driving and sobriety checkpoints are a reasonable means of achieving this interest. The officer was completely in the right in this circumstance.
@palo42785 not when at a designated checkpoint, ALL cars are not checked. They singled her out for not identifying herself while they allowed all other cars to keep going, some may even have possessed, drugs, illegal firearms, copies of "how to be a terrorist" by Osama Bin Laden, all because they were too busy infringing on her constitutional rights. So in fact the officer was completely WRONG in this circumstance
@ljrow49 Nope, she actually was convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison, of which she served 22 months.. her arrest was completely valid with no grounds for a civil suit.
To add to my previous comment, the cop committed the assault here. She had every right to defend herself and, if we didn't live in a supine, obey-at-all-costs society, someone witnessing this should have trained a firearm on that cop and ordered him to back off or suffer the consequences of deadly force.
I have a strong feeling this sort of thing wouldn't have been possible in the 1800s. People weren't afraid to stand up for what's right back then, no matter what. Cops like this would have been shot for pulling these stunts.
@JohnRagan1960 The judge refused to allow Ms. Newman to cite the constitution in court due to sustained objections of the prosecutor. The ignorant jury therefore found her guilty of some stuff. She was fined and had to pay court costs. She was railroaded basically. Drivers should keep in mind that roads are nationalized and using them is not a right but a privilege. This affords the State wider latitude in enforcement techniques. Your home is your castle, but your car is just your car.
@AlembicPools: Driver's licenses are used to prove that a person is trained to operate a motor vehicle. They can be presented when a person is stopped under reasonable suspicion of violating a motor vehicle code.
@fnogyrabyore HAHA yeah you sure would buddy... try it sometime.. as you sit there in your drivers seat while listening to air flowing from your 6 sucking chest wounds, each 0.40 inches in diameter remember your little comment you left on youtube that one time as your life passes before you and darkness closes in...
@AlembicPools In a truly free society, we wouldn't have to. You see it every day and are so use to it that you don't even notice how inundated you are with state control. You have to have a license plate, inspection sticker, driver's license, proof of ownership, proof of insurance, and all of your tail lights working...JUST TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE DOWN THE FUCKING ROAD.
@munkyusm more then that in tn ,if a tn cop stops you for no reason and they usually do that and you ask " why was i stopped ,then your dragged from your car and cuffed.all kinds of charges will be brought against you.look at the DARREN RING case on here and listen to what the tn cop says on the radio going to Mr.ring home.tell me what you think about it.just my opinion
Just did a little research and think i should share my finds: You have every right to resist an unlawful arrest as long as you dont try to retreat before resisting. The law will see it the same as defending yourself from a murderer. (meaning killing the officer if necessary is justifiable *OK in the laws eyes*)
make sure as hell you did nothing wrong before resisting if your going to.
@AlembicPools You just don't get it, dude. We have very few rights that are observed anymore, and many people feel that they have to be hypervigilant in protecting those rights that they do still have. It's fine if you want to just consent to police officers any time they approach you, but some people are not okay with it. The state is growing in power with each and every stop where we give into these high school educated dildos as if they actually have power over us.
was just googling when you can legally resist arrest and found this. Now i wanna know if she could have legally just driven away. Id assume no, but ive found things thought to be obvious, wrong before.
@Adventureseaker98 nah they need to be dragged from their beds and into the streets in the dead of night and shot in the head while their wives and children are made to watch.
The police in this country had better start rethinking how they treat Americans because when the SHTF,and it will soon,there are tens of millions of armed Americans(many with sniper skills) who will mistake that badge for a target!
It's the South! What do you expect? Never been to the South, nor will I ever set foot in any Southern state! People are still lynched in the South. Is anyone really that surprised that Southern cops would behave this way? It's known as the Bible Belt for god sakes!
@ii8dk8ii What a stupid fucking comment. Cops across the country do this.... ESPECIALLY in the northern states like NY, Maryland and Mass. Educate yourself.
@cody2008nridge lol do you cops get free donuts to post on these videos? Hitler would have been proud of these goons, don't forget how you got your freedom and how easy it is to lose it if not stood up for, lol these cops are idiots, they illegally searched here car then found information about freedom and freaked out, lol morons.
@cody2008nridge Alex Jones is a plant and works for the globalist. He is a Jesuit trained controlled opposition. He is also linked to CIA......either by training and this is a set up stop to cast an idea..........It is designed to foment a civil war as this will be added to other methods and set up situations.
The U.S. Constitution establishes a well-defined democratic Republic: a sovereign representative democracy for the citizens of the United States. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land and, as such, is not subservient to the dictates of international charters. Any law repugnant to the Constitution possesses the mere color of law.
anything, drugs, a weapon...ANYTHING!! that is the issue. Once a cop has reason to search their are no limitations as to what he can find (unless there is a warrant specifically describing the area to be searched ect.). Had she presented her license and nothing turned up, THEN she would be right in her argument. They obviously found nothing, these cops are morons. But, SHE GAVE HIM PROBABLE CAUSE BY THE WAY SHE ACTED!! SUSPICION IS PROBABLE CAUSE!! DEPENDING ON THE STATE YOU MUST SHOW ID!!
@Godard049: Suspicion is NOT probable cause. "Probable cause" is short for "probable cause of criminal involvement". Exercising one's constutitional rights is NEVER probable cause. Not cooperating is not probable cause. Being rude is not probable cause. Obeying the law in a manner the police do not like is not probable cause.
@DavidForthoffer Your right. But check prior cases, suspicion is now probable cause...In New Mexico an officer stopped/searched a van because the occupants were "acting uncharacteristic of typical drivers in that area based on his prior experiences as an officer of the law" The officer found 14 pounds of marijuana, the case was brought to the supreme court and the occupants of the van were found guilty...they argued the search was unconstitutional but the judge differed...this is a fact.
@DavidForthoffer (Michigan v. Sitz) - roadchecks are constitutional. (Penn. v. Mimms) - Officers may order drivers out of a car - deemed constitutional. (Hiibel v. 6th district, Nevada) - Failure to ID is an arrestable offense & giving one's name does not violate the 5th Amendment. All 50 states have an obstruction statute where not complying with an officer is an arrestable offense.
