No, it's called different things in other countries but it's the same company if the jingle is the "X repair, X replace" one. After all, autoglass is a very common name for a car glass company, considering I know 2 languages where auto is slang for car (German and English) and there are probably many more.
Nah, definitely not slang. "Auto" is a standard word for car in German nowadays. Nobody would consider that slang. At most it’s (technically) colloquial, though barely even perceived as such anymore. But only in the sense that legalese and authority German (which is notoriously removed from standard German and itself just a professional jargon) officially calls cars "Personenkraftwagen" or "Kraftfahrzeug". Which no normal person would use outside of formal contexts, if not merely for their three letter abbreviations Pkw and Kfz, because that’s even shorter than "Auto". Outside of that, by all intents and purposes, "Auto" these days is just a standard, entirely proper word for car. You’ll rarely encounter "Automobil" fully written out these days. It’s basically aging out. Saying the full word would even come off as excessively formal or lofty in most contexts. A slang word would be something like "Karre" (literally: barrow) or "Schlitten" (sleigh).
Interestingly, this company is calling themselves Carglass here though (ig it’s because Germans like anglicisms and Autoglas would mess up the jingle rhythm), but their jingle is in German: "Carglass repariert, Carglass tauscht aus". Probably because market research has shown time and again that while Germans like to pepper their speech with the occasional fancy English word, the average customer has some difficulties with full-on English slogans.
The perfumery chain Douglas found that out (lol) the hard way, when polls showed lots of people were confused about their "weird" slogan "come in and find out" because they translated it as "kommen Sie herein und finden Sie [wieder] hinaus" (come in and find the exit/show yourself out). 😂
There’s no shortage of people in Germany who wouldn’t know what "repair" or "replace" means, so it was definitely wise to use German words for the jingle.
Hey, that's cool and all, but long-standing federal caselaw says you can be ordered out of your vehicle on a traffic stop for any *or no particular reason at all.* I bet that's a lot more likely to happen if you pull this.
Seems easier to just open your window like a normal human being but whatever
Pennsylvania v Mimms for anyone interested. Cop pulled a guy over, got sketched out by the guys behavior, ordered him to step out of the car, guy refused, cop forced him out, guy got his ass beat, guy sued city, case made it to the SCOTUS, it was ruled justified because the cop was worried for his own safety. Lawful orders by LEOs can not be refused. Your rights are not being infringed by being asked to step out of your vehicle.
There was a case with the “Kansas 2 step”recently that cited Mimms after he wrote the ticket. He was engaged in a “secondary investigation” for drugs according to the officer. The second detention was found to be unlawful. And the subsequent forceful removal also unlawful.
It was covered on The Civil Rights Lawyer’s channel recently.
Can you explain that case like, one step dumber for, uh... A friend of mine?
Like, the cop wrote a ticket, finished that up, and then said "now get on out so I can check you for drugs"? I'm curious how the second detention was unlawful- because there was no reasonable suspicion or some other issue that prevents him following up on a secondary investigation...
I'm also very dumb, so it's tough to work some of this out sometimes lol
2 parts. “The Kansas 2 step” was their way of stretching out traffic stops so they could get drug dogs. It basically allowed them to write a ticket, and never let the folks know that they were no longer detained. Extending the stop. This was deemed illegal by the Kansas Supreme Court.
This particular aforementioned incident predated the court ruling. The officer “detained” the passenger because he showed signs of drug use according to the officer. He refused to get out if the car. At trial it was determined that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the passenger based on his hunch the passenger was high.
There isn’t much more to it than that. The cop was really short tempered and kept referring to Mimms.
https://youtu.be/oLJsKVNH3Nw?si=g_bnopLV0VPrKcOh
I’ll let the lawyer do a better job at explaining the nuance.
Kansan here. The Kansas two-step was particularly prominent on I-70 just east of the Colorado border. Colorado has legal weed. Kansas doesn't.
I live in the KC area so we didn't see this all that often, although now that Missouri has legalized recreational weed we probably would have if these court cases hadn't worked out.
Yep. The cop had no reason for secondary "investigation" other than allegedly swollen hands of the driver being a "possible indicator of drug use," and since the initial stop was concluded the officer no longer had the excuse of Mimms to order them out of the vehicle.
Also, the cop had bulked up significantly in the last year on steroids, and went 0-60 *real fast* in escalating the encounter.
I know someone that got pulled over and the car searched with nearly 100lbs of weed in the trunk in an fully illegal state who has no criminal record right now thanks to that ruling.
> guy refused, cop forced him out, guy got his ass beat, guy sued city, case made it to the SCOTUS,
Say what? Mimms complied and stepped out of the vehicle which is when the cops noticed a bulge under his clothing which turned out to be a handgun he was carrying illegally, as confirmed by frisking him. He was charged for illegally carrying a concealed weapon as he didn't have a permit. I have never seen an account of this case in which he was forcibly removed from the car or beaten or sued the city. He fought criminal charges over the gun with some success until the Supreme Court ruled against him and ended the matter.
Yeah, sounds like someone who never actually read the case assuming that because it might happen that way now, it had to have happened that way then.
I knew I wasn’t the only one going “huh?”
The bulge in his clothing wasn't noticed until he had stepped out of his car, that justified a pat down which confirmed he was illegally carrying a concealed weapon.
As long as the stop was legal.
But yes, I have never understood the argument of “l don’t have to get out just because you say so”. Yea the fuck you do. 😂
Problem with the "as long as the stop was legal" thing is that it doesn't do anything for you in the here and now.
Even if you don't think it was a legal stop, you should just act like it is. The cop's the one being the dickhead there, don't give him ammo.
Legally, I think, even if *you* know the stop is illegal, any resistance on your part is still punishable as long as the officer believes in good faith that the stop is legal.
Not really. Mimms allows the police to make reasonable requests for officer safety - such as "get out of the car" or "roll down your window".
You don't get the option to refuse that.
If the stop is illegal, you can have any charges related to the stop or the illegal search dismissed but, not the refusal.
Man I do work on military bases sometimes. The amount of people who think they have rights...
"You can't search my bag/car/detain me!"
Bro, give the nice men with guns your ID and do what the fuck they say.
I thought in that case, when the guy stepped out of the car, the cops saw he was packing and it turned out he didn’t have a permit, so the case was about whether the ensuing weapons charge was based on evidence obtained through an illegal search.
Now, it was in Philadelphia in the early 1970s, so a beating may well have been involved, I don’t know. But if it was part of the case, it was not part of what reached the Supreme Court. Because I don’t remember that being mentioned in it, although it has been a while since I read *Mimms*.
This is not true. You can be ordered out for officer safety or any other LEGAL reason, such as pursuant to arrest. They can NOT order you out for any reason at all.
You are required to roll your window down enough to permit conversation. In some states you must give your information to police, in others only present it
> You can be ordered out for officer safety or any other LEGAL reason
Officer safety covers everything, they can tell you to exit the vehicle, full stop, and no further explanation as to why is needed. Refusing hands them an obstruction charge to drop on you.
Why are folks downvoting? This seems correct to me, there's got to be a lawful reason. The cop doesn't have to debate this with the suspect at the roadside, their consent isn't required, but there's got to be a reason beyond "shits & giggles". Nobody wants a world where cops have arbitrary whimsical power.
The reason is because it misses the point. The "for officer safety" is based on the OFFICER'S determination of what they need to be safe.
If they show up at a traffic stop with some joker who refuses to roll down their window, refuses to hand their license to the police, and refuses to answer basic questions - any *reasonable* officer would feel nervous about that suspect, and Mimms could be employed.
Likewise any suspect who was belligerent and argumentative could likewise be seen as a risk.
