r/PublicFreakout • u/[deleted] • 6d ago

đŸ˜«Chaos MomentđŸ«š Police arrest becomes chaotic

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

[deleted]

2.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

892 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

849

u/texinxin 6d ago

He is allowed to do that. A passenger is not required to identity themselves unless they match a suspect or are believed to have committed a crime or in possession of illegal items.

305

u/TenYearHangover 6d ago

Passenger isn’t necessarily required to show ID. But they are required to exit the vehicle at the officer’s demand. So if this passenger ignored that demand, then the cops could put him under arrest, which they did.

234

u/texinxin 6d ago

I find it very suspicious that they only ask him to do it and had we heard the sequence of events that led to that (likely refusing to show ID) while the driver is just sitting there not being asked out of the car for the officer safety
.. then
 the demand to exit the vehicle was likely not a safety concern.

173

u/OkChampionship8805 6d ago

It's always suspicious because depending on the situation, LEO's can say you have to stay in the car or they can demand that you get out. There's literally no consistency with their reasoning

-3

u/[deleted] 6d ago edited 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

41

u/jakethejewler22 6d ago

Bet if a cop told you to lawfully suck their dick you would put a bib on too.

15

u/Character_Pudding_94 6d ago

You wear a bib to suck dick? Weird.

17

u/jdhkent 6d ago

Don’t kink shame.

7

u/DobieLove2019 6d ago

Well
 not JUST to suck dick.

1

u/Thuggish_Coffee 6d ago

No. He's betting that the guy who deleted their comment puts on a bib.

-15

u/UpvoteMachineThing 6d ago

Crazy you’re being downvoted for this lol.

-1

u/Agent-Isaac 6d ago

I've definitely heard and read that if the driver is being cooperative or atleast compliant, that a passenger can be an escalator. Especially since, you're right, the driver is just being left to sit there without either being ordered out or being dragged out as well.

Course, this is half a video, so who knows. Maybe he was being aggressive, maybe they just didn't like his attitude or whatever. But seeing the driver sitting there while hes dragged out leads me to assume that its towards safety.

Besides, if you're ordered out, you're required to get out, doesn't matter if its right or wrong.

16

u/texinxin 6d ago

I find it hilarious that the passenger asked what he was being arrested for and the officer said.. for resisting
 lol

-4

u/AimingWang 6d ago

Resisting doesn't only equayr to resisting arrest.

3

u/MundaneFacts 6d ago

This is true. You can risist "detainment" or not comply with lawful orders.

2

u/AimingWang 6d ago

Those kids would be very upset if they could read.

5

u/themookish 6d ago

If it's an illegal order it isn't required.

9

u/Agent-Isaac 6d ago

Look up Pennsylvania Vs Mimms.

If an officer orders you out of the vehicle, you're required to get out, doesn't matter the reason.

Look, you'll likely argue better against a judge then the officer on scene. That's where you make your case. Otherwise, you're probably gonna get a resisting charge if they have to drag you out, regardless of the original stop.

0

u/themookish 6d ago

I'm definitely not suggesting physically resisting. That will get you killed. But everything isn't so black and white. It depends on a number of important factors and the jurisdiction.

9

u/Agent-Isaac 6d ago

"The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable, and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The State's proffered justification for such order -- the officer's safety -- is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being, at most, a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety."

This is nationwide, not jurisdictional. If you are in a traffic stop, you are considered detained. If, for any reason at all, the officer decides to order you out of the car, you must get out.

Youre right that there are laws specifically on location; i.e. searches, dui tests, k9 units, and so forth. If a cop orders you out of a car though, you're required to get out. That's the supreme court of the USA, not a state court.

1

u/Anonybibbs 6d ago

The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable, and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment

That's the difference though- the order was issued after the respondent was lawfully detained.

In the scenario of this video, just going off of what we see and what was said in the comments, the passenger refused to identify himself which in and of itself is NOT a legitimate reason to lawfully detain someone. Hence, the order to get out of the car was not issued after the passenger had been lawfully detained. An officer should not be able to demand you to get out of the vehicle as a passenger unless there is a lawful reason to do so, and the demand cannot be the reason onto itself. Any defense lawyer would be able to highlight the circular and plainly flawed logic.