@KlingonWarri0r: Michigan v. Sitz: Road checks are constitutional IF no stops are at the discretion of the police (and certain other requirements). Here, the other cars whizzing past indicate that Abby Newman was stopped at the discretion of the police. Hence, THIS road check was unconstitutional.
@KlingonWarri0r: Pennsylvania v. Mimms: Officers may order drivers out of a car ONLY IF the original stop was legal. Here, the original stop was illegal.
Hiibel v. Nevada: Failure to ID is an arrestable offense ONLY IF the officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity AND the state has such a law. Here, the officer had no such suspicion.
@KlingonWarri0r: NO state have an obstruction statute where not complying with an officer is an arrestable offense. The laws you are thinking of all make it an offense to interfere or obstruct an officer IN THEIR DUTY. Since no officer has a duty to break the law, it is not an offense to disobey such an order.
@KlingonWarri0r I have refused on a number of occasions not to identify myself when asked without just cause or reason, and I have been taken into custody for doing so, however lawsuits are a bitch when you are unlawfully arrested/detained. The settlements help soften the pain of spending 24hrs in lockdown. If they want to keep paying me, I'll keep refusing identification. (oh and I'm not nor have I ever been a criminal, and all of my paperwork checked out)
had she presented the officer with her identification she then could have argued that the search was unlawful but by not presenting the officer with her license that is grounds for reasonable suspicion which constitutes a search....
She needs to give police her information...she could be a convicted murderer for all they know...they run her name to match it with the plates on the car and to confirm she does not have a record...she thinks she knows her rights but clearly she doesn't....dumb...
@Godard049: Although all states require drivers to carry drivers licenses and show them to police on demand, it is nevertheless illegal for police to stop someone unless they have at least reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior, or at a constitutional checkpoint. It is not clear whether this is a constitutional checkpoint.
This is an untrue statement. Driving is a right. We as a nation have decided that driving on certain public roads require the possession of a license indicating proficiency in controlling the listed vehicle.
Possession of this license is a right, once the holder demonstrates the abilities listed on the license. The license cannot be rescinded without just cause.
Certain checkpoints are not illegal. You not get to just chose which law you feel is right or wrong. That is what the supreme court is for. IF this checkpoint ( some checkpoints are illegal ) is found to be illegal then the arrest can and will be tossed. If it is found to be legal then she is wrong plain and simple. As far as them searching its called search incident to arrest and per most policies you must inventory a vehicle prior to tow.
@hughster41 ..apparently she got fined $1300 for driving without a license and obstructing justice. I don't know why she didn't have a license, maybe she's a Freetard, but if she had had one, and shown it to the cops, instead of being a jackass, she's be $1300 dollars richer..plus whatever she paid her lawyer.
If this makes you mad, check into Virginian Ryan Frederick. He's still in jail for firing at his door during a no knock warrant DAYS AFTER HIS HOUSE WAS BURGLERIZED BY BURGLERS WHO WORKED FOR THE POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That, my brothers and sisters, is the definition of a political prisoner.
@BillHicks420 yeah that's the answer we need to read a guide to "survive" an encounter with the very servants we employ to protect us, the constitution, our citizenry, and the DUE “process of law”
These so called "Servants of the Public" who are paid by our tax contributions, to do our will, in accordance with the Constitution of The United States are ONLY interested in protecting and serving their current ability to extract money from our governments.
She was right about her rights. However, she should not have acted aggressively. Any evidence etc. obtained by the police would have been dismissed, as she clearly did not consent. She should instead have not been a bitch about it, and filed an officer misconduct report.
@BillHicks420 You are as ignorant as those cops are. Refusing to an unlawful search doesn't make her a "bitch". Using your logic, anyone in WWII who refused to enter a gas chamber, despite an SS officer ordering them to, were being "bitches" and should have accepted what they were told, and wrote a misconduct report later.
@HarrisonDG The fact that you just compared refusing unlawful search with refusing a gas chamber, shows the extent of your reasoning skills. "Being a bitch about it" doesn`t mean I call her a bitch in general, just for doing that act alone, stop twisting what I say.
I didn`t say she was a bitch about REFUSING TO AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH, rather that she physically stopped him, which could get her in A LOT of trouble.
@BillHicks420 they may not be taking our lives, but they certainly are taking away our rights. call her a bitch all you want, she did nothing wrong, the only person in the wrong were the cops who were illegally searching and detaining her. you pretend to be righteous but youre insulting someone who is simply following the law. "mongoloid"? ouch, youve really hurt my feelings...
@HarrisonDG I hate to repeat myself, but again I did not call her a bitch in general, just her act was bitchy.
I`M not insulting her for following the law, but not to think forward.
Yes, of course I agree she was within her rights,HOWEVER,
what I`m saying, is that it is easier for the police to win,because she PHYSICALLY resisted arrest. IM not saying what is right and wrong, only that she could easier lose in court. For more info, check out "BUSTED: Citizens guide to surviving police encounters
@BillHicks420 its not resisting if its an unlawful arrest. that is like saying a woman if resisting if a cop tries to rape her, simply because he is a cop and can do wahtever he want
@HarrisonDG I agree. You are ignoring what I am saying to you. It is PHYSICALLY resisting, though. And doing that makes it easier for a cop to rape you in court. Check the link I sent you, you will see what I mean.
If it was an unlawful search, which this was, the evidence would have been dispelled anyways... Physically resisting, you prompt the officer to get physical too. I`m not saying it is right, I`m saying that it IS REALITY.
@BillHicks420: Abby Newman defended herself and quoted the Constitution in her defense, but that didn't work. Judges are not impressed by that, and rightly so. Judges are far more impressed by written arguments that pertinently cite U.S. Supreme Court cases ABOUT those rights. She would have done better attacking the constitutionality of the checkpoint by citing Michigan v. Sitz, and attacking the search by citing New York v. Belton, and Chimel. Instead, it seems she put on a demogogue defense.
