Wow, thank you!

Thanks very much for your comment!

I'm glad you enjoyed the videos so far. Believing I had already reviewed the important rights, I had not planned on extending the series. However, is there something you wanted to learn about?

I certainly believe not enough Americans are aware of their Constitutional Rights! Thank you Sir!

@@ronburgundy1855 I'm glad I could help you.

@@GustitisLaw just more in general please. in depth info

@@fbofiles Thanks for your request. Remember, legal advice is dependent upon both law and facts. Since my videos are not created with any specific factual situation in mind, they can only be general in nature. But I will consider your thoughts.

Well said!

Of course. Thank for your kind words.

Simply keep silent. The police will do what they want to do. If something happens, your lawyer will sort that out later. You have very little control over what happens on the street. Protect yourself with silence.

You cannot control what they do. You can only control what you do. I think you can take it from there.

Glad it was helpful!

of course!

Thanks, Tom.

Hard to speculate, but thankful the encounter ended without any mishaps.

Probably a knee at the back of his neck and him dead. That's every cop on the force so, he could throw people down. joined cause he was bullied in school and take it out on everyone the cop can take it out on.

In California, Driving is a privilege and as such, the Vehicle specifies what Police can and can't do. One of these is, any officer can stop any car/truck for an inspection. Did you know? You cannot modify any vehicle exhaust louder than stock. Every light has to work properly. I stopped a Chevy 1 ton crew cab dually because he covered his headlight and taillights with solid covers painted to match his custom scallops. While talking to the driver, I noticed a Monster Tachometer on his dash so I looked underneath. His catalytic converter was removed. Another time, a '67 Chevelle rumbled by with Flow Master mufflers. These are 4X louder than stock. I'm a shady tree mechanic and recognized the sound of a cam shaft bigger than stock. I opened the hood and the stock distributor was replaced by a mechanical advance distributor. The intake was a single plane design and the exhaust manifolds were replaced with headers. He was missing his A.I.R. pump. All violations of smog laws.

@@rickuyeda4818 Driving is a privilege in all 50 states, so that's not a California thing. They can cite a vehicle for infractions, but an under-hood inspection would be a warrantless search where it pertains to non-commercial vehicles. They DO have the right to perform an inspection for vehicles which require a CDL to operate, but that is based on an entirely different section of codes, and does not apply no regular cars/trucks.

Cool story, bro. What are you leaving out?

Of course. I appreciate your kind words.

Glad it was helpful!

Of course.

Nor did I know the detective were there because my probation officer just kept saying it’s one last thing I need you to do after your drug test I just feel like it was an ambush even tho I knew there wasn’t any charges against me I wasn’t aware that I was free to just walk out of my probation office because I didn’t know what my probation officer needed me to do because it wasn’t yet stated I was just thrown in there with him with no explanation but the detective did tell me he had reason of suspicion because someone told him I was there during a crime even though I wasnt

Prosecutors will ALWAYS try to use your statements against you. Your attorney will raise the issue and attempt to suppress them. In the end, the judge will decide whether the statements are admissible. Good luck and thanks for your visit.

If you had an attorney with you, they would instruct you to keep your mouth completely shut. I’m telling you what to do ahead of time. Every other issue you mentioned is irrelevant. Who cares how long the hold you, don’t say a word.

Thanks for visiting and for your kind words.

Thanks for your comment. It's well reasoned and probably helpful to others.

I don't believe any such books exist. You'll need to learn from sources you can and then share them with the children. Good luck!

@@GustitisLaw thank you very much sir & I really appreciate your response. I recently came across your channel & I have been watching it every since. Thank you for taking the time to be so informative.

@@big-aimpalancapricenationi3217 You are very welcome!

Thanks for your comment! Their shotgun out on the street is their knowledge and application of these rights. These rights are used to protect them in the courtroom, not out on the street. They can't control the cop's behavior, but they can control their own. The court does not appoint a lawyer at the time of the arrest. Consequently, people must know how to protect themselves by exercising these rights.

@@GustitisLaw the answer I was looking for. Thank you

@@barrykelly2722 So unfortunately, the individual that was arrested, if unable to afford an attorney or bond, will simply be stuck in jail for who knows how long. Fortunately, I've never found myself in a situation like this. Because it's A LOT cheaper to just obey the law. But I have had friends and a brother in such a situation. Some were in jail, pretrial, for 3, 4, 6 months. I've heard of much longer, like 12 months. Yes, by that time they will have had a lawyer provided. But let's be completely honest here. It''s VERY VERY rare to have an appointed attorney that truly has your best interest in mind. I've seen it time and time again. I do have first hand knowledge of that very thing, but as a minor. Although my parents were definitely able to hire a attorney for me. They refused to. So the court appointed me one. That guy simply didn't give a flip about my case and didn't have any problem showing it. So the real truth about appointed attorneys is pretty ugly.

I don't know. Why don't you call the police and ask them.

@@GustitisLaw Hmm, you wrote you don't know! You should stop making these videos stating YOU know the law and people's rights about police.

Thank you for your visit!

@@GustitisLaw You are most welcome! Where in Texas do you practice law?

@@davidalen9279 BRAZOS County

It depends upon your state's law on identification.

I have no idea. We don't have pre-lims in my state.

They are not required to tell you anything. As long as they have legal cause to hold you, they can do so. Please discuss your personal situation with your defense attorney to determine whether you have any grounds for a motion to suppress evidence.

@@GustitisLaw your response here is a bit confusing to me. You state that we have the right to know what we are being arrested for. But if we ask this they don't have to answer?

@@stakino54 In my comment responser, I don't believe I said we have the right to know what we are being arrested for. I actually said: "As long as they have legal cause to hold you, they can do so." So, I'm not sure what's confusing about that.

@@GustitisLaw but if you ask them if they have legal cause to hold you, are they required to answer?

@@GustitisLaw While this original poster's comment was about a detainment and not an arrest, at 1:55 in the video you did state that if you are arrested, you have the right to know why you are being arrested. I have heard other lawyers make the opposite claim, that at the time of arrest they do not have to cite particular charges, and can work those out with the prosecuting attorney later.

Unfortunately, since I have no access, at all, to the evidence in this matter, I cannot give any opinions about the efficacy of a suppress hearing or what the next steps might be. Since both are legal advice, I am unable to provide legal advice over the Internet. Your BF's defense attorney can better answer your questions. I wish I could help.

You potentially get arrested for failure to identify. Why would you want to hide this information from the police anyway?

@@GustitisLaw If it’s not an stop and ID state then why would you give it up?

@@STLHUSTLE314 Because it does no harm.

@@STLHUSTLE314 Why not? What do you fear? What harm does it cause you to identify yourself to the police?

@@GustitisLaw I don't know what stupid info they have in their system. Utah v. Strieff 2016 SCOTUS case. Even if the ask was unlawful, if they have a warrant, bogus or otherwise, they can use it to arrest and search you. And it all gets into court. May I also make mention of more then a few cases of warrants with similar names getting people arrested. And then the false arrested people spending time in jail, with no bond, trying to prove their innocence. To be in the system is to invite more harassment, justifiable or not. I would always choose not.

I agree! Thanks for visiting, nevertheless.

No, they do not. In fact, even if you are staying the night only, the law still applies.

That would be a matter of your state's law. I don't know what the law says in your state about these issues. With that said, I would speculate the police can seize the weapon for their protection and the protection of the public. And why would you want to resist disarmament? Do you want to get shot??

You have the same rights, but you have additional immigration problems that citizens don’t have. Great question.

I'm not sure what you are asking me about being "true." But if you are referring to U.S. Constitutional rights, then yes, they apply in every state of the Union.

That is a matter of State law. But I don't know why anyone would be worried about identifying themselves.

I don't know. However, there is probably a GPS device inside their iPhone.

All U.S. Constitutional rights I mentioned in the video apply to every state.

I don't understand your comment or you question, if you had one.

Sure you can, but they won't give you one since you are not legally entitled a lawyer at that stage. You must be under formal charges before the right to an attorney attaches.

I don't know.

I cannot do legal research for free. I'm sorry.

No problem. I already did the legal research that you should have done before posting your video. What I said is correct. That will be $500 please. I cannot do the legal research that YOU should be doing for free.@@GustitisLaw

No. It is very common for the police not to cite you for the initial reason for the stop.

Playing hardball with the police is a tricky business. Whether legal or not, they have the power to make your life miserable. There may be situations where you would not legally be required to get out of the car, but identifying those opportunities is basically impossible without a law library at your immediate disposal. The easiest thing to do during a traffic stop is to remain silent.

@@GustitisLaw so what you are saying is we should bow down to the police.

@@timbaker8498 Be smart on the street. Playing hardball with the cops is tricky. If you are prepared to go to jail, pay a bondman, possibly loose your job, and pay thousands to a defense attorney, then play all the hardball you want. But discretion is always the better part of valor.

Yes.

I'm not a lawyer. He can come everyday and call every night, but you don't have to answer the door, or reply to the phone calls. You don't have to talk to him at all. And you shouldn't talk to him at all. No small talk. Nothing. If he is there without a warrant, and you are not under arrest, the reason he wants to talk to you is cuz he doesn't have shit on you until you give it to him. Or he needs you to give him some evidence as a witness. Just ignore him. If he detains you for questioning, same answer. Don't talk about anything. If he leaves a card you can call your lawyer and ask him what to do or he can contact him and tell them the same thing. The answer is always the same. Don't willingly talk to the police about anything, under any circumstances, for any reason, whatsoever, under the sun. Couple guys I know got in a fight. One was harassing the other. Driving by, yelling, honking, swearing, throwing garbage on the property. For a few nights, he would keep doing this. His ex was inside her new lovers home. 4th night, new bf walked outside to tell old bf to cool it or his ex chick is gonna call cops, and no one wants cops nosing around. Old bf is pissed and comes at new bf swinging. New bf has a flash light in hand, cuz it's a dark street, and bops ex bf in face and head a few times with it. Self defense on his own lawn. Ex bf has enough damage to go to ER for stitches. They are required to report it. Cop shows up. Questions victim. Victim leaves out all but fight. Cop goes to lovers nest. Questions new bf about incident. Comes off as sympathetic. Identifies with him, sez been in similar situ. New bf, shook up over whole ordeal, thinks cop is understanding, will see his perspective, self defense as nut job attacks him at night on his own front lawn. Sez old bf has been harassing us etc, tells rest of story. Sez old bf came at him. Admits to fighting. Does not admit to using weapon. Bam. Arrested and charged and booked and jailed. Cop searches his house for flashlight weapon, without warrant, when no one is home, finds meth para, a flashlight, but not THE flashlight, takes both. Charges added for para. Flashlight taken as evidence. New bf hasn't admitted to using weapon yet. When cop has it and is taking it as evidence, new bf sez, "thats not even the same flashlight. Bam. They never did get the original flashlight. Didn't matter. And he is found guilty of whatever assaults and does a few months in jail. All he had to do was not go outside to talk to the jealous ex bf. And all he had to do was not answer the door when the cop came. And if detained, keep his mouth shut. And if arrested keep his mouth shut. Ex bf is not arrested or charged with anything. Interesting, unrelated side note... Chief of police that arrested him was busted for having sex with a teenager about a month later. And accused of others previous to her. He's a serial statutory rapist! Months later, cop is found guilty and put in prison. Don't trust cops. Listen to this lawyers advice. Keep your mouth shut, no matter how long you are sitting there for. Don't consent to anything.

Juveniles may have special procedural rights that adults don't have. But your constitutional rights are the same.

I don't know because I'm unfamiliar with the facts leading to your stop and detention.

@@GustitisLaw its mostly they see me at store then pull doen the road an wait. also following my wife in stores. pulling her over an asking where im at

The police are entitled to search you upon arrest or if they have probable cause. Police most often ask you if you have weapons. There is nothing wrong with the question. They will search you whether you respond or not.

I really don’t understand your question. Can you rephrase it, please?

The question is," If I wasn't under arrest ( as the officer plainly stated as I recall, No! But, we can't let you go in this condition ).Again if I wasn't under arrest ; but, I wasn't free to go, and I had already been tactfully interrogated for at least forty minutes to an hour by them, was this for example custodial interrogation?

Hope I did a better job at explaining.

At what point here should I have been made aware of my Miranda Rights?

Probably not. If they impersonated an attorney, then statements made to them are probably involuntary.

I don’t know. I would need to review all the facts and circumstances related to your case.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments only protect you *at trial.* Because anything you say to Police can be used against you at trial, the protections are triggered when interacting with Police. However, if Police do not honour these rights, they have *not* violated them. Since the rights exist to protect someone from *prosecution* in a *criminal case,* all it means is that the statements you make cannot be used against you *at trial.* (See _Chavez v. Martinez,_ holding that compelled incrimination does not violate the Constitution if it isn't used against him in court). Some examples of statements that are automatically considered "compelled" include: ** Failure to inform an individual of his right to remain silent and his right to consult with a lawyer (Miranda v. Arizona). This only applies during custodial interrogation. See _California v. Beheler_ (defining "custodial") and _Rhode Island v. Innis_ (defining "interrogation"). The Miranda rule applies to juveniles as well as adults and is more strict with juveniles. See _J.D.B. v. North Carolina; In re J.D.B._ There is one exception to the Miranda rule: public safety (New York v. Quarles). ** Failure to allow an individual to speak with a lawyer during custodial interrogation (Escobedo v. Illinois). ** Failure to cease all questioning until a lawyer is present after an individual requests a lawyer (Edwards v. Arizona). ** Threats or risks, e.g. a risk of bodily harm (Holt v. People of the Territory of Utah) As I've already stated, the rules being broken does not constitute a Fifth or Sixth Amendment violation unless the statements obtained as a result are used against you. For example, Police in _Alexander v. City of Round Rock_ (Fifth Circuit) attacked a man for remaining silent. Since he was under no obligation to speak per the Fifth Amendment, their use of force aginst him was excessive and thus violated the Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures. But since no statements were used against him, his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated.

However, it should be noted that the Supreme Court has recognized a reasonable time to secure counsel before trial and a right to have him during trial. It wrote in Rothgery v. Gullespie County: _By the time a defendant is brought before a judicial officer, is informed of a formally lodged accusation, and has restrictions imposed on his liberty in aid of the prosecution, the State’s relationship with the defendant has become solidly adversarial... a criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel._ Aa far as income restrictions go, the Supreme Court recognized in _Gideon v. Wainwright_ that any individual who cannot secure counsel himself must be given one free of charge, regardless of his amount of "income." However, although the Sixth Amendment guarantees a "good and reliable" attorney, it's best to have one on-hand rather than trusting the government to appoint one for you-the same government that wants you behind bars.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You must apply for a Public Defender. During the prelim, if you don't have an attorney, a Public Defender will be assigned only for the prelim. Then there are forms to fill out to see if you qualify.

Yes.

I doubt the police must tell you why you are getting arrested anywhere in the country.

In Texas, if the police have reasonable suspicion to detain you, they have the right to identify you. Other state law may be different.

That depends upon state law. In general, so many of my readers are concerned about identifying themselves. But I cannot figure out why.

@@GustitisLaw it’s much easier for cops to harass you and/or your family if they know who you are and where you live. Without already having a lawyer present, it can be hard to guess why they want to know. It’s like inviting them to come stake out my house if they can’t get what they want by talking to me. Finally, it’s common sense to avoid telling strangers where you live, and not to be careless with personally identifying information. Not being a lawyer, I don’t understand exactly how remaining silent is helpful either. Along the same lines, not knowing how/whether your identity and address can/will be used against you is the whole point of withholding them.

@@stevenharder308 Why would they want to spend valuable resources on such folly unless they had intelligence that criminal activity was afoot. I’ve been showing my ID to the cops for years and I’ve never been harassed nor had them stake-out my home. Are you sure nothing else is going on?

@@GustitisLaw since the decision has to be made without knowing what they think is afoot, I’d rather limit their options-and I’d rather never get to the point where I had to hire a lawyer. If I have to appear in a police report that gets cross-referenced with God knows what, I’d prefer to appear as something like “a white male subject”.

@@GustitisLaw I suppose the bottom line is this: if I don’t break the law, the only way I can be convicted of a crime is to be falsely convicted. The surest way to avoid that seems to be never to appear in a police report.

My standard fee on a felony is $10k. So I don't think such a fee is unreasonable. That is an excellent question.

