CO
Upload

Loading icon Loading...

Alert icon

This video is unavailable.

Cop gives ticket in my own driveway then crosses out under duress in signature

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to like Surf steve's video.

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to dislike Surf steve's video.

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to add Surf steve's video to your playlist.

Uploaded on Mar 30, 2011

AFTER THE FIRST FEW SECONDS NOTHING HAPPENS TILL ABOUT 4:30 IN THE VIDEO. PLEASE READ ENTIRE DESCRIPTION BEFORE COMMENTING.

I can't believe it. This cop just gave me a seat belt ticket in my own driveway and then he crossed out the "signed under duress" I had written by my signature. Sorry for the terrible sound and incredibly boring video. I'm so tired of being trampled under the guise of our protection. Is there anything I can charge this guy with? He's a public official and he just altered a document after I signed it on video. This is not how our police should be protecting us. Somebody needs to put a stop to this. If this cop is willing to alter my signature for a lousy seat belt ticket what would he do for a serious crime? Isn't it a felony or some sort of crime for a public official to alter a public document? Somebody please. Help me get this guy off our streets! I don't even feel safe in my own driveway anymore.

Surfsteve.

Edit: Yes the car was parked two houses down before I pulled it into my driveway. Still the paragraph about the infraction 27315 (d) that I was given is applicable to the driver while transporting employees. How is that applicable to me? I wasn't transporting anybody.

Edit 1/18/2012

Let me see if I can make this perfectly clear.

The day I uploaded this video I was cited with California's VC 27315 (d). The section contains three paragraphs but I am only going to quote paragraph 1 because nobody is saying any of the others apply to me.

Quote:
(d) (1) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are properly restrained by a safety belt. This paragraph does not apply to the operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, when the taxicab is driven on a city street and is engaged in the transportation of a fare-paying passenger. The safety belt requirement established by this paragraph is the minimum safety standard applicable to employees being transported in a motor vehicle. This paragraph does not preempt more stringent or restrictive standards imposed by the Labor Code or another state or federal regulation regarding the transportation of employees in a motor vehicle.
Un quote.

People are saying that the first sentence applies to me. I agree. But there are conditions. The second sentence states that it does not always apply to me while I am the operator of a taxi cab. Funny because I used to be a taxi cab driver while my leg was healing from a motor cycle accident. But that was a long time ago and I'm not claiming any exemption at the time. The third sentence states that THE REQUIREMENT ESTABLISHED IN THE PARAGRAPH is the minimum standard APPLICABLE TO employees being transported in a motor vehicle. HOW THEN IS THE REQUIREMENT "A person shall not operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are properly restrained by a safety belt." ESTABLISHED IN THE PARAGRAPH, APPLICABLE TO ME if no employees were "being transported"?

The fourth and final sentence in the paragraph says that other Code or regulation may apply which is irrelevant because section D (all three paragraphs) is all I was charged with.



5-24-2012:
I thought that I had said this already in the description but I was mistaken so I will go ahead and add it.

I was allegedly observed not wearing a seat belt at the intersection in front of my house. I maintain that it would have been impossible for him to have observed me not wearing it from the wrong side through a glass window at that distance, which was one entire block. The only time he could have seen me not wearing my seat belt was when he was behind me in my drive way. That is why I feel this video is properly titled. The same officer was already traveling at high speed in pursuit of someone before I even got in my car. Most of the time I wear my seat belt, but somehow after seeing him fly by on the street. Knowing that he was busy doing something important. I just couldn't resist not wearing it that time. Imagine my surprise to find that the person he was in pursuit of was me! What a dirty trick!

Update July 5th 2012:
People still aren't getting where the duress is coming from and think it's coming from my treatment by the police officer. It is not.

I am under duress because I was coerced into falsely agreeing that I was a United States Citizen and stating that I was on my drivers license. Sure I was born here but what gives my parents or someone else the authority to extinguish my rights and register me as a slave? Nothing! Any agreement between me and anyone that claims so is false and a result of my beliefs through lies and coercion which is the very definition of duress. "All Rights Reserved" would have been a better way to sign the ticket though. Or maybe both!

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Ratings have been disabled for this video.
Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.

Loading icon Loading...

Loading...
Working...
Sign in to add this to Watch Later

Add to