@BillHicks420j: In other words, the courts are more impressed with Constitutional rights as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court than with Constitutional rights as interpreted by Abby Newman.
Judges are also impressed by defendents insisting on having the whole trial recorded, since they know that is the only firm basis for appealing.
99.99% of people getting traffic tickets have no idea what their rights are or how to exercise them in front of a judge.
@DavidForthoffer Oh yeah, using a precedent is better. Why didn`t her attorney do his job? Citing precedents shouldn`t have been THAT hard! Did she defend herself against a judge?? No attorney?
Yeah I would NOT have known my rights in the matter of traffic tickets, however these rights are probably more important to know than traffic rights...
@BillHicks420: She had insisted on defending herself, with an attorney "advising" her.
I regularly defend myself in traffic court. This includes appeals, and appeals from those (called 'certs'). It's very educational, time-consuming, and at worst I lose about a hundred dollars in fines, every 2-3 years.
In Abby Newman's case, she had a lot more at stake.
@BillHicks420: In California, traffic tickets are considered "criminal" offenses. That is good. It means all fees are waived. So instead of paying a fine or going to traffic school, I "pay bail" in the amount of the fine, then go to trial in front of a judge. My technique for my typical speeding-under-55mph ticket is to attack the legality of the speed limit. A defense that NEVER works is "I couldn't have been going that fast!" I can also challenge evidence, such as uncertified reports.
This has been flagged as spam show
According to court documents, the police and the judge in this case all have "absolute immunity" and therefore Mrs Newman's complaints are moot and thus denied. Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution guarantees to the States a "republican form of government," to which the concept of "absolute immunity" for authorities is anathema, given that a republican form of government implies absolute equality under the law, particularly the US Constitution.
psalmsmith 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
psalmsmith 2 weeks ago
"I'm asking you to turn MY car off." sums it up in 8 words...
psalmsmith 2 weeks ago
Fucking oinkers
oeddie99 4 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
Read the bottom post first then the second one
trwiles3451 1 month ago
It demands that they run towards the gunfire instead of away like pussies like you two would do. It demands that they give their life to save others if necessary. You two should only wish that your life of working at Mcdonlads amounted to anything more than smoking pot every night. So just remember that whenever you need cops to come save your sorry ass for whatever reason......don't call.
trwiles3451 1 month ago
@mystikast @ jewishkid009 Both of you have made statements about cops that shows that you have been taught to hate them simply because they chose to sign up for a job that demands that they do certain things. It demands that they deal with ignorant people day in and day out.
trwiles3451 1 month ago
Anyone who agrees with this video is an idiot.
trwiles3451 1 month ago
@trwiles3451
Your statement makes you an idiot.
Outrjs 1 month ago
@Outrjs and trwiles3451: It takes a deeper understanding of the law than either of you have demonstrated to understand the legal issues in this video.
Was she legally stopped?
Could she be arrested?
Could they search her car?
DavidForthoffer 1 month ago
@DavidForthoffer
No. It was an illegal checkpoint. ALL checkpoints are illegal in the USA.
No. She could not be arrested. The officer has to suspect you of a crime before he detains you.
No. He does not have probable cause.
Outrjs 1 month ago
@Outrjs: SOME checkpoints in the USA are legal, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Michigan v. Sitz, or United States v. Martinez-Fuerte.
If it WAS a legal checkpoint for drivers license, insurance, and registration, then they are allowed to ask for those, and if not supplied, that is a crime.
DavidForthoffer 1 month ago
@DavidForthoffer
If it is true then it is a sad day for Americans. We are losing our rights faster and faster.
We seem to take the pain and suffering rather than doing something about it.
Just like the Declaration of Independence cited. Too bad. This once was a great country.
With law decisions like this the Communist Manifesto is growing strong and healthier every day.
Outrjs 1 month ago
@Outrjs
I, too, am disappointed at the erosion of our rights.
I think more numerous and lengthier videos may help stem the erosion. For example, a longer videotape of this incident may well have established that this was an illegal checkpoint, for example, by allowing the officers to use their discretion in deciding whom to stop. Also helpful would be more lawyers helping to defend people like Abby Newman, to use the law as a good defense, rather than demagogy as a useless defense.
DavidForthoffer 1 month ago
@Outrjs Agreed.Tthis type of thing is the reason i am a communist.
nathaniel963 1 month ago
@nathaniel963
Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto?
Talk about not having any rights. I think that is why USSR broke up.
To much tyranny under a communist thought.
You are alive to serve the state. Scary.
Outrjs 1 month ago
@Outrjs: I think the USSR broke up because their communist government lacked the checks and balances of many other governments, and therefore encouraged corrupt and very inefficient government. Combine that with an arms race their economy could not support in the long run and consequences of extreme pollution, they reached a point where they could not maintain enough military to hold on to all their states.
DavidForthoffer 1 month ago
@Outrjs yes i have read the communist manifesto. i gues from a proletariat point of vue communism seems great. but if your a middle class or at least have some money your going to dissagree. im sorry im poor and communism would be the best thing for me
nathaniel963 1 month ago
@nathaniel963
In my opinion, the communist manifesto that our country is now starting to follow, is the very reason you are poor. I am not of great wealth but still have freedoms. Don't let them convince you that the only way to be free is to be a slave. You are special and valuable to me despite your financial situation.
Outrjs 1 month ago
@Outrjs amen
bushidobrother06 1 month ago
@trwiles3451
I want to apologize. I should never call you an idiot. I am glad that you are my country man.
I value your opinion and facts.
Outrjs 1 month ago
'I must know who you are before I can allow you to go down the road'. NO YOU DONT! SCUM COP! DIE!
mystikast 1 month ago
now i see why people leave their windo up
pimpjuice66632 2 months ago
Unacceptable. These pigs deserve to lose their jobs (they make good officers look bad). Hopefully she filed a formal complaint and a lawsuit. Some cops think they can make up the law as they go.
dustindammeier 2 months ago
I wonder what (if anything) was ever done to these Nazi's for their KGB like treatment of this American Citizen.