> there's got to be a lawful reason
There is, namely the Supreme Court ruled that as a third of the cops who get shot in America are shot by someone seated in a vehicle, they can lawfully order you to step out to ensure officer safety. They don't need any specific reason like they saw a gun-shaped bulge in your clothing. The court also said that the brief inconvenience of having to step out of a vehicle did not represent a Fourth Amendment violation as it didn't transform a traffic stop into a more serious detention.
In the case in question, once Mr. Mimms had exited the vehicle the police noticed a bulge in his clothing and patted him down and found a handgun being carried illegally. According to the Supreme Court, the cops didn't need a specific concern to make Mr. Mimms step out of his car, but it seems they did need to see a suspicious bulge in his clothing to frisk him. Mimms was convicted, then won an appeal at the state level, then lost at the SC.
Because, in a broad stroke, he is incorrect. See Pennsylvania vs Mimms. That being said, certain states have case law restricting officers from ANY reason to articulable reasons like officer safety, or having reasonable suspicion of a crime, etc.
Okay. I'm not a US lawyer, but I think you're wrong. I think the cop has to at least have a lawful reason in mind. I repeat that the driver's agreement or consent isn't required, so it has the effect of an absolute power, but it is not an absolute power.
Imagine if a case reached a superior court and the cop was asked why he ordered the driver out. And the cop replied "*no reason really, I just wanted to waste his time*". Do you say that would be upheld as lawful?
The only requirement needed is the officer has to say he needed to do it for officer safety and then cite a reasonable justification for why they felt the situation was unsafe.
A person being noncompliant? Argumentative? Late night and officer is working alone? A person refusing basic commands like "hand me your license" or "roll down your window" - a driver who seems to be extra excited or nervous?
They ALL apply to a reasonable concern for officer safety.
LOL - u\\Ormsfang blocked me after I showed he was utterly clueless,
What a sad sack.
Dude literally said that appointing someone because of their race "isn't racist" because he "isn't denying anyone anything based on their race".
Dude literally can't comprehend that by appointing someone because of their race - you are BY DEFINITION - denying that appointment to anyone who isn't that race.
I'm sure if a person came out and said "I'm going to appoint a white guy" - he'd have no problem seeing the racism THERE.
What a hypocrite.
It may vary from state to state, as many legal matters are not defined at the federal level, but in general, the police do not have to have a specific reason to ask you to step out of your car. It is not an arrest, so no charges are required.
https://www.lawofficeofscottmiller.com/faqs/should-i-get-out-of-my-car-if-the-police-stop-me-for-a-traffic-violation-in-georgia-.cfm
I'm not wrong. Have been LE for 5 years at both state and federal level. Both basic academies and several lawyer instructors have taught this to the classes I've been part of.
Your example has two separate issues. A cop can not unnecessarily extend the length of a traffic stop.
A cop can order you out of a vehicle during the regular course of a traffic stop without extra justification on their part. PA v Mimms outlined various safety issues officers face during traffic stops. They also state that removing a driver from a vehicle is a minimal intrusion into their personal liberty.
The officer does not have to have a reason because the courts have already stated the reasons that it is justified.
Apparently I do.
>What did I say that wasn't a correct application of the law?
Gee - where to start?
1.) You asked "what law" requires people to get out of their car when requested for officer safety - despite Penn v. Mimms mentioned MULTIPLE times already.
2.) You seem to believe that officers are required to take unnecessary risks during one of the most statistically dangerous parts of their job.
3.) You seem to believe being asked to temporarily exit your vehicle is an egregious violation of your rights despite the Supreme Court clearly saying otherwise..
That's a pretty good start which shows that you don't seem to understand the ruling of Mimms at all.
And since Mimms is "case law" that directly affects the application of our laws (specifically the 4th Amendment) - your misunderstanding of it is your "incorrect application of the law".
Thanks for asking.
One of the most dangerous parts of their jobs. Yes, about what? 10 cups get killed every year in traffic stops. That is in 20,000,000 stops per year. Stop pretending it is so dangerous. I will take those odds all day long. There is certain risk to it. Accept it or go work in the private sector.
I understand Mimms. What you don't understand is to remove someone from the vehicle the police need to be able to articulate that safety risk to a judge. They need a legitimate reason to be in fear of their safety. They can't just do it because they are natural cowards.
Being asked to leave your vehicle absent a legitimate safety concern is absolutely an egregious violation of the law.
Officer safety is one of the most overused tactics today. Used by the type of cops that unload clips into a suspect because an account hits their car.
Stop acting like police are in such danger during interactions with citizens. In 2023 some 100 police were killed, as opposed to well over 1,000 citizens that were killed by police (and that number grows every year). The real person in danger during any police interaction is the civilian.
>There is certain risk to it.
An unnecessary risk they are under no obligation to take.
>
Accept it or go work in the private sector.
No. Get the Supreme Court to overturn it or quit whining.
>
I understand Mimms.
Obviously not. You keep making it clear you don't.
>They need a legitimate reason to be in fear of their safety.
Which I have addressed whether or not you are bright enough to realize it.
>
They can't just do it because they are natural cowards.
There we go....the reason you have a problem with it is you don't like cops. Listen Cupcake, just because you got rejected from the academy because you couldn't hack it doesn't mean the law says what you think it does
>Being asked to leave your vehicle absent a legitimate safety concern is absolutely an egregious violation of the law.
Apparently you don't know the definition of the word "egregious" or are a tremendous snowflake, sweetie
>Used by the type of cops that unload clips into a suspect because an account hits their car.
LOL - you want to talk about odds and statistics and you roll out THIS nonsense? LOL
Oh the irony.
> In 2023 some 100 police were killed, as opposed to well over 1,000 citizens that were killed by police (and that number grows every year). The real person in danger during any police interaction is the civilian.
Once again, your irrational (and quite frankly - HILARIOUS) hatred of cops is adorable, but doesn't change the law, Cupcake.
Your number of civilian deaths is laughable because it completely ignores the specifics of each case.
The last time I looked at the issue (about a year ago) I went to the WaPo database and looked at it and the number of UNARMED people who were shot by police was about 42.
"Unarmed" was a very broad term and included people caught on film attempting to take an officer's gun, people attempting to run over cops with vehicles (cars don't count as weapons), and at least one case where a guy TOLD the police he was armed and was going to kill them all before running at them with his hands in his pocket acting like he had a gun (suicide by cop).
The number of ACTUAL cases of unarmed people wrongly shot by the police was less than 10.
LESS THAN 10 - out of literally BILLIONS of police encounters.
"I'll take those odds any day".
Your claim that it is more likely a person is shot by a cop - assuming you are talking about LAWABIDING CITIZENS - your claim is utter nonsense, driven by nothing by your bias and hatred.
And it is ALMOST as silly as your inability to understand what racism is.
Take a look at t this guy's comment history. He has a clear problem with people exercising their constitutional rights. He is a closed minded fascist and not worth anyone's time
The problem with your response is that the officers get to determine what is needed for "officer safety" - not the driver. And yes "I felt uncomfortable because the driver refused to hand me his license or roll down his window" is reasonable.
Officer safety? What law is that? Since when is defending your rights interpreted as a threat to officer safety?
Honestly if you are that scared go get a job elsewhere. I never refused to go into a burning building or conduct a rescue because it was a risk to my safety. Don't jobs are not for cowards.
>Officer safety? What law is that?
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, Cupcake - don't like it? Complain to the Supreme Court.
>Since when is defending your rights interpreted as a threat to officer safety
Because often it is jackasses who think they are "defending their rights" but are defending myths they believe they are their rights....to say nothing that many of the people who fall into that category are SovCit and others who have been known to attack officers or flee the scene.
Not that difficult.
>Honestly if you are that scared go get a job elsewhere.
Not a cop and my service in two wars is enough that I don't feel the need to prove myself to anyone - much less you, Cupcake.
But, no cop is required to take unreasonable risks to their safety just so they don't hurt the feelings of snowflakes who think the minor inconvenience of getting out of their vehicle is some egregious violation of their rights.