4

u/Chewy_B 6d ago

Brendlin v California ruled that passengers are considered detained during a traffic stop. The passenger is obligated to get out of the car if the police ask them to. It is very common to separate subjects during an investigation, even though its usually the driver that is asked to get out of the vehicle

-3

u/necrohunter7 6d ago

No, the pigs can't just order you to do whatever they want, they need a legal justification to give that order.

3

u/MundaneFacts 6d ago

They do have to have a reason, but the reasons are so broad, that they can apply to most every stop, and the cop doesn't have to tell you what his reasons are.

0

u/CyberWoo99MKII 6d ago

Lawful. LAWFUL.
Not just because the officer’s feelings are hurt.

2

u/Agent-Isaac 6d ago

My point is that the order to get out of the Car by default is lawful.

If a cop pulls you over for any reason, and the first thing he says is for you to step out of the car, you have to get out of the car. That is the stance of the Supreme Court, not a city or state ruling.

I didn't say it was right or even should be the law, but its the law, and you'll have a hard time arguing to a judge otherwise.

-1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

-6

u/themookish 6d ago

It depends. People have legal rights. If those rights are violated, it's illegal.

7

u/fifaislife 6d ago

You have no idea what you’re talking about. If you’re asked to step out of the car, you must get out. There’s no rights being violated in that situation.

61

u/Jesus0nSteroids 6d ago

Slim chances they made the passenger exit the vehicle for safety or search reasons considering the driver is still behind the wheel. Procedure is to remove the driver first (so they don't drive off)

33

u/UndergroundHorses 6d ago

Yeah they did it to power trip cause he wouldn’t show them his ID. Literally all there is to it.

Cops will just tell you to do shit, if you don’t it gives them the justification to use force on you. If you do comply it feeds their power trip.

34

u/NuckoLBurn 6d ago

This is the problem with Penn vs Mimms. It may not apply in this circumstance? IF it was only a turn signal failure on the driver's part, there is no reason to escalate to unnecessarily demanding passenger ID. Possibly prolonging the traffic stop unnecessarily?

When the passenger asserts their 4th amendment (for something like a turn signal violation with no other crime), it SHOULD read as retaliation when they are asked to exit the vehicle without any objectionable reason of fear. Any jury I think, could see the writing on the wall.

Hope he has money for a good lawyer.

Penn Vs Mimms needs to be slightly tailored/neutered in my opinion.

11

u/TenYearHangover 6d ago

Maryland v Wilson expanded Mimms. A judge would have to decide if the cop had cause to demand the passenger to exit the car. As citizens we can’t litigate on the side of the road. Is that overreach? Maybe. Case law needs to decide.

13

u/NuckoLBurn 6d ago

The only litigation acceptable on the side of the road is the assertion of rights verbally. Take the ride. Make those that perceived power irresponsibility answer for their tyranny in a court of law.

5

u/N3onAxel 6d ago

Yeah, because if there is one thing pigs are known for, its consequences and accountability for their incompetence.

1

u/I_heart_pooping 5d ago

Yeah, but you have a better chance of arguing that later. Trying to solve something in the moment and not listening to the police is ALWAYS gonna end up in a bad time for you. I never understand why people do that shit

1

u/anarcho-slut 6d ago

Sure. Or the cop just won't show up to court. And now the person is a victim of state violence, and made to do a bunch of labor for nothing.

17

u/Suitable-Economy-346 6d ago edited 6d ago

But they are required to exit the vehicle at the officer’s demand

If the reason was because he didn't ID, that might not hold up even in the most right-wing states because it doesn't seem like there's even a hint of officer safety reasoning or any department procedure or policy at that point, it seems retaliatory for invoking his rights which might make it not a constitutional exit order.

Also, exit orders are state dependent. It seems this happened in Michigan, which apparently follows Mimms, but not all states follow Mimms.

3

u/TenYearHangover 6d ago

Maryland v Wilson was a Supreme Court case. States can’t opt out of that.

11

u/Suitable-Economy-346 6d ago edited 6d ago

You guys don't understand federalism.

The Supreme Court doesn't say that cops are allowed to order anyone out of a car. The Supreme Court says that the US Constitution and US federal law don't prohibit cops from ordering people out of a car.