RockofAgesTheBand 2 months ago
The video does not show why she was stopped, and without seeing court documents I will not reach the conclusion that she was stopped for no reason. Officers know that a vehicle stop absent any law violation has been held unconstitutional and so will avoid doing so, this does not appear to be a checkpoint type situation either. Given the video posters ignorance of the law, I am not inclined to take the description given as gospel.
PhatFarm60 2 months ago
FUCK THE POLICE
jewishkid009 2 months ago
Think this is unconstitutional? Think again...
SCOTUS holds that a subject is require to present proper identification when ordered by police. (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada)
Police may also at any time during a detention, order a driver or passenger out of their vehicle. (Pennsylvania v. Mimms)
Police may also search the area within a suspects immediate control pursuant to an arrest. (Chimel v California)
Therefore, the arrest was valid. You need to go back to law school
PhatFarm60 3 months ago
@PhatFarm60: Your Hiibel comment is false as stated. Please research the Terry requirement in Hiibel.
Yuor Chimel reference is about a house search, not vehicle. Arizona v. Gant is about vehicle searches and states: "requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest... in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest"
Pafoofnik1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pafoofnik1
If Gant was arrested IN his car then a search would have been legal.
Random checkpoints have been found to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid: Your comment was marked as spam.
I was refuting PhatFarm60's reference to Hiibel and Chimal. I never said a thing about the constitutionality of checkpoints in my comment,
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: You misunderstand Hiibel in several ways. For one, the requirement was not to "present proper identification". It was to "identify" onesself. For another, the state had to have a constitutional Stop-and-ID law meeting the requirements of Terry v. Ohio. Third, the officer had to actually have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. This Hiibel is distinguished from this incident.
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: You also misunderstand Pennsylvania v. Mimms. The right of a police officer to order a driver or passenger out of their vehicle is accorded police only for LEGAL detentions. This video has all the earmarks of an ILLEGAL detention—the driver did nothing wrong, and other cars whizzing pass show that she was stopped at the discretion of the officer (i.e., it was an unconstitutional checkpoint).
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: To elaborate on Pafoofnik1's excellent response to your Chimel claim:
Her car was searched only AFTER she was removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and held by an officer. She COULD NOT HAVE reached inside the vehicle for a weapon or to destroy evidence (not that they could have found evidence supporting the arrest inside, anyway). So Chimel does not support the constitutionality of the officers' behavior.
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Perhaps, but remember that New York v Belton was used to extend Chimel to vehicles. whereas before it had only applied to arrests made at a dwelling; and in Belton SCOTUS holds that: "when a [police officer] has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, [the officer] may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. "
PhatFarm60 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: If you reread the cases cited in Belton, you will realize that Chimel had already been used to justify searches within automobiles. The point of Belton was to try to establish a bright line rule that could be followed by law enforcement officers. LEOs tend to forget that the Court ALSO said the holding "in no way alters the fundamental principles established in the Chimel case regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests."
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Your argument that an officer could not search the area of immediate control because she was handcuffed and in the patrol car is basically the same issue that was raised in Belton. Also, Arizona v Gant only applies to complete vehicular searches, extending beyond the area of immediate control (eg: the trunk etc.). In this case the officers did not appear to search beyond this area therefore the search was valid
PhatFarm60 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: I challenge you to find any quote from Gant that supports your preposterous claim that Arizona v Gant only applies to complete vehicular searches.
Under Belton (including the fundamental principles regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests), the search of Abby's vehicle was clearly unconstitutional. She had no access to weapons. No evidence further proving driving without a license could have been found.
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
@DavidForthoffer I just looked at the date on this video: 2000... Gant doesn't even apply here, Belton and Chimel were the law of the land back then, so the arguement that the officers were in the wrong is out the window. Notice that the video starts at the point the officer states "I need to know who you are," cutting out the entire stop and approach, which would have shown why she was being detained.. an edit likely done by the video poster to bend the truth
PhatFarm60 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60 I concede that Gant would have very possibly rendered the search illegal, however it was completely within the holding of Belton; and to judge two officers based upon a then-non existant ruling (Gant) is pointless.
PhatFarm60 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: You missed my point that even under Belton, the search in this video is unconstitutional. Try rereading Belton, especially the part that the holding "in no way alters the fundamental principles established in the Chimel case regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests."
I assume you are giving up your preposterous claim that Arizona v. Gant only applies to complete vehicular searches.
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Where are you possibly getting that the search wouldn't be allowed under Belton? The court held that: (for the second time, I QUOTE) "when a [police officer] has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, [the officer] may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile" How more clear can you get regarding Belton? I see no clear evidence that the stop was anything but a lawful arrest..
PhatFarm60 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: From what I've read, she was pulled over after turning to avoid a checkpoint. If that was the case, then someone would have to come up with a statute making such an action unlawful. I've also read that she was not convicted for the reason for the stop, but was for other reasons, like no license.
It's around here somewhere....
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: The Court said in Belton: "Our holding today does no more than determine the meaning of Chimel's principles in this particular and problematic context. It in no way alters the fundamental principles established in the Chimel case regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests."
The scope of a search incident to arrest for failure to show a driver's license does NOT include searching the vehicle.
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
@DavidForthoffer I already conceded that fact that the search might well have been illegal under Gant. As long as we are throwing the word preposterous around, chew on this: You should know that an officer does not have access to the dash camera tapes, only the supervisor, usually the watch commander or higher. Your claim that the tape was altered by the officer is as preposterous as my admittedly erroneous claim.
PhatFarm60 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: You twist my words. I did not say "the tape was altered by the officer". I said "Cutting out the entire stop and approach may well have been done by the officer". The obvious means for doing that would have been to simply not turn on the dashboard camera until the beginning of the video. You'll notice the second officer did not appear in the video for some 30 seconds into the tape; maybe the second officer turned it on.
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: Cutting out the entire stop and approach may well have been done by the officer, as that was under his control. Maybe the OFFICER cut it out to hide evidence that the stop was unconstitutional, such as at a checkpoint where officers used their discretion deciding which vehicle to stop.
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60 said: "Arizona v Gant only applies to complete vehicular searches,"
Where does it say that in Gant?