"A friend." Suuuuure 🙄

That, of course, is a possibility. Most don’t. Some would.

Yes they can make up any lie to detaine just know your rights brotha

@@myyoutubechannel3161 That's right. Encourage everyone to keep their mouths SHUT! Thanks for commenting.

Gustitis Law if you watch amendment audit videos, you will unfortunately see that most do. Seems to be about 70-80% of the time they illegally detain you

@@shoobadoo123 Thanks for your informed comment. It is always a battle.

Yes, if they have probable cause or your consent. They can arrest you if they have probable cause you were committing a crime.

If you look like a suspect they are searching for, that would be reasonable suspicion to ask for identification..

The technical rule is a person must "invoke" their right to silence. However, once the person starts talking, the chances are good they will say too much. I tell my clients to simply keep their mouths shut.

They can seize the phone if they believe there's probable it contains evidence. But they need a search warrant to examine the contents of the phone.

I once turn the phone to them, they can see what I was doing prior to the accident

@@josuemaceda7623 They need a search warrant first.

@@GustitisLaw thank you for your reply

@@josuemaceda7623 Of course!

What’s your point?

I don't know under these circumstances you described.

Miranda warnings are dependent upon official police custody, rather than the temporary detentions we face during a traffic stop. The difference between an investigative detention and custody is well established in the law.

If you are pulled over in a car and you give false identity information to the police, that would be a crime whether or not you had been read your Miranda rights. The Motor Vehicle codes in all states are pretty clear about your privilege to drive being subject to regulation, and one of those regulations is the requirement to produce valid identification during a traffic stop. That identification may have to be the physical driver's license, depending on the state, or it could be as low of a bar as verbally identifying yourself sufficiently.

Since I have no access to the law and evidence applicable to this case, there is no way I can competently give advice. My only suggestion is for your friend to remain silent and hire a qualified criminal defense attorney immediately.

And how long were the narcs surveilling you....I mean your "friend"?

And your question is?

@@Grumpyin In Texas, where I practice, if the police have reasonable suspicion to detain you, 38.02 prohibits a person from giving a false name, birthdate, etc. If you remain totally silent, they will STILL take you to jail because they can . . . they are the police. You might later beat the case in court, but why go through all the hassle. Just identify yourself and keep your mouth shut.

So in the case that the officer frisks you unnecessarily you should not resist of course. But how should you go about then reporting that officer?

of course

In Texas, if a cop has reasonable suspicion to detain you, they have the authority to identify you. I am not familiar with laws in other states that may be different. Nevertheless, I don't understand why folks are so concerned about identifying themselves.

Only under custodial interrogation. Otherwise, no.

Yes, but they need a search warrant to get into it. Good question.

You have the right not to incriminate yourself. Your identity is not deemed incriminating. That’s why they can extract your name from you.

If the US constitution is the supreme law of land how are they allowed to disobey it ?

@@mohican19831 The constitution says you have the right not to incriminate yourself. If revealing your identity does not incriminate yourself, then how does that violate the constitution? I believe your understanding of the constitution is flawed.

I see the 5th as being silent period I'm not saying anything . lawrighters it seems are trashing the US constitution

Provide your identity and then keep your mouth shut.

Out of courtesy most police officers tell the person the reason for the arrest. That is done to calm them. The police cannot get in trouble if they don't tell the subject,.

No James, I am not interested. Thanks.

@@GustitisLaw LMAO

SovCit nutcase

First, you have no idea what the cop is thinking, regardless of what you think. What is the harm in identifying yourself?

@@GustitisLaw lol i juS didn’t want to talk to the cop

@@Ishbennett There is risk and benefit in everything. Thanks for visiting.

@@Ishbennett I understand. The problem is you don't know what the police are contacting you for. There is nothing wrong with identifying yourself. Don't answer any more questions than that. Thanks.

Your use of "right" is misplaced. Rights are outlined in the Constitution and apply to the public.

@@E_from_KS I appreciate your visit and your kind words.

For what kind of conduct? Generally, that would be a question for a civil rights attorney.

Yes.

That's an interesting position. Are you guilty?

They can pull you over if they know you don’t have a license. The other question is a matter of your state traffic laws.

@@GustitisLaw how do you find that out without being lied to the sheriffs and city cops are all crooked they go out to the bars for a bachelor party and they are all drunk but its ok for them to do it and still have a job but they can sit down the street from me and or drive by to see who all i have at my house or to catch me driving but theres a drug problem in our town but there more concerned about me driving

I don’t know. I wish I could help you but I’m not in the appropriate position to do so.

Chris, don't listen to the Sovereign Citizen bullcrap about not needing a license to drive a motor vehicle. They are basing that on the delusion that commonlaws from 200 years ago are still the law of the land. Our laws have been codified since then, and there is caselaw out of the yin yang demonstrating that you must have a valid license to operate a motor vehicle, even for non-commercial purposes. If you are in operation of a motor vehicle, then you are driving, not "traveling", and are subject to all of the motor vehicle statutes that go along with that.

@@christusler5997 put the meth pipe down, pay your fines, and get your driver's license back and you won't have that problem

Some states do not required identification under certain situations. However,, you don't know whether one of those situations applies to you or not when you are out on the street. Why would you fear identifying yourself?

@@GustitisLawThe Fourth and Fifth Amendments is why I will not identify, also I am not obligated to assist police in their investigations.

The only thing the constitution protects you from is testimentary evidence. Identifying yourself is not testimentary.

@@opencarry3860 all stop and ID laws mean is that you can catch an extra charge for refusing to ID. If there is RS to detain you, the detention doesn't end until you're ID'd - period.

That depends upon your state's law.

That depends upon your state's law. Further, I don't understand the big deal about identifying yourself to the police. Is it simply a matter of rebelling or is there another angle I don't see?

I don't know. I don't sue the police. Sorry I could not be of any help.

I don't know. I don't practice law in PA.

That’s true. But I have no problem with people identifying themselves. Since the act of identifying oneself is non-testimentary, it is not protected by the 5th Amendment.

Wrong. You have to identify yourself either way, regardless of whether you think the arrest is legal or not.

I you play with fire, you will get burned. Don't give the cops any reason to be angry with you. Exercise your rights and keep quiet.

Great comment. Thanks.

Being a minor or an adult, the rules are just the same. If you keep your mouth shut, you run less of a risk of incriminating yourself. That is true for adults, as well. Does that help??

@@GustitisLaw yup thx 👍

@@yo.mother451 Of course!

They must have reasonable suspicion to stop you, whether for a traffic offense or any other offense. Once they have reasonable suspicion, they can ask for identification.

@@GustitisLaw In any state? I thought reasonable suspicion only allowed them to get your ID in a stop and ID states.

@@jessicaoswell7361 Texas is a reasonable suspicion state. Other states may allow the police to obtain ID without reasonable suspicion.

@@GustitisLaw In Texas you only have to ID after you have been lawfully arrested. Penal code 38.02. In no state are you required to ID with out at least a reasonable suspicion of breaking a law. Terry v Ohio Police can’t force you to ID just because they want you to for no reason.

@@markmixon1121 I’m sorry, but you are wrong about the law in Texas. See section (b). But if you want to talk about things out on the street, if you don’t identify yourself, you are spending the night in jail. I guess, if you want to go to jail on principle, that’s up to you.

What happened to you?

@@GustitisLaw I was power walking on the San Antonio River walk at 5am Sunday per my custom. An "officer" accosted me and demanded to know what I was doing and why. So I complied and told him. I also told him I was about to "scare crow" my transient over run downtown property after my walk. He then claimed I was nervous and exhibiting signs of mental distress and agitation due to the fact I was sweating. I suddenly realized he was empowered to take me into custody on a mental health warrant and was about to make that decision. The thing that saved me was that I saw how ill fitting his uniform was, and that he did not even recognize the MAJOR intersection where my building was. I challenged him verbally on not being a policeman, because he did not know the area. So he backed off and let me go. I reported him as a possible fraud to our own authorities. Days later, I saw a calendar and realized that he approached me on the morning of September 11, very near the Alamo shrine. I have come to believe he was an out of town Federal Agent dressed in a local police uniform on some kind of anti-terrorism watch for 9/11. I know in my gut that if I hadn`t called him out on his confusion over the street names and layout, I would still be being questioned by him, and most likely calling my spouse after 'vanishing" for two or three days. P.S. That incident was what led me to these videos on asserting your rights with the police. Videos like yours. It was terrifying, being subject to arrest on the personal whims, suspicions and/or flawed judgement of a man three or more educational and financial levels below myself. If I had known what I know now, I would have refused to engage him verbally at all, asserted my rights and not bought into his mind games one bit. He was more concerned with being "right" than being sympathetic or even logical.

@@Kharkovkid lmao....the bullshit you're spewing is incredibly stinky

Why ask anything? Even if they lie to you, it doesn't help. If you start talking, that will encourage the cops to continue talking and asking questions.

@@GustitisLaw I would be recording the contact and if they respond to my question, then I will know if I can peaceably go on my way or not. If I am being detained, then they need to provide the legal reason for the detainment and if they do not I will have that on record. Asking questions of them is quite different than me answering their questions, which I wouldn't do.

Thanks for giving your opinion on this thread. It may help others in similar situations.

Good comment.

The judge would listen to the cop’s testimony, and any other contrary evidence, and then decide whether the cop’s testimony is credible. If yes, then the court will deny the motion to suppress. If no, then you will win.

I’d suggest to be prepared to film/record any encounter with a public servant or police officer. For they can record for their safety, so can you.

Identification is a matter of state law. You must be familiar with it to know whether you must ID or not. If you are required to ID, but you don't, you are going to jail, regretfully.

My telephone 'wigged out' frustratingly, so I will see if I am able to conclude here, so here goes.... "However, I do not know anything regarding 'detentions' under U.S. federal or state laws, and I am hoping that you may be able to shed light on this subject, thank you. [Denver, Colorado]

I cannot shed light on anything. Please hire an attorney in Colorado to help you. Good luck.

Why take a chance? How do you know the police do not have reasonable suspicion? How do you know the police won’t lie about their reasonable suspicion? Why would you want to get arrested, pay for bail, and risk criminal prosecution all over a failure to identify? Over principle? That is not a smart tactic out on the street.

@@GustitisLaw this isn't nazi Germany. Give me your papers! Don't be a quack.

@@thuxta Before you come to my Channel and start calling people names, get your law degree and then I’ll talk to you.

@@GustitisLaw I have a degree in another field. I just know my rights counselor.

@@GustitisLaw I didn't call you a name if you read my comment correctly. I said don't be one not that you are one. Thank you

They typically need reasonable suspicion to stop you. Then they can identify you.

This cannot be answered without you saying what state you are in. Some states do still have laws on the books that require you to identify yourself in any encounter with the police (stop and identify). Other states have statutes which say that you only have to identify when they have RAS that a crime is involved (past, present, or future).

@@thedude6712Thanks I live in New York State and walking my dog and was stopped.

Who invokes individual rights? Who enforces those rights? Neither answer involves the police. It’s your choice to believe what you want. If you want to confess, then that is your choice, as well.

@@GustitisLaw The big issue is that law has nothing to do with policing. We all know it, and we all see it every single day.

@@kevindunlap5525 How about something specific, first hand examples? Not what you see on TV.

I don't understand the big deal about identifying yourself to the police. Is it simply a matter of rebelling or is there another angle I don't see?

@@GustitisLaw If it wasn't a big deal there wouldn't be a 4th Amendment. An entire war was fought so Americans can be free from governmental tyranny which included showing papers on demand. Some people don't see what the big deal of letting the government search their homes without warrants, but as a lawyer I doubt you encourage that behavior, lol. So, I will demand that all legal steps be taken before I allow them into my home/car or show/tell them my identity.

@@JustSomeRandomGuyOnKZfaq I disagree that identifying oneself is governmental tyranny. Paying taxes to the IRS is more tyranny than giving the police your identification.

@@GustitisLaw I don't disagree that taxes are tyrannical, but I also don't hear of too many people volunteering to pay taxes when they don't have to. Just like people shouldn't volunteer to ID when they are not legally obligated to. Some people don't think it's a big deal to talk to the cops without a lawyer. They will tell you that if you have nothing to hide you should talk to them, lol. I can't see you questioning the angle of waiting for a lawyer.