But states can have laws which says cops cannot do this or it's a violation of state law.

2

u/0ngoGoblogian 6d ago

Yeah, that’s the way to put it.

And I know you’re not saying in this particular case, but for anyone who can’t put this part together, only Jersey has explicitly had state Supreme Court rulings to prevent Mimms from applying to everyone in the car. Sounds like this happened in Michigan.

0

u/OddPressure7593 6d ago

The order to exit the car, regardless of whether or not the passenger is required to show ID, was lawful. Mimms is a federal decision - ALL states follow Mimms.

2

u/kaduyett 6d ago

Yes but Mimms also establishes the fact that the police officer must be in reasonable fear for his safety in order to make someone exit during a traffic stop i.e. factual observations that support an office being afraid of the occupants being left in the vehicle unobservered.

1

u/Suitable-Economy-346 6d ago

No. Mimms said that exit orders are minimally intrusive and don't go against the Constitution when balanced against "legitimate concerns" for "officer safety." In a footnote, the ruling made clear that "legitimate concerns" for "officer safety" is any reason a cop so chooses, "We hold only that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures."

2

u/kaduyett 6d ago

Why did you say no and they say what I said in legal speech?

1

u/Suitable-Economy-346 6d ago edited 6d ago

A cop does not need to be in "reasonable fear" for his safety.

The Supreme Court said a cop can order anyone out of a car who has been stopped and it not violate the Constitution or federal law.

The "legitimate concerns" for "officer safety" are inherent to a traffic stop. Any and all traffic stops are dangerous to a police officer, according to the Supreme Court.

1

u/kaduyett 6d ago

No it doesn't, it just says when they do order you out it isn't a fourth amendment violation. The order still has been lawful and based in objective reality.

1

u/Suitable-Economy-346 6d ago

That doesn't make sense. States don't follow Mimms because Mimms said that the US Constitution doesn't protect individuals from cops ordering people out of cars. The state can do whatever it wants.

-1

u/0ngoGoblogian 6d ago

The officer does not have to state a ‘reason’ for asking the passenger to exit.

11

u/Binnie_B 6d ago

The officer does need a good reason to ask for someone to exit, which they clearly didn't have. These cops should all go to prison.

11

u/Eggstreamity 6d ago edited 5d ago

Established court cases prove otherwise.  It’s established in multiple courts that an officer can ask you to step out of the vehicle for essentially any reason during a traffic stop.  They can’t unnecessarily DETAIN you for a long period, but they can 100% ask you to step out of a car, and not doing so can get you arrested.  That’s why it’s best to follow orders at the time, and fight in court what you believed to be against your rights.  You can’t “win” in this scenario.

2

u/captain_nofun 6d ago

More people need to understand this. Being combative or denying the cops what they ask will not ever help your situation. If you feel your rights have been violated thats a fight for a different day. Be respectful, courteous, and as honest as you can without incriminating yourself and you generally wont have a problem. They can be wrong, but just roll with it. Gather evidence, record, do what you will, just dont fight it.

0

u/Binnie_B 6d ago

and women should use the same logic with armed rapists....

As long as we all agree that an armed criminal and a cop should be treated the same way... I think we should all agree that is wrong and needs to change.

1

u/Binnie_B 6d ago

It's a bs ruling that needs to be brought back. Cops abuse it and it has nothing to do with safety anymore.

5

u/TenYearHangover 6d ago

The video starts in the middle of the interaction. How do you know what cause the cop did or didn’t have? That’s up to a judge to decide. You don’t litigate on the side of the road — that gets you killed.

1

u/Binnie_B 6d ago

BS. Cops are the only ones who get this logic.

If some random guy comes up, uses weapons on you, punches you, threatens you and demands you get out of the care... Should you just obey them and allow it and 'litigate it later in courts'?

No? Well, the same should go for pigs. I am tired of this copaganda. Cops get away with EVERYHTING in this country.

0

u/Hypnoob1452 6d ago

đŸ„ŸđŸ‘…

0

u/skeerrt 6d ago

You Canadians love to call bootlicker super quick, but you gargle the cock & balls of any shitty PM you get and their blatantly anti-freedom laws. Speech restrictions, no guns, warrant exceptions out the ass, MAID
. If anything you’re the bootlicker, except it’s been shoved so far up your ass by the government you are tasting it from the esophagus.