In fact, Gant says the opposite:
"Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle inci-dent to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believethat the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest."
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 I already admitted that Gant could have rendered this search illegal, however Gant was not in effect at the time of this video. Furthermore, based upon the suspects actions, a reasonable officer might suspect that the reason the defendant was so combative was contraband or other evidence concealed inside the vehicle.
PhatFarm60 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60 said: "a reasonable officer might suspect..."
I find that introducing what-if and what-might scenarios cloud the issue at hand. Let's stick to the facts of this video.
"Newman was found "guilty" of "driving without a license and obstructing justice" while charges of "assault on a police officer" and "refusing to show a drivers license" were dropped."
What I don't know was the original reason for the stop in the first place.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 Exactly, without knowing the reason for the stop through court papers or seeing the entire video, this cannot be judged as an unlawful search as the video poster claims.
PhatFarm60 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 Ok, found some additional fun facts regarding the defendant. Apparently she had rescinded her Social Security number, therefore making her ineligible for a driver's license. Other than that I can't find any info regarding the case that is not grossly biased and incomplete. I gather the truth is in a law library in VA somewhere..may have to check if I ever pass through there.
PhatFarm60 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: I always found it funny that some politician thinks a social security number can determine proficiency in operating a motor vehicle.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@PhatFarm60: Despite reasonable officers possibly suspecting that reason the defendant was so combative was contraband or other evidence concealed inside the vehicle, that is not sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle.
Their search, under New York v. Belton, was illegal.
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
Most Republicans, TPer's and conservatives think this is just some dandy police work. I am used to hearing the right say "If she has nothing to hide then why would she object to showing ID"?
oeddie99 3 months ago
Bad cop, no donut.
oeddie99 3 months ago
COPS MAKE GOOD DOG FOOD
1IIIIIIIIII1 3 months ago
@1IIIIIIIIII1 oink oink oink pigs make good ham, bacon, sausage and pork chops, they don't make good enforcers of the law.
oeddie99 3 months ago
'You can not reach into this Vehicle!'
- 'Sure i can!' ,
Llisten how surprised he is to hear that he's not given automatic permission to just reach into someone's car and rifle through their belongings.
The very idea that he needs legal justification to initiate a search, is just so outlandish to him, that he outright ignores it. He sees it as his absolute right to do whatever the hell he wants, to whomever the hell he wants, whenever the hell he wants to do it.
isair81 3 months ago 2
Comment removed
moredistractions 3 months ago
@moredistractions please tell me your not serious. I've been pulled over refused to step out my car because once you do it is titled under abandonment and cops can and will investigate and rummage through an abandoned vehicle. I also own military manuals (because I'm a military buff, not a terrorist) but my hobbies are of no business to any cop without probable cause of criminal involvement. I own over 30 firearms but I'm no threat to society. So are you really serious?
Set2Survive 3 months ago
@Set2Survive Don't tell me about laws. The law is a joke. Laws don't matter in the real world unless you have the money and or influence to back them up. In real life terror fighters can and will do anything they god damn well please. Also "I'm a military buff not a terrorist" doesn't count. You can be declared a terrorist at the drop of a hat. Your guns and military stuff will be immediately transformed into terror implements by the federal agents who write your fake terror plot.
moredistractions 3 months ago
@moredistractions I am quite aware that the laws are a joke, they are simply a facade to give the appearance of law and order. I could be declared a terrorist for no other reasoning than they wish to label me as one. But I have no history of violence, no motive to do any such thing, and my firearms are historic collectables. My military volumes are such writings as the memoirs of General Patton, and the like. I have nothing that could be misconstrued as "terror tools"
Set2Survive 3 months ago
@Set2Survive My original comment was meant as satire, by the way. I have removed it.
moredistractions 3 months ago
@moredistractions I seriously hope this is intended to be satire and you do not really believe what you wrote.
WitchWindy 3 months ago
@WitchWindy Yes it was intended as satire.
moredistractions 3 months ago
"I must know who you are." What is this. This asshole should get fired. And this: " You are arrested for resisting arrest." She whas not in arrest at this very moment.. With police officer like this on, should we buy a gun to protect ourselves. And i'm certain this asshole will find something to punish her for not kissing his behind.
ml1157 4 months ago
@ml1157 They will more likely promote him.
Atomikbrainfu 3 months ago
She does have constitutional rights, but those can be overridden if the State can prove they had a "compelling interest" to override them. The Supreme Court has ruled that the State has a compelling interest to prevent drunk driving and sobriety checkpoints are a reasonable means of achieving this interest. The officer was completely in the right in this circumstance.
palo42785 4 months ago
@palo42785 not when at a designated checkpoint, ALL cars are not checked. They singled her out for not identifying herself while they allowed all other cars to keep going, some may even have possessed, drugs, illegal firearms, copies of "how to be a terrorist" by Osama Bin Laden, all because they were too busy infringing on her constitutional rights. So in fact the officer was completely WRONG in this circumstance
Set2Survive 3 months ago
A true police state in action. I suggest her civil rights were violated. This pisses me off.
cbarsonfire 4 months ago
I hope she sued the foook out of them.
ljrow49 4 months ago
@ljrow49 Nope, she actually was convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison, of which she served 22 months.. her arrest was completely valid with no grounds for a civil suit.
PhatFarm60 3 months ago
To add to my previous comment, the cop committed the assault here. She had every right to defend herself and, if we didn't live in a supine, obey-at-all-costs society, someone witnessing this should have trained a firearm on that cop and ordered him to back off or suffer the consequences of deadly force.
WSC9293 5 months ago
I have a strong feeling this sort of thing wouldn't have been possible in the 1800s. People weren't afraid to stand up for what's right back then, no matter what. Cops like this would have been shot for pulling these stunts.
WSC9293 5 months ago
Your under arrest for resisting arrest what the fuck kind of shit is that .
MrChatt360 5 months ago
Fucking pigs.
PornDawgDaddy 6 months ago
the cops should be arrested and charged with kidnapping
oneeye4263 6 months ago 9
So what ended up happening in this case??