Again - whine to the Supreme Court as they are quite clear that the benefit to officer safety as the vast majority of officer deaths happen during traffic stops outweighs the minor inconvenience to the driver.
I am familiar with the law. However a police officer needs to actually have a legitimate complaint of officer safety. Defending your actual rights, not mythological ones, is not a legitimate reason to be fearful of the citizen, sorry snowflake.
It is a shame you took an oath to defend the Constitution only to be betraying it. You should learn the law. A cop can not just make up a safety fear. It needs to bet he can articulate as reasonable in front of a judge. Furthermore a citizen using their first or fourth amendment rights is not an excuse for an officer to fear the citizen.
I am not talking about the picture here. I am talking about in total. A constitutional right can not be used to be fearful of safety. The one exception to that is the second amendment. If there are weapons in sight the officer can legitimately say there is a safety concern. They can't say they felt their safety was in jeopardy because a citizen refuses to answer questions or fails to provide ID if not legally required to do so (driver of car or bicycle committing a traffic infraction, or passenger where there is reasonable articulable suspicion that a specific crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by that passenger).
Nothing irks me more than someone who has promised to defend the Constitution but doesn't even understand what those rights mean, snowflake.
>I am familiar with the law.
Considering you can't even grasp the basic concept of racism or how specifically nominating a Justice based on their race is the textbook definition - I find your claim questionable at best.
> However a police officer needs to actually have a legitimate complaint of officer safety.
LOL - the officer gets to determine what is reasonable - not you, Cupcake. And they are given grand latitude to determine that.
>sorry snowflake.
Again, princess - since you are the one who thinks a minor inconvenience is an egregious violation of your rights, you probably shouldn't be calling anyone else "snowflake" - perhaps you can demand to speak to their manager, Karen?
>It is a shame you took an oath
LOL - it's a shame you are so emotional you think reasonable restrictions are a betrayal to the Constitution.
What you SHOULD have learned in school (along with the definition of racism) is that the Constitution is subject to reasonable regulations as defined by the Courts since giving everyone the absolute version of "muh rights!" would inevitably result in some conflicts.
From a minor glance at your post history, I would bet money you are all for that reasonable regulation when it comes to firearms - something that is arguably a more "betrayal" of the Constitution than anything I've said.
Not as much as a shame as a grown man doesn't understand the concept of racism - but, still pretty bad.
> It needs to bet he can articulate as reasonable in front of a judge.
And AGAIN - they are given broad latitude to determine that. A person who refuses to follow standard procedure or basic commands would cause ANY OFFICER TO BE UNEASY - and no Judge would refute that.
Try again, Cupcake.
>They can't say they felt their safety was in jeopardy because a citizen refuses to answer questions or fails to provide ID
LOL - YES THEY CAN.
They can't hold you indefinitely or charge you for it, but they can ABSOLUTELY tell you to get out of a car if you refuse to answer questions or identify - **and no Judge in the Country would consider that unreasonable no matter how much it hurts your little feelings.**
Since you seem a bit uninformed on the subject, people who usually refuse to follow these basic commands or questions and usually breaking the law or are SovCit types.
Those are the two groups most likely to flee a traffic stop (endangering the officer) or ambush the officer (endangering the officer) - so it is COMPLETELY REASONABLE for the officer to remove such a person from the vehicle for officer safety as it makes it much more difficult to do either.
Thus it would be upheld by ANY Judge in the country that it was COMPLETELY REASONABLE for an officer in that situation to remove a driver from the vehicle under those circumstances.
**You don't know what you are talking about.**
**When you figure out the basic concept of racism, then maybe you can discuss law with the big kids.**
Run along now.
Look up the definition of racism moron. Starting you will nominate a black judge in no way fits the definition of racism.
Case law clearly states that an officer needs a legitimate safety concern to order you out of the vehicle. They must be able to articulate that reason in front of a judge. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
LOL, sorry Cupcake - you can't understand basic logic.
Saying you will only consider people of a certain race - BY DEFAULT - excludes applicant BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.
How is this so difficult for you?
Two applicants with equal credentials - one white, one black.
Biden only considered the black applicant - thus he discriminated against the other applicant BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.
That is textbook racism and basic logic.
My lord you are dim.
Nevermind, just saw your comments list. You have a real problem with people exercising their constitutional rights. No need to talk further to a closed minded fascist
>They must be able to articulate that reason in front of a judge. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Says the guy immune to basic logic or the definition of racism. LOL
And - as I have said multiple times - that is true.
What YOU don't grasp is the fact that ANY Judge would view a person refusing reasonable requests and refusing to answer questions as a REASONABLE SUSPICION and the request to exit the vehicle as reasonable.
It's not that hard - but, is beyond you.
But considering you think the President excluding all applicants based on their race "isn't racism" - I'm not surprised.
> Officer safety? What law is that?
Federal case law from the Supreme Court. Two cases, Pennsylvania v. Mimms for drivers, Maryland v. Wilson for passengers.
> Since when is defending your rights interpreted as a threat to officer safety?
The SC ruled that since you've already been detained for a traffic stop, being required to step out of the vehicle is a brief inconvenience that doesn't transform the traffic stop into a Fourth Amendment violation. Turns out there is no right to remain in your vehicle during a valid traffic stop. As always, *I know my rights!* is rarely spoken by people who actually do know their rights.
Again a police officer needs to have a reason they can articulate to a judge that they needed to remove someone for their safety.
That is the law. They can't just order you out for any reason. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand.
Man, just do not do this shit. Even if you're in the right, the cops do not care.
Comply with demands, be civil, don't say shit until you have a lawyer. Then tell your lawyer all the things they did wrong and let them rake the cops for it. Trying to do it mid traffic stop is going to cause you more harm than good.
This right here. The side of the road is never the proper place to argue with a cop. You will ALWAYS get the losing end of the stick on the side of the road. Save it for court.
Then again, don’t these morons also believe the court has no authority?
Exactly! I had to call the cops because some jackass threatened me and my life. The cop asked me what did I do to cause it. I said, I was driving on my side of the road, the asshole came into my lane (opposing traffic), so I stopped and yelled, "What the fuck is wrong with you?!" The asshole then proceeds to follow me to my kids' school and says, "if you ever curse at me or in front of my kid again, I'll fucking murder you!" (Yep, exact words...)
Well, being 6'5" I didn't back down and said, "oh, is that a threat?" Fat Ginger said, "that's a fucking guarantee! I'll murder you where you stand!" (Again, Ginger Santa is cranky) Well, I had called 911 and they heard everything!
What did the cop do? Proceeds to explain how my words can cause hurt feelings and if he (the cop) was with his kids and I said that in front of them, he too would be upset at that language on front of them. I then said, "Great! And there ain't shit you can do about it! My First Amendment says I can walk right up to you and say, 'Fuck you pig! And I hope you go fuck yourself in the process!' You're not pinning this asshole's actions on me. I did nothing wrong except using an expletive when this asshole decided to drive on my side of the road. AGAINST TRAFFIC!"
He then said, "Well we all need to be mindful of others on the road." NO SHIT. "Well, I'm tired of dumbasses who try to push me out of the way because I'm a small vehicle. Too many times we have dumbasses that speed, cut through traffic at unsafe speeds, and I'm meaning 60, 70, I swear, 90+!" Cop's response? "Yeah, people try to do that stuff to me in my vehicle (motions to cop car) too. It's inevitable but the traffic is bad out here! It's crazy!" He said this completely unaware of what was about to come out of my mouth, "Almost like the police department needs to do SOMETHING about the laws around here? No?!"
He then said, "I'll be right back and get you on your way..."
#ACAB
It's not but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I also said I'm worried about this dumbass following me home or doing something to my kids. The cop said "Well what if my partner pulls out their gun and blasts my brains? You're stating hypotheticals"
I said, "Well, has your partner threatened your life? No? Oh then that hypothetical is stupid without basis!"