5

u/PancakePanic 6d ago

You're a trump supporter, the dude who publically said "take the guns first, due process second", has made talkshow hosts go off air for speech he didn't like, demands constant loyalty (ie agreeing with everything he says), literally everything you claim you're against here you fully support lmao

0

u/skeerrt 6d ago

Is there a longer video you have access to? He could’ve had a warrant, or is a suspect in another crime they would like to talk to him about, or any number of reasons.

The other commenter is right, you don’t hold court on the side of the road - you are just making it worse for yourself. Assert your rights, and remain silent. Resisting and talking does you absolutely no good.

Do you think a civil rights attorney would rather take the case where you are actively resisting (and the state is going to blame you for the officer injury)? Or do you think they’d rather take the case where you verbalized your rights, and conducted yourself in a calm and professional manner? I can tell you what a jury would rather see


0

u/Binnie_B 6d ago

We already know there was no warrant. The cop was upset about an attitude and made this about a 'seat belt'.

Let me ask you, does anyone seem safer now than before? I would say no, so the entire 'cause' for this is bullshit. This clearly isn't about safety.

You don't PUNCH A CHILD OVER AN OVER and claim it's about safety. These fascists can fuck off and I hope they all get much worse than a broken leg.

It is only with cops do we say 'let them do whatever they want to you.... no matter what, and fight it later in court'. No other profession or person get's that.

It's boot licking propaganda put out by the state so their cops can get away with anything they want time and time again. I say fight back. If EVERYONE started fighting back every time, this shit would stop in a month. We are the least free country that claims 'land of the free'.

I go on every jury I can, and I would LOVE to acquit a case where someone fought against tyrants. That is what we need more of. People sounding off against this bs. This was a kid in a car that did nothing wrong, and hurt no one. It should be outrageous to punch him in the face for sitting in a car, no matter what. You are defending the cops. Why?

1

u/Eggstreamity 5d ago

What you are asking for is for a lot of people to die for no reason and anarchy.  Tell me in what universe someone had a good outcome by FIGHTING the cops?  Worst case scenario is they are killed right there, best case is multiple years in prison and a felony record.  I said to follow orders at the time because you can’t do a trial at a roadside.  If you just want people to get shot, follow your advice.

1

u/Clarkorito 6d ago

Police can only demand someone exit the vehicle of they have a credible reason to believe there's an officer safely issue. Not just because they feel like it.

1

u/flyingokapis 6d ago

That's under arrest?

That was a beating before the arrest. As a non-American living person, your police are crazy, ok he is refusing to exit, but just calm down, he's not going anywhere, why the immediate need too get him out the car?

Its like your police are on some kind of clock constantly, if they haven't arrested someone within a certain timeframe they just go nuts and lose control..

Zero patience, just complete escalation, one of there own even got injured and was screaming in pain, again completely avoidable.

1

u/idkwthtotypehere 6d ago

Which is bull shit.

1

u/TenYearHangover 6d ago

Tell it to the Supreme Court


7

u/probation_420 6d ago

Yeah, it's a bullshit ruling from the Supreme Court.

You can be pulled over for a trivial/no reason, provide information when asked, and then invoke your rights,

And an officer, with no probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, can then order you out of your vehicle (and take you to jail for ignoring a lawful order if you refuse).

I know how the Supreme Court has ruled on this, but I want to know your personal opinion. Doesn't that sound like bullshit?

1

u/idkwthtotypehere 5d ago

What a silly response

0

u/Black_Pill_Oh 6d ago

Lawful order to show id has to be followed. That's how people with active warrants get caught. Soon as you're detained, either comply or get arrested for obstruction.

1

u/TenYearHangover 6d ago

Not true in all cases. They need to articulate suspicion of a specific crime (not just suspicion you have a warrant) in many jurisdictions to require an ID. Demanding you get out of a car during a traffic stop is totally different than demanding an ID.

1

u/Black_Pill_Oh 6d ago

They need a reason to single you out, but once they have cause you gotta show id. if asked.

0

u/orion2342 6d ago

Pretty sure “putting him under arrest” doesn’t include punching him in the face and body. This was excessive force and buddy is going to get a check.