JohnRagan1960 6 months ago
@JohnRagan1960 The judge refused to allow Ms. Newman to cite the constitution in court due to sustained objections of the prosecutor. The ignorant jury therefore found her guilty of some stuff. She was fined and had to pay court costs. She was railroaded basically. Drivers should keep in mind that roads are nationalized and using them is not a right but a privilege. This affords the State wider latitude in enforcement techniques. Your home is your castle, but your car is just your car.
randytate 4 months ago
@AlembicPools: Driver's licenses are used to prove that a person is trained to operate a motor vehicle. They can be presented when a person is stopped under reasonable suspicion of violating a motor vehicle code.
They do not have to be provided on demand.
Pafoofnik1 6 months ago
@AlembicPool said: "If she wasn't doing anything wrong - why not present an ID?"
Our rights are not contingent on not doing anything 'wrong'.
Pafoofnik1 6 months ago 7
i wish a cop would try and open my door, kus id fuck his day up.
fnogyrabyore 6 months ago
@fnogyrabyore HAHA yeah you sure would buddy... try it sometime.. as you sit there in your drivers seat while listening to air flowing from your 6 sucking chest wounds, each 0.40 inches in diameter remember your little comment you left on youtube that one time as your life passes before you and darkness closes in...
PhatFarm60 3 months ago
@AlembicPools In a truly free society, we wouldn't have to. You see it every day and are so use to it that you don't even notice how inundated you are with state control. You have to have a license plate, inspection sticker, driver's license, proof of ownership, proof of insurance, and all of your tail lights working...JUST TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE DOWN THE FUCKING ROAD.
munkyusm 6 months ago
@munkyusm more then that in tn ,if a tn cop stops you for no reason and they usually do that and you ask " why was i stopped ,then your dragged from your car and cuffed.all kinds of charges will be brought against you.look at the DARREN RING case on here and listen to what the tn cop says on the radio going to Mr.ring home.tell me what you think about it.just my opinion
maverick10241 6 months ago
Just did a little research and think i should share my finds: You have every right to resist an unlawful arrest as long as you dont try to retreat before resisting. The law will see it the same as defending yourself from a murderer. (meaning killing the officer if necessary is justifiable *OK in the laws eyes*)
make sure as hell you did nothing wrong before resisting if your going to.
hifatpeople 6 months ago
@AlembicPools You just don't get it, dude. We have very few rights that are observed anymore, and many people feel that they have to be hypervigilant in protecting those rights that they do still have. It's fine if you want to just consent to police officers any time they approach you, but some people are not okay with it. The state is growing in power with each and every stop where we give into these high school educated dildos as if they actually have power over us.
munkyusm 6 months ago
was just googling when you can legally resist arrest and found this. Now i wanna know if she could have legally just driven away. Id assume no, but ive found things thought to be obvious, wrong before.
hifatpeople 6 months ago
I guess anyone who talks about their rights is a terrorist...off to the FEMA reeducation camp. Must be a Ron Paul supporter?
ronheri 6 months ago
She was lucky this was back in 2000, if she tried that now she might have been tasered to death.
Zaxxen69 6 months ago
how about no officer
88roro11 6 months ago
Those cops NEED shot in the knee caps!!!!!
Adventureseaker98 6 months ago 13
@Adventureseaker98 nah they need to be dragged from their beds and into the streets in the dead of night and shot in the head while their wives and children are made to watch.
MrCleatsketch 6 months ago
@Adventureseaker98 All cops need shot in the knee caps !!!!
raceman73200 3 months ago
obstruction of what
angrynhpatriot 6 months ago
These cops need to be fired and charges with assault.
funnyfunfun00 7 months ago
I cheer this woman on...go go ..freedom...freedom..is not easy or free...
chickadillydee 7 months ago
If you are interested in the follow up go here and take out the spaces w w w . iahf . com / usa / 20010816 . html
originalscottfree 7 months ago
Nothing ever happened to the cops. The Judge disallowed constitutional arguements in his Court.
I miss America. How did we become Nazi Germany?
glenwoodfin 7 months ago 7
These criminal cops shouldn't even have a job as dog catchers as they would roam the streets as a danger to the public.
glenwoodfin 7 months ago
The police in this country had better start rethinking how they treat Americans because when the SHTF,and it will soon,there are tens of millions of armed Americans(many with sniper skills) who will mistake that badge for a target!
lute760 7 months ago 4
we need more educated people like this woman and less jersey shore fist pumpers.
RoxiiLoveRevolution 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The police are a gang of criminals. They are the enemy of the people.
RevisHill 7 months ago
and I don't trust them...cops NEVER plant shit in anyone's car, right?
soberdave1971 8 months ago
So what was the outcome of all of this? was she vindicated? did these cops lose their jobs? anyone know out there in youtube land?
wellingtonian 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stupid fucking apes
unicursalhex 9 months ago
Oh and I liked it be ause I want people to see it not cos I lie wot they do to her
macditty 9 months ago
Fucking Barney faggot. She knows more than this retard
macditty 9 months ago
This is INSANE, Why has America Come to this? these Cops should be Beaten from there Jobs for treason, UN Fucking Real that this happend.
69coquito 9 months ago
It's the South! What do you expect? Never been to the South, nor will I ever set foot in any Southern state! People are still lynched in the South. Is anyone really that surprised that Southern cops would behave this way? It's known as the Bible Belt for god sakes!
ii8dk8ii 10 months ago
@ii8dk8ii What a stupid fucking comment. Cops across the country do this.... ESPECIALLY in the northern states like NY, Maryland and Mass. Educate yourself.
mc1135 7 months ago
narrator is an idiot
cody2008nridge 11 months ago
@cody2008nridge lol do you cops get free donuts to post on these videos? Hitler would have been proud of these goons, don't forget how you got your freedom and how easy it is to lose it if not stood up for, lol these cops are idiots, they illegally searched here car then found information about freedom and freaked out, lol morons.