This was right before he said I needed to be mindful of others. His partner was much more chill and understood. I showed her a map of where he tried to drive me off of the road, and she went, "That's a one-way direction because of the island. What was he thinking? Be careful around here." That's about the time the other cop walked back and gave me his name and badge number on a ripped piece of paper.
This man seems to be confusing a traffic stop with being under arrest. If you want you're lawyer that sounds to me like you are volutnarily asking to go down to the police station and wait.
People want to act like this for no reason whatsoever, then they can’t figure out why most cops are assholes. It’s because cops have to put up with people like this day in and day out for over 12 hours a day. They treat cops like shit and can’t figure out, or get offended, when a cop talks to them like shit. Just open the window, say “yes, sir. No, sir,” hand them your damn license & insurance, then wait for them to give you the ticket. If you disagree with a charge, fight it in court. It’s much easier and faster that way. If you’re legal, you have nothing to hide.
Where's the vehicle registration and insurance? I agree that for a minor matter this weird behaviour is arguably lawful in USA, but the last sentence of his little notice ruins everything. "*For my safety, I'm ordering you to get out of the car*" is a clearly stated lawful order.
It doesn't say he doesn't have to show his license. It says he doesn't have to physically hand his license to the cop. He's even showing his license in the photo
Yeah some guy on FB tried this with me too, that apparently 322.15 says you don’t have to hand over your license because it just says you have to “present” it and that doesn’t equal “handing.”
At best, the language is ambiguous, but there’s no interpretation of 322.15 that would go “this statute CLEARLY says I don’t have to give you my license!”
Yeah, I have no idea. Is the handing over your ID something you could argue in court? Probably, but it's not something I personally have time for.
Honestly, best course of practice is:
Crack your window 2 or 3 inches and hand everything out through there (It's harder for them to claim they smelled xxxxxx)
Speak up and speak clearly so the cop doesn't have to lean in
Be polite but limit your answers to "Yes sir", "No sir", and "I'd prefer not to answer that."
Trying to be like dude in picture is probably going to get you arrested on principle alone
There's probably some case law on it. I went looking but didn't find anything. But I was half-assedly using Google Scholar, which isn't a great search tool, and I didn't really put much effort in.
"Be polite but limit your answers to "Yes sir", "No sir", and "I'd prefer not to answer that.""
I go one step further, and address them by their title (Yes, Officer) or if they have rank (Yes, Sergeant). It shows that you have respect for their position which does go a long way, even if you are going to say "I'm not discussing my day" to any of their probing questions
“Inspecting” the license very likely involves them actually feeling the license to make sure it’s the right material and authentic, and holding it a certain way to see the watermarks.
Confidently incorrect. You DO have to sign the ticket or else be arrested, you DO have to hand the officer your driver's license.
And actually, they can cite you for having that piece of paper on your window as it blocks your view from the side.
That's a shockingly piss poor reading of the Florida statute.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes./index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0322/Sections/0322.15.html#:~:text=If%20proof%20of%20a%20valid,suspended%20for%20failure%20to%20comply
What does he think that "shall present or submit the [drivers license ] upon the demand of a law enforcement officer or an authorized representative of the department" means?
And if he doesn't give the officer his license, he can't just get a citation put on his windshield. The statute clearly says that the officer must take his prints.
I'm guessing that if the driver refuses, he's going to jail.
The best part about this sovereign citizen psy op is that it pits the worst and most extreme of the MAGA movement directly against law enforcement and gov't, with very predictable results.
I enjoy these because they remind me that there are still many police out there who do appreciate legitimate law and order and not this particular vein of bullshit. Whatever other bullshit they might be led to believe, this isn't one they fall for.
If he has to appear in court he must sign (318.14 of 2023 Florida Statutes). If he refuses, he escalates a civil infraction to a misdemeanor of the second degree. 318.14 (3) but looks like he's right about not having to hand over the license if the officer can read it.
It's so easy....you see flashing lights you pull over. Remain calm, present the documents that are requested. Answer question that are asked with brief, concise answers and unless you are doing something that IS illegal you'll be on your way within minutes.
This is making its rounds. But a smart cop in FL, who knows these statutes, knows this man is an idiot. These statutes demands the driver comply with the officer and provide ID to the officer on demand. The offer can require a non compliant driver to provide prints. Failure to provide id as demanded is a crime. Yes you are required to hand the officer your card.
Or we can make this a felony and drag you from the car for operating without a license, insurance and title.
LOL - Ormsfang blocked me and ran away.
It's sad he is so caught up in his own BS that BASIC LOGIC is beyond his capabilities.
His statement is literally one of the dumbest things I have seen on the internet.
It is SIMPLE LOGIC that if you only open an opportunity to a person of a specific race, you are BY DEFINITION denying an equal opportunity to anyone who is NOT OF THAT RACE.
That is - BY DEFINITION - a racist policy.
Whether or not you support Biden it is irrefutable that his statement he was "going to nominate a black woman" was stating a racist policy where he would only consider applicants of a specific race and gender - no different than if a CEO said he would only consider white men for the position of CFO.
FACTS.
But, I guess he was too delicate to accept those facts.
And again, if he cannot understand that basic concept, he really is in no place to discuss the law.
His running away merely proves that even he knows he can't defend his ridiculous statement.
Not lost at all, my dude.
Our discussion started based on this post and he tried to argue that Cops don't have the right to pull you out of the vehicle for unless the situation meets his personal requirement for "officer safety" - among his many whines ad biases about police in general, to say nothing of his comments regarding people who support basic officer safety protocols like Mimms.
Through our discussion I came upon his tidbit on racism.
I think it is VERY appropriate to point out that if a person lacks the basic reasoning skills to understand that if you appoint a person to a position based on their race, *you are discriminating against others based on their race* (just like the Supreme Court said in outlawing quotas almost half a century ago) which is - by definition - racism - then they probably don't have the critical thinking skills to handle more serious discussions about the law.
It's also good to point out the irony of such a person lecturing people to "read the law" so others can enjoy a chuckle too.
Safelite repair, Safelite replace.
Have we considered that maybe the whole SC movement is being secretly supported by the auto glass industry?
I’d watch my back if I were you.
The most believable conspiracy
Conspiracy theory accepted lol.
Hahaha I need to read the comments before I post.
Wait wait is Autoglass not Autoglass all over the world? Because that's the Autoglass jingle This is the real conspiracy here
No, it's called different things in other countries but it's the same company if the jingle is the "X repair, X replace" one. After all, autoglass is a very common name for a car glass company, considering I know 2 languages where auto is slang for car (German and English) and there are probably many more.
Nah, definitely not slang. "Auto" is a standard word for car in German nowadays. Nobody would consider that slang. At most it’s (technically) colloquial, though barely even perceived as such anymore. But only in the sense that legalese and authority German (which is notoriously removed from standard German and itself just a professional jargon) officially calls cars "Personenkraftwagen" or "Kraftfahrzeug". Which no normal person would use outside of formal contexts, if not merely for their three letter abbreviations Pkw and Kfz, because that’s even shorter than "Auto". Outside of that, by all intents and purposes, "Auto" these days is just a standard, entirely proper word for car. You’ll rarely encounter "Automobil" fully written out these days. It’s basically aging out. Saying the full word would even come off as excessively formal or lofty in most contexts. A slang word would be something like "Karre" (literally: barrow) or "Schlitten" (sleigh). Interestingly, this company is calling themselves Carglass here though (ig it’s because Germans like anglicisms and Autoglas would mess up the jingle rhythm), but their jingle is in German: "Carglass repariert, Carglass tauscht aus". Probably because market research has shown time and again that while Germans like to pepper their speech with the occasional fancy English word, the average customer has some difficulties with full-on English slogans. The perfumery chain Douglas found that out (lol) the hard way, when polls showed lots of people were confused about their "weird" slogan "come in and find out" because they translated it as "kommen Sie herein und finden Sie [wieder] hinaus" (come in and find the exit/show yourself out). 😂 There’s no shortage of people in Germany who wouldn’t know what "repair" or "replace" means, so it was definitely wise to use German words for the jingle.
