In Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of pretextual traffic stops.
On the evening of June 10, 1993, plainclothes vice-squad officers of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department were patrolling a “high drug area†of the city in an unmarked car. Their suspicions were aroused when they passed a Pathfinder truck that was sitting at a stop sign for what seemed an unusually long time. When the officers executed a U-turn in order to head back toward the truck, the Pathfinder suddenly turned, without signaling, and sped away. The officers followed and overtook the Pathfinder when it stopped behind other traffic at a red light. The officer approaching the truck immediately observed two large plastic bags appearing to contain crack cocaine in the hands of the passenger, Michael Whren. Whren and the driver were arrested, and illegal drugs were retrieved from the vehicle.
The defense moved to suppress, arguing the traffic stop was illegal. They said the justification for the stop – to warn the driver about traffic violations – was pretextual, and the officers did not have probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, to believe drug violations were occurring. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held the officers had probable cause to believe Brown violated the traffic code and, therefore, the stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The officers’ motivation to investigate possible drug violations was irrelevant.
In short, if a law enforcement officer witnesses a traffic violation, he or she may stop the vehicle in question, even if the officer’s actual goal is to investigate the possibility of other illegal activity. The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race.
As for creating (“license and registration?” “why are you reaching?!”) the observations that aroused your suspicions, that’s another matter…
~~~
https://rwp.yt/join
/r/realworldpolice
@realworldpolice
@What You Haven’t Seen
** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **
These two cops are total scum bags
RWP you're awesome for being non bias and reporting straight facts.
I appreciate the courage it must take to do that in the world today.
Low IQ move to reward dogs for merely indicating and not waiting for the confirmation of drugs
That cop is so condescending and gaslights the guy from the get go. The guy was being pretty difficult so I understand being on alert, but that cop is just a massive douchebag.
He literally was doing what asked for and immediately pulled out of his car and than the cop wants to search his car by getting his wallet. What a bunch of crappy cops
It would have been nice to include ALL the FOOTAGE. That way we could see that cop lied.
Cops approach on both sides of your car and ask u to get license and registration then ask you why you are reaching is kind of suspicious too. They do this so you get nervous and make mistakes that they can use against you later on.
He was told to put the window up and then down ?
I wonder how Donut Operator would spin this one to being Kareem's fault
What did the dog hit on or did I miss something
"Duuuude — have we treated you with any kind of disrespect??"
Well, yes sir. The handcuffs. The accusations. The whole attitude. But other than that….
Wtf was he doing wrong or reaching for???? I saw him reaching for absolutely nothing cop is lying like hell…. this is a B.S. stop
I love it when these young cops get all pumped up and super excited, then they spend an hour ripping the car apart JUST TO FIND NOTHING 😢
This is bad policing
They really look and act like they need a fix
I don't find the actions of the officer questionable or out of the ordinary. He has many years doing the job and knows how to handle the situation. My question is on the "alert" of the "drug dog". Clearly he alerted on the driver's side of the vehicle. The officers conducted a very thorough search and found nothing. This video should be kept by defense attorneys around the country and can be sued to challenge the PC for a search from an "alert" of a "drug dog". The dog was wrong and falsely alerted. I know there are other attorneys and investigators for attorneys that are scouring the US for these types of videos. Their plan is to present the results of their investigation to the Congress to get the PC law changed. This will be very interesting to follow how that all plays out. but from a legal "courtroom" standpoint, one video showing a false alert for drugs is enough to sow "reasonable doubt". That's all it takes.
Poor guy. If someone approached me like that itd make me INSANELY uncomfortable & feel viscerally unsafe. WtHeck?
Granted i would roll over quite quickly; if you're dealing with a clearly nutty/dangerous person, let go of any relatively small things youd normally stick up for. Not worth your safety or peace fighting with some nutty bully clearly Looking to cause an issue happy to use you to do that.
Poor guy. I wonder what it feels like, if its uncomfortable for people who are much more even-keeled to have to work alongside this insanely over-charged douchebag energy. :/
No wonder people HATE cops so much 🙄
K so any consequences for these disgusting pieces of shit??? Absolute scumbags.
ITS HARRASSMENT IN THE 1993 CASE AND ITS HARASSMENT TODAY. ID BE NERVOUS TOO IN THE CAR BECAUSE YOU POLICE TERRORISTS SHOOT FOR NO REASON. IM NERVOUS WATCHING THIS VIDEO BECAUSE YOU POLICE THUGS KEEP DESTROYING FAMILIES WITH NO REAL PROBABLE CAUSE R.I.P. BREONNA TAYLOR WHO WAS MURDERED BY POLICE FOR NOOOOOO. REEEAASSSONNN!
First of all, you, as a driver, DON'T have to roll your windows all the way down. This is a trick by cops to say that they smell the odor of weed. Roll them down enough to be able to converse with the cop if you choose to.