1liveandlearn11 10 months ago
@cody2008nridge Alex Jones is a plant and works for the globalist. He is a Jesuit trained controlled opposition. He is also linked to CIA......either by training and this is a set up stop to cast an idea..........It is designed to foment a civil war as this will be added to other methods and set up situations.
tgambill 9 months ago
i hope he got fired for that
dierks33 11 months ago
Two words; Nazi Germany.
cockyhemi 11 months ago
The U.S. Constitution establishes a well-defined democratic Republic: a sovereign representative democracy for the citizens of the United States. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land and, as such, is not subservient to the dictates of international charters. Any law repugnant to the Constitution possesses the mere color of law.
SummerInJuly 1 year ago
Sad, but true.
Godard049 1 year ago
anything, drugs, a weapon...ANYTHING!! that is the issue. Once a cop has reason to search their are no limitations as to what he can find (unless there is a warrant specifically describing the area to be searched ect.). Had she presented her license and nothing turned up, THEN she would be right in her argument. They obviously found nothing, these cops are morons. But, SHE GAVE HIM PROBABLE CAUSE BY THE WAY SHE ACTED!! SUSPICION IS PROBABLE CAUSE!! DEPENDING ON THE STATE YOU MUST SHOW ID!!
Godard049 1 year ago
@Godard049: Suspicion is NOT probable cause. "Probable cause" is short for "probable cause of criminal involvement". Exercising one's constutitional rights is NEVER probable cause. Not cooperating is not probable cause. Being rude is not probable cause. Obeying the law in a manner the police do not like is not probable cause.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago 20
@DavidForthoffer Your right. But check prior cases, suspicion is now probable cause...In New Mexico an officer stopped/searched a van because the occupants were "acting uncharacteristic of typical drivers in that area based on his prior experiences as an officer of the law" The officer found 14 pounds of marijuana, the case was brought to the supreme court and the occupants of the van were found guilty...they argued the search was unconstitutional but the judge differed...this is a fact.
Godard049 1 year ago
@Godard049: I found no hits based on your quote. Are you sure that is an exact quote? Can you cite the case?
It seems more likely that the officer stopped the van because of reasonable suspicion, and searched the van either with consent or probable cause.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer (Michigan v. Sitz) - roadchecks are constitutional. (Penn. v. Mimms) - Officers may order drivers out of a car - deemed constitutional. (Hiibel v. 6th district, Nevada) - Failure to ID is an arrestable offense & giving one's name does not violate the 5th Amendment. All 50 states have an obstruction statute where not complying with an officer is an arrestable offense.
KlingonWarri0r 3 months ago
@KlingonWarri0r: Michigan v. Sitz: Road checks are constitutional IF no stops are at the discretion of the police (and certain other requirements). Here, the other cars whizzing past indicate that Abby Newman was stopped at the discretion of the police. Hence, THIS road check was unconstitutional.
DavidForthoffer 3 months ago
@KlingonWarri0r: Pennsylvania v. Mimms: Officers may order drivers out of a car ONLY IF the original stop was legal. Here, the original stop was illegal.
Hiibel v. Nevada: Failure to ID is an arrestable offense ONLY IF the officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity AND the state has such a law. Here, the officer had no such suspicion.
DavidForthoffer 3 months ago
@KlingonWarri0r: NO state have an obstruction statute where not complying with an officer is an arrestable offense. The laws you are thinking of all make it an offense to interfere or obstruct an officer IN THEIR DUTY. Since no officer has a duty to break the law, it is not an offense to disobey such an order.
DavidForthoffer 3 months ago
@KlingonWarri0r I have refused on a number of occasions not to identify myself when asked without just cause or reason, and I have been taken into custody for doing so, however lawsuits are a bitch when you are unlawfully arrested/detained. The settlements help soften the pain of spending 24hrs in lockdown. If they want to keep paying me, I'll keep refusing identification. (oh and I'm not nor have I ever been a criminal, and all of my paperwork checked out)
Set2Survive 3 months ago
had she presented the officer with her identification she then could have argued that the search was unlawful but by not presenting the officer with her license that is grounds for reasonable suspicion which constitutes a search....
Godard049 1 year ago
@Godard049: A search for what?
Pafoofnik1 1 year ago
She needs to give police her information...she could be a convicted murderer for all they know...they run her name to match it with the plates on the car and to confirm she does not have a record...she thinks she knows her rights but clearly she doesn't....dumb...
Godard049 1 year ago
@Godard049: Although all states require drivers to carry drivers licenses and show them to police on demand, it is nevertheless illegal for police to stop someone unless they have at least reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior, or at a constitutional checkpoint. It is not clear whether this is a constitutional checkpoint.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Next time don't be a idiot. Hopefully the narrator is the next one stopped.
sparkythebear798 1 year ago
@sparkythebear798 said: "Driving is a privilege, not a right"
This is an untrue statement. Driving is a right. We as a nation have decided that driving on certain public roads require the possession of a license indicating proficiency in controlling the listed vehicle.
Possession of this license is a right, once the holder demonstrates the abilities listed on the license. The license cannot be rescinded without just cause.
Pafoofnik1 1 year ago
Who gives an F what she's into.. It's none of their God Damn business...
Tadow001 1 year ago
what ever happened with this outcome?? Did she sue???
Tadow001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck da police
jasonkruger1313 1 year ago
Alex Jones = Moron This lady is also a moron mistating the law and the constitution.
jhenderson1647 1 year ago
@jhenderson1647 You're the moron. She didn't do anything wrong, they have NO right to open her door or touch her.
zzJerryShufflezz 1 year ago 2
Certain checkpoints are not illegal. You not get to just chose which law you feel is right or wrong. That is what the supreme court is for. IF this checkpoint ( some checkpoints are illegal ) is found to be illegal then the arrest can and will be tossed. If it is found to be legal then she is wrong plain and simple. As far as them searching its called search incident to arrest and per most policies you must inventory a vehicle prior to tow.
bpd35 1 year ago
who the fuck does the voice over? its shit
iseefattys 1 year ago
@iseefattys Alex Jones. And I assure you he don't suck unless you are like one of thoes southern redneck fucking mongoloids.
ivegotamagicstix 1 year ago
@hughster41 ..apparently she got fined $1300 for driving without a license and obstructing justice. I don't know why she didn't have a license, maybe she's a Freetard, but if she had had one, and shown it to the cops, instead of being a jackass, she's be $1300 dollars richer..plus whatever she paid her lawyer.
mapache11 1 year ago
If this makes you mad, check into Virginian Ryan Frederick. He's still in jail for firing at his door during a no knock warrant DAYS AFTER HIS HOUSE WAS BURGLERIZED BY BURGLERS WHO WORKED FOR THE POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That, my brothers and sisters, is the definition of a political prisoner.