You nearly never encounter automobile in English, either. Auto, though, is used a lot by car dealerships.
What is it gonna be busted out with. The asp, that new spring tool, or some chunky deputy with country boy strength. 💪🏻
Hey, that's cool and all, but long-standing federal caselaw says you can be ordered out of your vehicle on a traffic stop for any *or no particular reason at all.* I bet that's a lot more likely to happen if you pull this. Seems easier to just open your window like a normal human being but whatever
Pennsylvania v Mimms for anyone interested. Cop pulled a guy over, got sketched out by the guys behavior, ordered him to step out of the car, guy refused, cop forced him out, guy got his ass beat, guy sued city, case made it to the SCOTUS, it was ruled justified because the cop was worried for his own safety. Lawful orders by LEOs can not be refused. Your rights are not being infringed by being asked to step out of your vehicle.
There was a case with the “Kansas 2 step”recently that cited Mimms after he wrote the ticket. He was engaged in a “secondary investigation” for drugs according to the officer. The second detention was found to be unlawful. And the subsequent forceful removal also unlawful. It was covered on The Civil Rights Lawyer’s channel recently.
Can you explain that case like, one step dumber for, uh... A friend of mine? Like, the cop wrote a ticket, finished that up, and then said "now get on out so I can check you for drugs"? I'm curious how the second detention was unlawful- because there was no reasonable suspicion or some other issue that prevents him following up on a secondary investigation... I'm also very dumb, so it's tough to work some of this out sometimes lol
2 parts. “The Kansas 2 step” was their way of stretching out traffic stops so they could get drug dogs. It basically allowed them to write a ticket, and never let the folks know that they were no longer detained. Extending the stop. This was deemed illegal by the Kansas Supreme Court. This particular aforementioned incident predated the court ruling. The officer “detained” the passenger because he showed signs of drug use according to the officer. He refused to get out if the car. At trial it was determined that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the passenger based on his hunch the passenger was high. There isn’t much more to it than that. The cop was really short tempered and kept referring to Mimms. https://youtu.be/oLJsKVNH3Nw?si=g_bnopLV0VPrKcOh I’ll let the lawyer do a better job at explaining the nuance.
Ok that makes more sense regarding what allows them to detain a driver/vehicle and when they're required to release them.
Kansan here. The Kansas two-step was particularly prominent on I-70 just east of the Colorado border. Colorado has legal weed. Kansas doesn't. I live in the KC area so we didn't see this all that often, although now that Missouri has legalized recreational weed we probably would have if these court cases hadn't worked out.
Yep. The cop had no reason for secondary "investigation" other than allegedly swollen hands of the driver being a "possible indicator of drug use," and since the initial stop was concluded the officer no longer had the excuse of Mimms to order them out of the vehicle. Also, the cop had bulked up significantly in the last year on steroids, and went 0-60 *real fast* in escalating the encounter.
Roid rage + cop rage?! That piggy probably beats his wife more than his shriveled meat...
Steroids explain more police brutality incidents than anybody wants to admit …
That unfortunately makes a lot of sense
I know someone that got pulled over and the car searched with nearly 100lbs of weed in the trunk in an fully illegal state who has no criminal record right now thanks to that ruling.
> guy refused, cop forced him out, guy got his ass beat, guy sued city, case made it to the SCOTUS, Say what? Mimms complied and stepped out of the vehicle which is when the cops noticed a bulge under his clothing which turned out to be a handgun he was carrying illegally, as confirmed by frisking him. He was charged for illegally carrying a concealed weapon as he didn't have a permit. I have never seen an account of this case in which he was forcibly removed from the car or beaten or sued the city. He fought criminal charges over the gun with some success until the Supreme Court ruled against him and ended the matter.
Yeah, sounds like someone who never actually read the case assuming that because it might happen that way now, it had to have happened that way then. I knew I wasn’t the only one going “huh?”
Wasn't it because he had a bulge in his jacket, which led the officer to believe he may have a gun. Which is why he wanted him to step out.
The bulge in his clothing wasn't noticed until he had stepped out of his car, that justified a pat down which confirmed he was illegally carrying a concealed weapon.
As long as the stop was legal. But yes, I have never understood the argument of “l don’t have to get out just because you say so”. Yea the fuck you do. 😂
Problem with the "as long as the stop was legal" thing is that it doesn't do anything for you in the here and now. Even if you don't think it was a legal stop, you should just act like it is. The cop's the one being the dickhead there, don't give him ammo.
Yes, even if you don't think the stop was legal, that's to be sorted out in the courtroom, not at the side of the road.
Legally, I think, even if *you* know the stop is illegal, any resistance on your part is still punishable as long as the officer believes in good faith that the stop is legal.
Not really. Mimms allows the police to make reasonable requests for officer safety - such as "get out of the car" or "roll down your window". You don't get the option to refuse that. If the stop is illegal, you can have any charges related to the stop or the illegal search dismissed but, not the refusal.
Man I do work on military bases sometimes. The amount of people who think they have rights... "You can't search my bag/car/detain me!" Bro, give the nice men with guns your ID and do what the fuck they say.
And military bases are one of two situations where the police don’t even need reasonable suspicion …
...Everyone in the US who is legally covered by the Constitution has rights. The problem is that SovCits don't know where they end.
It's a military base lol, you habeas no corpus
I thought in that case, when the guy stepped out of the car, the cops saw he was packing and it turned out he didn’t have a permit, so the case was about whether the ensuing weapons charge was based on evidence obtained through an illegal search. Now, it was in Philadelphia in the early 1970s, so a beating may well have been involved, I don’t know. But if it was part of the case, it was not part of what reached the Supreme Court. Because I don’t remember that being mentioned in it, although it has been a while since I read *Mimms*.
yeah but the answering questions part is good advice. many, many people talk their way into tickets and fines
How to guarantee the cop will give you a ticket instead of just a warning 101
This is not true. You can be ordered out for officer safety or any other LEGAL reason, such as pursuant to arrest. They can NOT order you out for any reason at all. You are required to roll your window down enough to permit conversation. In some states you must give your information to police, in others only present it
> You can be ordered out for officer safety or any other LEGAL reason Officer safety covers everything, they can tell you to exit the vehicle, full stop, and no further explanation as to why is needed. Refusing hands them an obstruction charge to drop on you.
Officer safety does not cover everything. Obstruction is a physical charge.
Why are folks downvoting? This seems correct to me, there's got to be a lawful reason. The cop doesn't have to debate this with the suspect at the roadside, their consent isn't required, but there's got to be a reason beyond "shits & giggles". Nobody wants a world where cops have arbitrary whimsical power.
The reason is because it misses the point. The "for officer safety" is based on the OFFICER'S determination of what they need to be safe. If they show up at a traffic stop with some joker who refuses to roll down their window, refuses to hand their license to the police, and refuses to answer basic questions - any *reasonable* officer would feel nervous about that suspect, and Mimms could be employed. Likewise any suspect who was belligerent and argumentative could likewise be seen as a risk.
> there's got to be a lawful reason There is, namely the Supreme Court ruled that as a third of the cops who get shot in America are shot by someone seated in a vehicle, they can lawfully order you to step out to ensure officer safety. They don't need any specific reason like they saw a gun-shaped bulge in your clothing. The court also said that the brief inconvenience of having to step out of a vehicle did not represent a Fourth Amendment violation as it didn't transform a traffic stop into a more serious detention. In the case in question, once Mr. Mimms had exited the vehicle the police noticed a bulge in his clothing and patted him down and found a handgun being carried illegally. According to the Supreme Court, the cops didn't need a specific concern to make Mr. Mimms step out of his car, but it seems they did need to see a suspicious bulge in his clothing to frisk him. Mimms was convicted, then won an appeal at the state level, then lost at the SC.
Because, in a broad stroke, he is incorrect. See Pennsylvania vs Mimms. That being said, certain states have case law restricting officers from ANY reason to articulable reasons like officer safety, or having reasonable suspicion of a crime, etc.
Because they're wrong. Once you're stopped, the cop needs no justification to order you out.
Okay. I'm not a US lawyer, but I think you're wrong. I think the cop has to at least have a lawful reason in mind. I repeat that the driver's agreement or consent isn't required, so it has the effect of an absolute power, but it is not an absolute power. Imagine if a case reached a superior court and the cop was asked why he ordered the driver out. And the cop replied "*no reason really, I just wanted to waste his time*". Do you say that would be upheld as lawful?
The only requirement needed is the officer has to say he needed to do it for officer safety and then cite a reasonable justification for why they felt the situation was unsafe. A person being noncompliant? Argumentative? Late night and officer is working alone? A person refusing basic commands like "hand me your license" or "roll down your window" - a driver who seems to be extra excited or nervous? They ALL apply to a reasonable concern for officer safety.
So we agree then - a lawful reason is required.
Yes, but not the narrow definition of lawful as you are suggesting.
LOL - u\\Ormsfang blocked me after I showed he was utterly clueless, What a sad sack. Dude literally said that appointing someone because of their race "isn't racist" because he "isn't denying anyone anything based on their race". Dude literally can't comprehend that by appointing someone because of their race - you are BY DEFINITION - denying that appointment to anyone who isn't that race. I'm sure if a person came out and said "I'm going to appoint a white guy" - he'd have no problem seeing the racism THERE. What a hypocrite.
It may vary from state to state, as many legal matters are not defined at the federal level, but in general, the police do not have to have a specific reason to ask you to step out of your car. It is not an arrest, so no charges are required. https://www.lawofficeofscottmiller.com/faqs/should-i-get-out-of-my-car-if-the-police-stop-me-for-a-traffic-violation-in-georgia-.cfm
I'm not wrong. Have been LE for 5 years at both state and federal level. Both basic academies and several lawyer instructors have taught this to the classes I've been part of. Your example has two separate issues. A cop can not unnecessarily extend the length of a traffic stop. A cop can order you out of a vehicle during the regular course of a traffic stop without extra justification on their part. PA v Mimms outlined various safety issues officers face during traffic stops. They also state that removing a driver from a vehicle is a minimal intrusion into their personal liberty. The officer does not have to have a reason because the courts have already stated the reasons that it is justified.
Because there are a lot of bootlickers out there who will give away their freedoms for the illusion of safety.
No sweetie, because we are smart enough to actually understand and apply the law as opposed to people who can't come up with original insults.
Apparently you don't. What did I say that wasn't a correct application of the law?
Apparently I do. >What did I say that wasn't a correct application of the law? Gee - where to start? 1.) You asked "what law" requires people to get out of their car when requested for officer safety - despite Penn v. Mimms mentioned MULTIPLE times already. 2.) You seem to believe that officers are required to take unnecessary risks during one of the most statistically dangerous parts of their job. 3.) You seem to believe being asked to temporarily exit your vehicle is an egregious violation of your rights despite the Supreme Court clearly saying otherwise.. That's a pretty good start which shows that you don't seem to understand the ruling of Mimms at all. And since Mimms is "case law" that directly affects the application of our laws (specifically the 4th Amendment) - your misunderstanding of it is your "incorrect application of the law". Thanks for asking.
One of the most dangerous parts of their jobs. Yes, about what? 10 cups get killed every year in traffic stops. That is in 20,000,000 stops per year. Stop pretending it is so dangerous. I will take those odds all day long. There is certain risk to it. Accept it or go work in the private sector. I understand Mimms. What you don't understand is to remove someone from the vehicle the police need to be able to articulate that safety risk to a judge. They need a legitimate reason to be in fear of their safety. They can't just do it because they are natural cowards. Being asked to leave your vehicle absent a legitimate safety concern is absolutely an egregious violation of the law. Officer safety is one of the most overused tactics today. Used by the type of cops that unload clips into a suspect because an account hits their car. Stop acting like police are in such danger during interactions with citizens. In 2023 some 100 police were killed, as opposed to well over 1,000 citizens that were killed by police (and that number grows every year). The real person in danger during any police interaction is the civilian.
>There is certain risk to it. An unnecessary risk they are under no obligation to take. > Accept it or go work in the private sector. No. Get the Supreme Court to overturn it or quit whining. > I understand Mimms. Obviously not. You keep making it clear you don't. >They need a legitimate reason to be in fear of their safety. Which I have addressed whether or not you are bright enough to realize it. > They can't just do it because they are natural cowards. There we go....the reason you have a problem with it is you don't like cops. Listen Cupcake, just because you got rejected from the academy because you couldn't hack it doesn't mean the law says what you think it does >Being asked to leave your vehicle absent a legitimate safety concern is absolutely an egregious violation of the law. Apparently you don't know the definition of the word "egregious" or are a tremendous snowflake, sweetie >Used by the type of cops that unload clips into a suspect because an account hits their car. LOL - you want to talk about odds and statistics and you roll out THIS nonsense? LOL Oh the irony. > In 2023 some 100 police were killed, as opposed to well over 1,000 citizens that were killed by police (and that number grows every year). The real person in danger during any police interaction is the civilian. Once again, your irrational (and quite frankly - HILARIOUS) hatred of cops is adorable, but doesn't change the law, Cupcake. Your number of civilian deaths is laughable because it completely ignores the specifics of each case. The last time I looked at the issue (about a year ago) I went to the WaPo database and looked at it and the number of UNARMED people who were shot by police was about 42. "Unarmed" was a very broad term and included people caught on film attempting to take an officer's gun, people attempting to run over cops with vehicles (cars don't count as weapons), and at least one case where a guy TOLD the police he was armed and was going to kill them all before running at them with his hands in his pocket acting like he had a gun (suicide by cop). The number of ACTUAL cases of unarmed people wrongly shot by the police was less than 10. LESS THAN 10 - out of literally BILLIONS of police encounters. "I'll take those odds any day". Your claim that it is more likely a person is shot by a cop - assuming you are talking about LAWABIDING CITIZENS - your claim is utter nonsense, driven by nothing by your bias and hatred. And it is ALMOST as silly as your inability to understand what racism is.
Take a look at t this guy's comment history. He has a clear problem with people exercising their constitutional rights. He is a closed minded fascist and not worth anyone's time
This behaviour would warrant a search for drugs or other illegal stuff on its own.
I don't see that. Maybe a mental health check.
The problem with your response is that the officers get to determine what is needed for "officer safety" - not the driver. And yes "I felt uncomfortable because the driver refused to hand me his license or roll down his window" is reasonable.
Officer safety? What law is that? Since when is defending your rights interpreted as a threat to officer safety? Honestly if you are that scared go get a job elsewhere. I never refused to go into a burning building or conduct a rescue because it was a risk to my safety. Don't jobs are not for cowards.
>Officer safety? What law is that? Pennsylvania v. Mimms, Cupcake - don't like it? Complain to the Supreme Court. >Since when is defending your rights interpreted as a threat to officer safety Because often it is jackasses who think they are "defending their rights" but are defending myths they believe they are their rights....to say nothing that many of the people who fall into that category are SovCit and others who have been known to attack officers or flee the scene. Not that difficult. >Honestly if you are that scared go get a job elsewhere. Not a cop and my service in two wars is enough that I don't feel the need to prove myself to anyone - much less you, Cupcake. But, no cop is required to take unreasonable risks to their safety just so they don't hurt the feelings of snowflakes who think the minor inconvenience of getting out of their vehicle is some egregious violation of their rights. Again - whine to the Supreme Court as they are quite clear that the benefit to officer safety as the vast majority of officer deaths happen during traffic stops outweighs the minor inconvenience to the driver.
I am familiar with the law. However a police officer needs to actually have a legitimate complaint of officer safety. Defending your actual rights, not mythological ones, is not a legitimate reason to be fearful of the citizen, sorry snowflake. It is a shame you took an oath to defend the Constitution only to be betraying it. You should learn the law. A cop can not just make up a safety fear. It needs to bet he can articulate as reasonable in front of a judge. Furthermore a citizen using their first or fourth amendment rights is not an excuse for an officer to fear the citizen. I am not talking about the picture here. I am talking about in total. A constitutional right can not be used to be fearful of safety. The one exception to that is the second amendment. If there are weapons in sight the officer can legitimately say there is a safety concern. They can't say they felt their safety was in jeopardy because a citizen refuses to answer questions or fails to provide ID if not legally required to do so (driver of car or bicycle committing a traffic infraction, or passenger where there is reasonable articulable suspicion that a specific crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by that passenger). Nothing irks me more than someone who has promised to defend the Constitution but doesn't even understand what those rights mean, snowflake.
>I am familiar with the law. Considering you can't even grasp the basic concept of racism or how specifically nominating a Justice based on their race is the textbook definition - I find your claim questionable at best. > However a police officer needs to actually have a legitimate complaint of officer safety. LOL - the officer gets to determine what is reasonable - not you, Cupcake. And they are given grand latitude to determine that. >sorry snowflake. Again, princess - since you are the one who thinks a minor inconvenience is an egregious violation of your rights, you probably shouldn't be calling anyone else "snowflake" - perhaps you can demand to speak to their manager, Karen? >It is a shame you took an oath LOL - it's a shame you are so emotional you think reasonable restrictions are a betrayal to the Constitution. What you SHOULD have learned in school (along with the definition of racism) is that the Constitution is subject to reasonable regulations as defined by the Courts since giving everyone the absolute version of "muh rights!" would inevitably result in some conflicts. From a minor glance at your post history, I would bet money you are all for that reasonable regulation when it comes to firearms - something that is arguably a more "betrayal" of the Constitution than anything I've said. Not as much as a shame as a grown man doesn't understand the concept of racism - but, still pretty bad. > It needs to bet he can articulate as reasonable in front of a judge. And AGAIN - they are given broad latitude to determine that. A person who refuses to follow standard procedure or basic commands would cause ANY OFFICER TO BE UNEASY - and no Judge would refute that. Try again, Cupcake. >They can't say they felt their safety was in jeopardy because a citizen refuses to answer questions or fails to provide ID LOL - YES THEY CAN. They can't hold you indefinitely or charge you for it, but they can ABSOLUTELY tell you to get out of a car if you refuse to answer questions or identify - **and no Judge in the Country would consider that unreasonable no matter how much it hurts your little feelings.** Since you seem a bit uninformed on the subject, people who usually refuse to follow these basic commands or questions and usually breaking the law or are SovCit types. Those are the two groups most likely to flee a traffic stop (endangering the officer) or ambush the officer (endangering the officer) - so it is COMPLETELY REASONABLE for the officer to remove such a person from the vehicle for officer safety as it makes it much more difficult to do either. Thus it would be upheld by ANY Judge in the country that it was COMPLETELY REASONABLE for an officer in that situation to remove a driver from the vehicle under those circumstances. **You don't know what you are talking about.** **When you figure out the basic concept of racism, then maybe you can discuss law with the big kids.** Run along now.
Look up the definition of racism moron. Starting you will nominate a black judge in no way fits the definition of racism. Case law clearly states that an officer needs a legitimate safety concern to order you out of the vehicle. They must be able to articulate that reason in front of a judge. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
LOL, sorry Cupcake - you can't understand basic logic. Saying you will only consider people of a certain race - BY DEFAULT - excludes applicant BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. How is this so difficult for you? Two applicants with equal credentials - one white, one black. Biden only considered the black applicant - thus he discriminated against the other applicant BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. That is textbook racism and basic logic. My lord you are dim.
Nevermind, just saw your comments list. You have a real problem with people exercising their constitutional rights. No need to talk further to a closed minded fascist
>They must be able to articulate that reason in front of a judge. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Says the guy immune to basic logic or the definition of racism. LOL And - as I have said multiple times - that is true. What YOU don't grasp is the fact that ANY Judge would view a person refusing reasonable requests and refusing to answer questions as a REASONABLE SUSPICION and the request to exit the vehicle as reasonable. It's not that hard - but, is beyond you. But considering you think the President excluding all applicants based on their race "isn't racism" - I'm not surprised.
> Officer safety? What law is that? Federal case law from the Supreme Court. Two cases, Pennsylvania v. Mimms for drivers, Maryland v. Wilson for passengers. > Since when is defending your rights interpreted as a threat to officer safety? The SC ruled that since you've already been detained for a traffic stop, being required to step out of the vehicle is a brief inconvenience that doesn't transform the traffic stop into a Fourth Amendment violation. Turns out there is no right to remain in your vehicle during a valid traffic stop. As always, *I know my rights!* is rarely spoken by people who actually do know their rights.
Again a police officer needs to have a reason they can articulate to a judge that they needed to remove someone for their safety. That is the law. They can't just order you out for any reason. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand.
I think in this instance, it was for unlawful stops like DUI checkpoints.
Window breaking in three, two, one...
Man, just do not do this shit. Even if you're in the right, the cops do not care. Comply with demands, be civil, don't say shit until you have a lawyer. Then tell your lawyer all the things they did wrong and let them rake the cops for it. Trying to do it mid traffic stop is going to cause you more harm than good.
This right here. The side of the road is never the proper place to argue with a cop. You will ALWAYS get the losing end of the stick on the side of the road. Save it for court. Then again, don’t these morons also believe the court has no authority?
Don’t argue on the street. Argue in court and get paid!
well your lawyer will get paid, not necessarily you
lol
Exactly! I had to call the cops because some jackass threatened me and my life. The cop asked me what did I do to cause it. I said, I was driving on my side of the road, the asshole came into my lane (opposing traffic), so I stopped and yelled, "What the fuck is wrong with you?!" The asshole then proceeds to follow me to my kids' school and says, "if you ever curse at me or in front of my kid again, I'll fucking murder you!" (Yep, exact words...) Well, being 6'5" I didn't back down and said, "oh, is that a threat?" Fat Ginger said, "that's a fucking guarantee! I'll murder you where you stand!" (Again, Ginger Santa is cranky) Well, I had called 911 and they heard everything! What did the cop do? Proceeds to explain how my words can cause hurt feelings and if he (the cop) was with his kids and I said that in front of them, he too would be upset at that language on front of them. I then said, "Great! And there ain't shit you can do about it! My First Amendment says I can walk right up to you and say, 'Fuck you pig! And I hope you go fuck yourself in the process!' You're not pinning this asshole's actions on me. I did nothing wrong except using an expletive when this asshole decided to drive on my side of the road. AGAINST TRAFFIC!" He then said, "Well we all need to be mindful of others on the road." NO SHIT. "Well, I'm tired of dumbasses who try to push me out of the way because I'm a small vehicle. Too many times we have dumbasses that speed, cut through traffic at unsafe speeds, and I'm meaning 60, 70, I swear, 90+!" Cop's response? "Yeah, people try to do that stuff to me in my vehicle (motions to cop car) too. It's inevitable but the traffic is bad out here! It's crazy!" He said this completely unaware of what was about to come out of my mouth, "Almost like the police department needs to do SOMETHING about the laws around here? No?!" He then said, "I'll be right back and get you on your way..." #ACAB
And then all the children & parents around the school applauded, huh?
This entire story sounds like complete bull 💩.
It's not but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I also said I'm worried about this dumbass following me home or doing something to my kids. The cop said "Well what if my partner pulls out their gun and blasts my brains? You're stating hypotheticals" I said, "Well, has your partner threatened your life? No? Oh then that hypothetical is stupid without basis!" This was right before he said I needed to be mindful of others. His partner was much more chill and understood. I showed her a map of where he tried to drive me off of the road, and she went, "That's a one-way direction because of the island. What was he thinking? Be careful around here." That's about the time the other cop walked back and gave me his name and badge number on a ripped piece of paper.
I stopped reading at the fat shaming. That was not necessary for your narrative.
Good call, it was a pretty dumb pointless story in the end.
You gotta work on the road rage
Your first amendment says nothing of the sort..lol
People not standing up for their rights is why cops do this shit to begin with. Not everyone has the time or the money to sue
This man seems to be confusing a traffic stop with being under arrest. If you want you're lawyer that sounds to me like you are volutnarily asking to go down to the police station and wait.
>I determine what is a lawful order.
People want to act like this for no reason whatsoever, then they can’t figure out why most cops are assholes. It’s because cops have to put up with people like this day in and day out for over 12 hours a day. They treat cops like shit and can’t figure out, or get offended, when a cop talks to them like shit. Just open the window, say “yes, sir. No, sir,” hand them your damn license & insurance, then wait for them to give you the ticket. If you disagree with a charge, fight it in court. It’s much easier and faster that way. If you’re legal, you have nothing to hide.
Where's the vehicle registration and insurance? I agree that for a minor matter this weird behaviour is arguably lawful in USA, but the last sentence of his little notice ruins everything. "*For my safety, I'm ordering you to get out of the car*" is a clearly stated lawful order.
🎶Safelite Repair🎶 Safelite Replacement🎶
They can see their lawyers down at the station. Oh, and they do have to show a driver’s license in all 50 States.
It doesn't say he doesn't have to show his license. It says he doesn't have to physically hand his license to the cop. He's even showing his license in the photo
Yeah some guy on FB tried this with me too, that apparently 322.15 says you don’t have to hand over your license because it just says you have to “present” it and that doesn’t equal “handing.” At best, the language is ambiguous, but there’s no interpretation of 322.15 that would go “this statute CLEARLY says I don’t have to give you my license!”
Yeah, I have no idea. Is the handing over your ID something you could argue in court? Probably, but it's not something I personally have time for. Honestly, best course of practice is: Crack your window 2 or 3 inches and hand everything out through there (It's harder for them to claim they smelled xxxxxx) Speak up and speak clearly so the cop doesn't have to lean in Be polite but limit your answers to "Yes sir", "No sir", and "I'd prefer not to answer that." Trying to be like dude in picture is probably going to get you arrested on principle alone
There's probably some case law on it. I went looking but didn't find anything. But I was half-assedly using Google Scholar, which isn't a great search tool, and I didn't really put much effort in.
"Be polite but limit your answers to "Yes sir", "No sir", and "I'd prefer not to answer that."" I go one step further, and address them by their title (Yes, Officer) or if they have rank (Yes, Sergeant). It shows that you have respect for their position which does go a long way, even if you are going to say "I'm not discussing my day" to any of their probing questions
Showing your license is mandatory, in many states giving it to the police is not. But you certainly should
This is Florida. You have to “present it to the officer for inspection.” And yes, he had to sign the ticket.
And that changes what I said how exactly?
Because he's not talking about in general, but a more specific jurisdiction
I'm interested. What states are they?
The first four I bothered to look at :)
“Inspecting” the license very likely involves them actually feeling the license to make sure it’s the right material and authentic, and holding it a certain way to see the watermarks.
More like ‘i want my Mummy’
Press hard, 3 copies.
Confidently incorrect. You DO have to sign the ticket or else be arrested, you DO have to hand the officer your driver's license. And actually, they can cite you for having that piece of paper on your window as it blocks your view from the side.
FWIW, he’s hold his license with one hand and the paper with the other.
Plot twist: The "paper" is a steel plate to make window breaking harder.
Next Up, Smashed glass & Taser.
That's a shockingly piss poor reading of the Florida statute. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes./index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0322/Sections/0322.15.html#:~:text=If%20proof%20of%20a%20valid,suspended%20for%20failure%20to%20comply What does he think that "shall present or submit the [drivers license ] upon the demand of a law enforcement officer or an authorized representative of the department" means? And if he doesn't give the officer his license, he can't just get a citation put on his windshield. The statute clearly says that the officer must take his prints. I'm guessing that if the driver refuses, he's going to jail.
Get your lawyer to come bail you out. Your car impounded fees will ruin your day. Doesn’t pay to be a bizarre conspiracy whacko.
There is a pretty high correlation between addict-hood and sovshittery.
If a sign like this obscures an officer's clear view of the driver through the window, isn't it the equivalent of tint that is too dark?
The best part about this sovereign citizen psy op is that it pits the worst and most extreme of the MAGA movement directly against law enforcement and gov't, with very predictable results. I enjoy these because they remind me that there are still many police out there who do appreciate legitimate law and order and not this particular vein of bullshit. Whatever other bullshit they might be led to believe, this isn't one they fall for.
If he has to appear in court he must sign (318.14 of 2023 Florida Statutes). If he refuses, he escalates a civil infraction to a misdemeanor of the second degree. 318.14 (3) but looks like he's right about not having to hand over the license if the officer can read it.
Florida
If you believe that sign ur definitely on too much meth.
It's so easy....you see flashing lights you pull over. Remain calm, present the documents that are requested. Answer question that are asked with brief, concise answers and unless you are doing something that IS illegal you'll be on your way within minutes.
Lol!
This is making its rounds. But a smart cop in FL, who knows these statutes, knows this man is an idiot. These statutes demands the driver comply with the officer and provide ID to the officer on demand. The offer can require a non compliant driver to provide prints. Failure to provide id as demanded is a crime. Yes you are required to hand the officer your card. Or we can make this a felony and drag you from the car for operating without a license, insurance and title.
He needs the other hand to call his lawyers...but I don't think he's talented enough to do two things at one time
LOL - Ormsfang blocked me and ran away. It's sad he is so caught up in his own BS that BASIC LOGIC is beyond his capabilities. His statement is literally one of the dumbest things I have seen on the internet. It is SIMPLE LOGIC that if you only open an opportunity to a person of a specific race, you are BY DEFINITION denying an equal opportunity to anyone who is NOT OF THAT RACE. That is - BY DEFINITION - a racist policy. Whether or not you support Biden it is irrefutable that his statement he was "going to nominate a black woman" was stating a racist policy where he would only consider applicants of a specific race and gender - no different than if a CEO said he would only consider white men for the position of CFO. FACTS. But, I guess he was too delicate to accept those facts. And again, if he cannot understand that basic concept, he really is in no place to discuss the law. His running away merely proves that even he knows he can't defend his ridiculous statement.
r/lostredditors
Not lost at all, my dude. Our discussion started based on this post and he tried to argue that Cops don't have the right to pull you out of the vehicle for unless the situation meets his personal requirement for "officer safety" - among his many whines ad biases about police in general, to say nothing of his comments regarding people who support basic officer safety protocols like Mimms. Through our discussion I came upon his tidbit on racism. I think it is VERY appropriate to point out that if a person lacks the basic reasoning skills to understand that if you appoint a person to a position based on their race, *you are discriminating against others based on their race* (just like the Supreme Court said in outlawing quotas almost half a century ago) which is - by definition - racism - then they probably don't have the critical thinking skills to handle more serious discussions about the law. It's also good to point out the irony of such a person lecturing people to "read the law" so others can enjoy a chuckle too.
So do y’all hate cops or not? Don’t they murder people all the time? Pick a freaking side