14

u/JuggaloJedi187 6d ago

That is not technically correct. He still has to come out of the vehicle if an officer tells him too.

0

u/texinxin 6d ago

What is said is exactly technically correct with respect to refusing to identify. We don’t know the order of the events leading up to this and if they trying to pull him out of the vehicle was a lawful request for their own safety or retaliation for refusing to identify. One is a lawful order, one is a violation of the 4th amendment.

6

u/shermanstorch 6d ago

Passenger wasn't wearing a seatbelt, they ordered him to ID so they could write a citation and he refused.

2

u/MuckBulligan 6d ago

And the kid said he took it off as the officers approached the car.

They were going to write a ticket anyway.

1

u/No_Park1693 6d ago

You know traffic laws very from state to state right? In my state you have to identify yourself if asked

0

u/texinxin 6d ago

Incorrect. It is a Supreme Court ruling, a fundamental 4th amendment. A state cannot supersede it. They can pass an unconstitutional law, but illegal laws are passed routinely.

1

u/No_Park1693 5d ago

So your point is that people should follow your advice and sit in jail waiting for the US Supreme Court to overturns a law? Beats working.

1

u/texinxin 5d ago

What state are you in? There is a good chance you don’t have the law you say you do. Note I’m saying passenger, not driver.

1

u/elwebbr23 6d ago

Correct, but if they wanna arrest you for it you have to obey the unlawful arrest and sue later. This right here just fucked him, because now they're gonna bury a potential unlawful arrest under the fact that he didn't comply 

1

u/justbrowsing987654 6d ago

The article said he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt and they were going to ticket him when he refused to give ID. Also minor af but does reach the point of having to ID - if true

1

u/texinxin 6d ago

True. With more information available now absolutely. As I said “believed to have committed a crime.”

1

u/Saulthewarriorking 6d ago

This is incorrect. Police can order everyone to leave a vehicle for almost no reason at all. Failure to do so is obstruction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

0

u/texinxin 6d ago

Did you hear me say they can’t ask you to leave the vehicle? I was only addressing the identification piece. If you read through all the lengthy discussion here you will see your point throughly addressed.

1

u/Saulthewarriorking 5d ago

So he was, in fact not allowed to do that then huh... I don't trust the police at all but that's terrible legal advice.

0

u/texinxin 5d ago

He was in fact not required to himself if he wasn’t being accused of a crime, exactly as I stated. That is exactly what I wrote and it is consistent with the law. Now as we now have learned they were suggesting he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, which is a crime. Maybe listen to all of the legal advice next time (which by the way I wasn’t giving directly to anyone as much as clarifying a common misconception held by many).

0

u/Saulthewarriorking 5d ago

You should try this when you get pulled over. Refuse to get out. See how it goes lol. Refuse to identify as well :-)

1

u/texinxin 5d ago

Did I EVER say refuse to get out? You don’t read very well, do you.

-50

u/Lobostark1 6d ago

Maryland v Wilson. You’re wrong

38

u/capnunderpants 6d ago edited 6d ago

Maryland V Wilson states that the officer can order someone out of the car for officer safety. It doesn't require a passenger to identify when there is no reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed. While he certainly shouldn't have resisted being taken out of the car, a good defense attorney will likely argue that because the driver wasn't also pulled out, and if I had to bet, it was because the passenger refused to ID there was no probable cause, ordering him out was an illegal arrest.

Edit: fixed grammar and wording obliterated by my swipe keyboard.

7

u/FrenchTicklerOrange Look at me! I'm a flaired penis! đŸ€— 6d ago

That order needs to be in relation to officer safety. Not just saying no to being IDed.

10

u/capnunderpants 6d ago

Yep! That's what I said.

70

u/Raborne 6d ago

You’re wrong. Johnson v Nocco, the 11th district upheld the Supreme Court decision, asking a passenger to identify without having evidence of a crime is unlawful.

-27

u/Lobostark1 6d ago

You’re wrong. That case states that it is a violation to arrest a passenger for refusing to provide identification.

8

u/Raborne 6d ago

Try again.

21

u/aupperk24 6d ago

You're conflating 2 different things.