DOCTORDANification 1 year ago
its time to start busting heads
MrJhondoejr 1 year ago
@BillHicks420 yeah that's the answer we need to read a guide to "survive" an encounter with the very servants we employ to protect us, the constitution, our citizenry, and the DUE “process of law”
DUE as in “what is owed”
AudiRS4Life 1 year ago
These so called "Servants of the Public" who are paid by our tax contributions, to do our will, in accordance with the Constitution of The United States are ONLY interested in protecting and serving their current ability to extract money from our governments.
AudiRS4Life 1 year ago
"i dont serve you, you serve me"
genius
HarrisonDG 1 year ago
She was right about her rights. However, she should not have acted aggressively. Any evidence etc. obtained by the police would have been dismissed, as she clearly did not consent. She should instead have not been a bitch about it, and filed an officer misconduct report.
BillHicks420 1 year ago
@BillHicks420 You are as ignorant as those cops are. Refusing to an unlawful search doesn't make her a "bitch". Using your logic, anyone in WWII who refused to enter a gas chamber, despite an SS officer ordering them to, were being "bitches" and should have accepted what they were told, and wrote a misconduct report later.
HarrisonDG 1 year ago
@HarrisonDG The fact that you just compared refusing unlawful search with refusing a gas chamber, shows the extent of your reasoning skills. "Being a bitch about it" doesn`t mean I call her a bitch in general, just for doing that act alone, stop twisting what I say.
I didn`t say she was a bitch about REFUSING TO AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH, rather that she physically stopped him, which could get her in A LOT of trouble.
Did you even read my post, you fucking mongoloid.
BillHicks420 1 year ago
Virginia is a filthy state
ezpickins626 1 year ago
@BillHicks420 they may not be taking our lives, but they certainly are taking away our rights. call her a bitch all you want, she did nothing wrong, the only person in the wrong were the cops who were illegally searching and detaining her. you pretend to be righteous but youre insulting someone who is simply following the law. "mongoloid"? ouch, youve really hurt my feelings...
HarrisonDG 1 year ago
@HarrisonDG I hate to repeat myself, but again I did not call her a bitch in general, just her act was bitchy.
I`M not insulting her for following the law, but not to think forward.
Yes, of course I agree she was within her rights,HOWEVER,
what I`m saying, is that it is easier for the police to win,because she PHYSICALLY resisted arrest. IM not saying what is right and wrong, only that she could easier lose in court. For more info, check out "BUSTED: Citizens guide to surviving police encounters
BillHicks420 1 year ago
@BillHicks420 *resisted an unlawful search.
In short, I agree she did nothing wrong, but sadly this is not how it is in the eyes of the law. How am I righteous? Please do elaborate
BillHicks420 1 year ago
@BillHicks420 its not resisting if its an unlawful arrest. that is like saying a woman if resisting if a cop tries to rape her, simply because he is a cop and can do wahtever he want
HarrisonDG 1 year ago
@HarrisonDG I agree. You are ignoring what I am saying to you. It is PHYSICALLY resisting, though. And doing that makes it easier for a cop to rape you in court. Check the link I sent you, you will see what I mean.
If it was an unlawful search, which this was, the evidence would have been dispelled anyways... Physically resisting, you prompt the officer to get physical too. I`m not saying it is right, I`m saying that it IS REALITY.
BillHicks420 1 year ago
@BillHicks420 said, " Any evidence etc. obtained by the police would have been dismissed"
Correction: " Any evidence etc. obtained by the police SHOULD have been dismissed"
But it wasn't. Too bad she didn't appeal.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer Damn she must have shitty legal advice, its TAPED haha
BillHicks420 1 year ago
@BillHicks420: Abby Newman defended herself and quoted the Constitution in her defense, but that didn't work. Judges are not impressed by that, and rightly so. Judges are far more impressed by written arguments that pertinently cite U.S. Supreme Court cases ABOUT those rights. She would have done better attacking the constitutionality of the checkpoint by citing Michigan v. Sitz, and attacking the search by citing New York v. Belton, and Chimel. Instead, it seems she put on a demogogue defense.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@BillHicks420j: In other words, the courts are more impressed with Constitutional rights as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court than with Constitutional rights as interpreted by Abby Newman.
Judges are also impressed by defendents insisting on having the whole trial recorded, since they know that is the only firm basis for appealing.
99.99% of people getting traffic tickets have no idea what their rights are or how to exercise them in front of a judge.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer Oh yeah, using a precedent is better. Why didn`t her attorney do his job? Citing precedents shouldn`t have been THAT hard! Did she defend herself against a judge?? No attorney?
Yeah I would NOT have known my rights in the matter of traffic tickets, however these rights are probably more important to know than traffic rights...
BillHicks420 1 year ago
@BillHicks420: She had insisted on defending herself, with an attorney "advising" her.
I regularly defend myself in traffic court. This includes appeals, and appeals from those (called 'certs'). It's very educational, time-consuming, and at worst I lose about a hundred dollars in fines, every 2-3 years.
In Abby Newman's case, she had a lot more at stake.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer Oh okay, how can you defend yourself though? Under what circumstances, with what defense?
BillHicks420 1 year ago
@BillHicks420: In California, traffic tickets are considered "criminal" offenses. That is good. It means all fees are waived. So instead of paying a fine or going to traffic school, I "pay bail" in the amount of the fine, then go to trial in front of a judge. My technique for my typical speeding-under-55mph ticket is to attack the legality of the speed limit. A defense that NEVER works is "I couldn't have been going that fast!" I can also challenge evidence, such as uncertified reports.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago