The strangest part for me of it was the ID thing. In Russia, having bad police as we do, it's still a strict requirement that an officer must show his ID to a citizen whenever a citizen in question asks that, and he also must fully introduce himself when he addresses a citizen or vice versa, giving his full name, unit name, and rank. The only exception is if there's a threat to officer or overs. I'm really surprised that American police (open-minded and always glad to talk to you and help you, in my experience) is so concerned about IDs.

 

Undercover thing is actually difficult for me to understand since here no unmarked units are used during patrols (legally allowed but never used IRL). Only federal protective service and some high-ranking officials are allowed to install lights&siren on an unmarked vehicle. So if I saw a civilian car here flashing blue lights I would probably speed up and try to get away.

 

In America I got in trouble because of that: mistook two officers in a beat-up unmarked red Crownvic for crooks, and ran away :D They were nice enough to let me go with a search and warning. But really, the only thing that was law-related was a little blue light on the dashboard. When they got out, they were in dark clothes, with guns drawn, and no badges shown. How was I supposed to know that's police? It takes some balls to ask for an ID looking at two pistol barrels. 

 

Interesting yet not surprising set of responses from you guys. If I may play the devils advocate here, I'll attempt to side with him due to a couple small points.

 

Impersonation. I'm sure you guys have heard about the incidents where people have been pulled over by unmarked "officers" who weren't officers at all. Then there's the flip side, if I go grab a retired CVPI, that "screams police vehicle" what with the ram bar, steel wheels and spotlight, should that be acceptable in the eyes of the public?

 

It seems we have built up a bit of a grey area, where civilians and officers alike can drive almost identical looking vehicles, and some are taking advantage of it. 

 

Police impersonation doesn't happen frequently enough for it to be a real threat, and when it does happen, a little common sense on the part of the potential victim can easily resolve the situation. A quick Google search couldn't find any recent impersonation attempts in the news for Washington state, and the few examples I did find were someone who pulled up next to a vehicle and held up a sign that said "Sheriff" on it. The other was someone with a single flashing light and when the victim pulled to the side, the impersonator drove past them. When he was arrested, he said the victim was driving too slowly and he just used to light to get them to pull to the right and out of the way.

 

Even the few incidents of actual police impersonators that I have heard of or found in news reports could potentially have been avoided. Impersonators don't have thousands of dollars worth of lighting equipment, police do. Impersonators don't usually wear a full police uniform, real police do. And every real world agency that has been contacted by the news regarding an impersonation incident has clearly advised the public that if in doubt, drive responsibly without pulling over, call 911 and ask the dispatcher to verify the traffic stop. If anyone could articulate reasonable suspicion that they were being pulled over by an impersonator and followed this common sense advice, they wouldn't get in trouble for it.

 

 

It may be a waste of time for the officer, and a stupid argument, but I agree with the overall message of the author of the video. 

Police in America have this idea that they can and will do whatever the hell they want, and they have this idea because they are never held accountable under the claims of "within their force" and often times "resisting arrest". Accountability within departments and agencies nationwide would surely shape up the disgraceful act many agencies are presenting their citizens with. 

 

I think this officer was very professional and represented his department very well. Unfortunately this cannot be said for every situation and while I am a strong proponent of the idea that the small amount of bad apples outshadow the large amount of good ones, it sure would be nice to see a little more legal action regarding violations of those who serve the public 

 

There is a very big difference between wanting to hold police officers accountable for unlawful actions, and wanting to hold police officers accountable for actions that you may believe to be unlawful. A very large majority of the time that people cry foul and whine about their rights being violated or about police misconduct, it's really a simple case of the citizen not knowing what they are talking about while the officer was perfectly within the bounds of the law.

 

There is nothing wrong with wanting to hold police accountable for illegal actions, but in order to do that you have to actually know what is illegal and what "laws" you are just making up.

 

Here are a few examples that many people in this country don't understand, and frequently cry foul about because they mistakenly believe their "rights" have been violated:

 

• You do not have the right to remain in your vehicle during a traffic stop. Numerous case law rulings have established that during a traffic stop you have been lawfully detained and it makes no difference whether you are detained in your car or outside your car. If the police ask you to exit your vehicle for any reason, you are required by law to comply with that instruction. It does NOT however give an officer the right to search your vehicle, without consent or probable cause. Many people mistakenly claim a 4th amendment violation when asked to exit their vehicle, but the 4th amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure of your person or property. Exiting your vehicle does not constitute a search or seizure of your person or property, so the 4th amendment does not apply.

 

• You are required by law to identify yourself to a police officer if you have been lawfully detained, and this includes passengers in a vehicle during a traffic stop in most states. Here in Texas, our state statues require that all persons detained by a police officer identify themselves by name, address, and date of birth at a minimum. Passengers in a vehicle are also required to identify themselves, as they have been lawfully detained as witnesses to the violation committed by the driver and must be identified in the event the case goes to trial.

 

• It is against the law to fun from a police officer, even if you have actually committed no crime. The act of running from a police officer is in itself a crime and makes you subject to arrest, even if there are no other charges filed against you at the time of the arrest.

 

•  It is against the law to resist arrest, even if you believe the arrest is unlawful. Yes, the law actually says that it is illegal to resist an unlawful arrest. You have the right to due process, where you can establish the evidence in court that the arrest was unlawful, and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution because you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you are arrested unlawfully, go to court and prove it; that's how the system works. But here in Texas, even if the arrest is proven to be unlawful, you can still be prosecuted for resisting. Here's the Texas statue on this topic, note section (b). 

 

"Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.

 

• Here's a fun one some people in Missouri should pay attention to, the laws related to the use of deadly force DO NOT require that someone be armed in order to justify the use of deadly force against them. The law only requires that someone be reasonably perceived as an imminent threat of great bodily harm. An unarmed person can very easily present a reasonable threat of great bodily harm.

 

 

I could go on, but the point is that a very clear majority of the time someone complains about police misconduct, their complaint is simply the result of them thinking they know more about the law than the police officer that arrested them.

Edited October 24, 201411 yr by johnclark1102

I don't think the guy should have stopped the cop that was just a waste he should have filed a complaint with the agency or went to the agency that regulates the agency. I think it was more of a publicity stunt 

 

As for the interpretation of the Law, the officer states the vehicle is for patrol purposes, so that's not a special undercover assignment. Furthermore even if it was for traffic enforcement that would not be special nor should it be undercover. 

 

The intention of the Law is to make Law Enforcement vehicles more visible to the public and  to prevent impersonations and to prevent accidents. If this vehicle is used for patrol/ traffic purposes it should be marked and i would even go as far to say it should have a lightbar. 

 

If you are running code 3 down a busy road or maybe on a poorly lit road, the public needs to readily identify you as Law Enforcement so they can react accordingly. 

I can't believe the patience of this Deputy. He has as much patience as that Maine State Trooper who pulled over that guy in the red suv, and freaked out and ripped the citation up!