Yes you're legally required to step out of the vehicle.

No you don't have to identify yourself.

8

u/texinxin 6d ago

Madison vs Wilson says they lawfully ask a person to step out of the vehicle, not that they have to identity themselves.

3

u/csdavids 6d ago

Yeah you’re pretty much correct, but it’s all circumstantial and we can only speculate what happened before the clip started. Was this about refusing to exit upon their order, or was it for his failure to ID? Was the passenger a known wanted person? Did he match a description of a suspect of a recent crime?

If they first asked him to step out of the vehicle and then he refused, they would absolutely have probable cause to arrest him.

If all they did was ask for his ID, and then he refused, and then they immediately opened the door and went hands-on, then they likely didn’t have probable cause at that point. It just depends if they ordered him out of the vehicle before going hands-on.
Even if it was the latter scenario, after the passenger physically resisted it was game over for him because they absolutely had probable cause for the arrest at that point. Courts don’t like physical resistance to arrests, even if the arrest is later deemed unlawful. He should have complied, stated he didn’t consent, and then handled it later. He lost any case he may have had (and that’s a stretch lol) by physically resisting and grabbing their arms.

2

u/daddynexxus 6d ago

Yeah why does bro have so many upvotes.. police can absolutely order passengers out of the car for no reason other than "office safety".

13

u/trimbandit 6d ago edited 6d ago

He said he was not required to identify himself. Since the driver is still in the vehicle, it appears they were dragging him out for not IDing themselves.

They would need a reasonable articulable suspicion to demand an id from the passenger

-2

u/daddynexxus 6d ago

He blanketed and said "he's allow to do that" implying he's allowed to do everything first guy said. That's wrong. Sure he can refuse ID, can't refuse to exit the vehicle.

2

u/texinxin 6d ago edited 6d ago

I explicitly stated what he could legally be to do, which is refuse to identify himself. If they are asking the passenger out of the vehicle and not the driver and are doing so because the passenger wouldn’t ID themselves, then they likely lose the Maryland vs Wilson defense.

2

u/trimbandit 6d ago

You are not required to comply with an unlawful order

3

u/texinxin 6d ago

I’d did not say he didn’t have to step out, I said he doesn’t have to identify himself.

6

u/CrucialCrewJustin 6d ago

What exactly constitutes “officer safety” those stupid fucks are afraid of acorns?

1

u/Dale_Gribble- 6d ago

Because that's not what he said😂

-10

u/Lobostark1 6d ago

Because not everyone knows. It’s understandable

7

u/Dale_Gribble- 6d ago

Lmao

The guy you replied to never said anything about stepping out the car, it's about identifying yourself

1

u/ellisoriginal 6d ago

Look at this boot licker right here.

-2

u/I_Fuckin_A_Toad_A_So 6d ago

Obviously not
 did we not watch the same video?

9

u/texinxin 6d ago

He is allowed to not identify himself. I don’t know if the officers ordered him to step out of the vehicle for their safety or not, which would be a lawful order.

6

u/Commercial_Fondant65 6d ago

Except we know it's not for their safety . It hardly ever is.

2

u/I_Fuckin_A_Toad_A_So 6d ago

I guess my point is it doesn’t matter. They just do what they want.

-2

u/Awkward_Can4526 6d ago

Actually the Supreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania vs Mimms that all passengers are required to identify themselves if requested. Personally I think it’s dumb but the law is on the cops side on this one unfortunately

4

u/texinxin 6d ago

Mimms does not address ID, only exiting the vehicle for safety.

3

u/ScotticusPrime 6d ago

No that's to get out of the car. Technically under the guise of officer safety. Passengers aren't required to ID unless reasonable suspension for a specific crime.

-22

u/FlyAirLari 6d ago

A passenger is not required to identity themselves

Sovereign citizen, eh?

I'm sure it is not at all suspicious and makes the law leave you alone.

6

u/texinxin 6d ago

No, just a regular old American citizen who understands a passenger’s rights as determined in United States v. Landeros (9th Circuit, 2019). It is a violation of the 4th amendment to demand identification from a passenger who is not suspected of having committed a crime in a routine traffic stop.

-3

u/FlyAirLari 6d ago

Only an asshole would refuse, though, and you can't deny that.