Illinois State Trooper at “Safety” Checkpoint Violently Confronts Driver for asking Questions (Video)

Note: This was submitted by Ricardo Treto , via the Cop Block submission page.

Ryan Scott - Dekalb resident stopped at an unconstitutional police checkpoint. 9/20/14Date of Incident: 9/20/14
Individual(s) Involved: At least 5 Unidentified  ISP Troopers (per visual count)
Outfit Involved: Illinois State Police
Phone No./Email: (217) 786-6677/[email protected]
Click here to File a Citizen Complain with the Illinois State Police
Local Cop Block Affiliate: There are several Cop Block groups within Illinois, to find the appropriate affiliate in your area consult the Cop Block Groups page.

 

Ricardo states:

“This is one of my friends, who was stopped by a Illinois State Trooper that I actually know personally. This was in a suburban town called DeKalb in Illinois. These troopers were conducting a “safety” check. The man in the car had his window down an inch, so he could communicate. They asked for his ID and the man asked if he was being detained.

That is when a second trooper rips the door open violently and gets in the mans face, threatening him and trying to intimidate him. The trooper then slams his door very hard and throws the man’s info in his car. I hope to get this exposed and let people know that this kind of policing is going on in even nice neighborhoods like the one depicted here.”

No permission is needed to share this post, or any content housed at CopBlock.org.
Ideas have consequences – the more
good ideas are shared the better we all are.
Help fuel our efforts – donate
Bitcoin: 1D6hdGKcFfzciJaMSLU6X1Tq69fcCsEh65

Kelly is a lifelong resident of Las Vegas, who’s been very active in local grassroots activism, as well as on a national level during his extensive travels. He’s also the founder/main contributor of Nevada Cop Block, served as editor/contributor at CopBlock.org and designed the Official Cop Block Press Passes.
____________________________________________________________________________
Connect with Kelly at these social networks; Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

97 Comments

  1. Boy, really stood your ground there, didn’t you…..

  2. He sure did stand his ground, handed over everything they wanted. Sometimes its how you ask that matters. Ha ha ha.

    ….oh, and checkpoints, depending upon state, are constitutional, for like the hundredth time.

    1. That PIG needs anger management or a bullet to his head. Besides the PIGS had guns really fair huh

    2. They will never get that. But to be fair….the smart thing would have been to order him out of the car. When he fails to comply….arrest him and seize his phone for the video evidence which it contains. If he fails to provide the password….hold it until any trials and appeals are completed.

      1. Who says he would have failed to comply? And since when is prosecutorial retaliation the “smart thing” to do? You probably cost your town quite a bit in lawsuits.

        1. Cookie:
          I think if the officer hadn’t snatched the door open….this guy would have just continued down his little pre-planned obstructionist path about his being unlawfully stopped and askin if he was being detained. Had the officer just told him to get out out…..I doubt he would have complied.
          As it was…..he wet his pants when the door got snatched open. Kinda funny really.

          1. Yup, your town probably has huge legal costs because your union forced them to indemnify you.

          2. cookie:
            Ummmm…..I, like most cops, am not in a union nor can I be.

          3. Are you indemnified by your town?

          4. cookie:
            Depends on how you want to use it misuse that word.
            Will my city compensate someone or myself for injury that occurs during the legal execution of my duties? Then that answer is yes.
            But here’s what you don’t get: (a little free education for you)
            If I come to arrest you for whatever reason and there is a scuffle and you hit your head on the ground when I tackle you I call EMS, they say your OK and your refuse treatment. I then transport you to jail and book you in. 2 hours later you have a seizure and die while still in custody.
            Your family wants to sue. They sue me, my PD, the city, EMS, and the jail.
            Now….I, like most cops, am not in a union. By law….I, like most cops, can’t be in a union. So I have to provide my own legal defense. Now my attornies job will be to tie me to the PD (and therefore the city). My job will be to show that I didn’t violate policy and that I followed my training. The cities goal will be to try and distance itself from me by saying I didn’t follow training or something like that. Now…if I win that battle….I can basically sit back and force the city to defend me by defending itself.
            Now that situation isn’t going to be any different if the involved officer is in a union or not….other than te expense of it.
            The outcome of a case like that will
            Likely be a relatively small settlement as it is far cheaper to settle than it is to litigate.
            And in a situation like I described…I wouldn’t even get a day off (nor should I)

            I write all that to show that just throwing out a word like “indemnified” that youikely just heard somewhere is silly. It like your “union” line. It is uneducated and wrong and it shows that you are being led by others without knowledge.

          5. Why didn’t you just write yes? Why on earth would you think that I needed that overly long explanation?

            “” My job will be to show that I didn’t violate policy and that I followed my training. “” – This is probably the condition of your indemnification.

            “” a word like “indemnified” that youikely just heard somewhere “” – Ha ha. It’s obvious which one of us understands indemnification and which one of us think that it requires a long explanation.

          6. cookie:
            My first paragraph says it all.
            It depends on how you want to use or misuse that word. You are misusing and not understanding it at all.

          7. No, indemnification has a legal definition. Either you are indemnified by your town or you aren’t. Don’t you know? Is this question too complicated for you?

          8. cookie:
            Wow. You are dense.

            I’ll try it again though.

            It depends on how you want use or misuse that word.
            Will my city compensate me or someone else if they get injured (be it physical injury or injury to property of some kind) if that injury occurs during the course of my legal duties? To the large extent….yes.
            But if I “go off the reservation” and do something outside the law and act in an unreasonable manner….no.

            So again…..it depends on how you want to use or misuse that term.
            You are wanting to misuse it….kinda like your “all cops are in unions” beliefs You don’t understand your topic and are only going on what someone wrongly told you.

          9. “” Will my city compensate me . . . “” – Thanks for proving that you don’t understand indemnification.

          10. cookie:
            Sorry….I forgot to check back to this.
            Ah….so that’s th issue here. You….in typical CBer style…can’t understand the entirty of a comment….hence your out of context quote.

          11. t, it’s obvious that you don’t understand the legal concept of indemnification. If I asked your town’s lawyer if the town indemnifies their police officers he understand exactly what I’m asking and would be able to give me a straightforward answer. He wouldn’t say, “it depends on how you want to misuse the word.” Think about that before you respond.

          12. Btw, my question wasn’t a trap or intended to trick you into anything. I’m not sure why you’re being so paranoid about this issue.

          13. It’s funny that you’re trying to claim that it’s ME that doens’t understand the term.

          14. My opinion is he’s not a cop. More likely a security guard or corrections employee. That’s why the constant long-winded explanations.

          15. Department of Labor – Labor unions’ share of government workers in 2011 was more than five times as large as their share in the private sector. The bureau reports that 37 percent of public sector workers were unionized, compared with 6.9 percent of private sector workers. Since 2009, government employees — including police officers, firefighters, teachers and civil service employees — have accounted for more than half of all unionized workers. In 2011, for example, the 14.8 million union members included 7.6 million public sector workers and 7.2 million employees of private companies.

            I guess they disagree with your statement.

    3. Checkpoints are NOT constitutional…. uber fail smh

      1. The Supreme Court has ruled that they are. Not agreeing, just saying.

  3. The driver was playing games and the PD wouldn’t play along. I think the driver actually shit himself. The officer made it very clear the driver was not in control of the situation.The supreme court has ruled checkpoints do not violate any rights. As the officer was saying, “Driving is a privilege not a right”.

    1. “” [A driver] in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. “” US Supreme Court in Delaware v Prouse

      Just because some consider driving a privilege doesn’t mean that a driver doesn’t have rights. You’ve chosen the wrong argument here.

      The argument that you should have used is from the same case:

      “” The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. “” – US Supreme Court in Delaware v Prouse

      While the Supreme Court didn’t specifically say that “safety checkpoints” were legal, it stated that they weren’t outlawing them in their Prouse decision.

      1. Sorry but he went through a checkpoint. The supreme court has ruled these checkpoints are not illegal. HE found that out pretty fast.

        1. “” Sorry “” – your apology is accepted, thanks.

          Now, did you read my comment? I didn’t claim that safety checkpoints were illegal. I stated that your stupid “driving is a privilege” nonsense is not what allows them to demand a drivers license at a checkpoint. Read the Prouse opinion to see that the courts didn’t specifically say that a checkpoint was legal. It stated that such a checkpoint was a “possible” alternative to a random stop.

          1. Spare me your rant. Driving is a privileged. Again, the supreme court has ruled these checkpoints are legal and do not violate anyone’s rights.

          2. Spare me your “Driving is a privileged (sic)” drivel. I’ve been trying to explain to you that the supreme court’s ruling has nothing to do with the legal argument that “driving is a privilege”. The supreme court stated:

            “” [A driver] in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. “”

            So, the court didn’t say, “driving is a privilege therefore you don’t have rights.” The court made it clear that you have enough rights while driving to be free from overly intrusive government interference regardless of the government’s interest in public safety.

          3. The supreme court has ruled these checkpoints do not violate anyone’s rights. Driving is a privilege not a right.

          4. Government agents love to characterize things as privileges. Just because something is regulated, that doesn’t mean that it’s a privileges. Just because there are laws and limitations, that doesn’t mean that something is a privilege. Again, there are limitations on speech, bearing arms, walking, etc.

            It’s funny to see you make the same claim over and over again without addressing my point.

          5. You are biased.

          6. I’m not biased at all. I simply know the law better than you do.

          7. Post a link that would prove me wrong. Driving is a privilege not a right.

          8. It’s funny that you keep clinging to the same line over and over. It’s obvious that you thought that anything regulated is a privilege, and therefore absent any rights. You’ve been schooled. I look forward to correcting you on more legal issues in the future.

          9. You haven’t posted a reliable link which means you are stalling which means you are a liar. I am not surprised you are a liar but your rants and raves mean nothing.

          10. I told you to read the Prouse opinion. Have you ever in your life read a legal opinion, or do you just get all your knowledge from what other cops tell you?

          11. Legal opinion? In other words just an opinion not fact. Driving is a privilege not a right. Again, post a link to back up your statements.

          12. A court opinion in connection with its ruling is not “just an opinion.” It’s obvious that you don’t even understand the concept of common law. I’m going to have fun with you in these threads.

          13. Again, post a link that supports your statements. You are just avoiding the questions.

          14. Read a court ruling for once in your life. I’m sorry to be the first person to inform you that the world isn’t all black and white. I know that you’ve only ever learned easy to memorize cut&dry facts, but sometimes the world is more complicated.

            There’s a reason that law schools don’t just teach a bunch of facts to be memorized. There’s a reason that volumes and volumes of court opinions are required reading.

          15. You haven’t proven anything. You are just talking off the top of your head. Basically you are saying there is no proof to back up your statements.

          16. I’ve proven that you’re not very smart.

          17. That’s dead on. So stupid that he thinks somebody on this site might actually believe his horseshit. I’m a probation officer, I have your information, etc, etc. LOLOLOL. A complete and total douche.

          18. Apparently, he either cannot read or he is mentally deficient and cannot understand what he reads (what you’ve told him). LOLL that’s GOT to be it coz he keeps repeating the same exact thing. At first it was irritating, then annoying as hell but now it’s starting to get funny… and I haven’t even read beyond this point. Wait! Don’t tell me what comes next! “D’uuh Driving is a privilege and checkpoints are constitutional and exceedingly legal.” ;-)

    2. Why is driving a privilege? Just because the State says so? Maybe in the very near future the way things are going walking or even breathing will become a privilege if the state deems it so.

      1. Driving is a privilege because there are laws that must be followed. Should you break those laws, you are responsible for the consequences. DUI, loss of drivers license, possible interlock system on your car and or house arrest. You must have insurance on your vehicle. If you don’t you cannot drive the vehicle on public roads. ect…

        1. “” Driving is a privilege because there are laws that must be followed. “”

          This is an incredibly stupid sentence. There are always laws that must be followed. That doesn’t make everything a privilege. There are laws that must be followed when choosing one’s words, but that doesn’t mean that speaking is a privilege. There are laws that must be followed when walking down the street, but that doesn’t mean that walking is a privilege. There are laws that must be followed with guns, but that doesn’t mean that keeping and bearing arms is a privilege.

          But I know that many cops probably don’t realize this. They probably think that everything a citizen does is being privileged to the citizen by law enforcement officers that charitably allow them the privilege of not getting arrested.

          1. Again, driving is a privilege not a right. You must drive with in the laws of the state or you will lose your drivers license. At that point, you won’t be able to drive legally. The supreme court has ruled these checkpoints do not violate anyone’s rights and they are legal.

          2. Government agents love to characterize things as privileges. Just because something is regulated, that doesn’t mean that it’s a privileges. Just because there are laws and limitations, that doesn’t mean that something is a privilege. Again, there are limitations on speech, bearing arms, walking, etc.

            I’ve never once claimed that the courts have outlawed checkpoints. I’ve destroyed your claim for the legal basis. You just can’t admit it.

          3. You are another biased prejudiced street sheep. I know before you type your comment it is going to be very biased and prejudiced. You like to judge others on your prejudice and stupid bias because I can tell you are biased.

          4. You’ve GOT to get a grip… and start READING what’s being written to you. You’re a drone… get out of here and go join “the force” or something. LOLL … find some neo-N group to bother (or join).

          5. I’m not biased at all. I know the law. I’ve backed up my statements with quotes from SCOTUS opinions. You’re the one with all the biases.

          6. Another idiot streetsheep copblocker trying to imitate me and very poorly.

          7. Again you are wrong trollboy! Go to blazes with your Germanic nazi type thinking!

          8. You read every article with your mind closed to any facts. I already know the article is going to be very paranoid and twisting the truth before I even look at the headline. Because, unlike streetsheeps like you, I am not biased. I treat every article fairly and judge only on the facts.

          9. Another idiot copblocker trying to imitate me and very poorly.

          10. Prove it moron. Post a real scientific link that backs up your statements.

          11. Driving is a right that is earned through testing, being a cop is a privilege.

          12. No, driving is a privilege that can be taken away anytime should you break the law. Post a link that clearly says driving is a right.

        2. Very illogical tyrannical thinking. You vill vollow are ohders or ve vill smash you! You think lika nazi! Can’t be an American,just a poseur!

      2. Cops want to be in control at all times in every way. That’s the problem. That’s why black kips in Cleveland get shot within 1.5 seconds.

    3. Driving is a right you fuckin tool…. do some reading instead of listening to the fuggin gov….

    4. You’re completely fucking insane.

      You have an absolute right to use any conveyance on any public road.
      No the driver was not playing games–but he was standing up for his rights when being confronted/coerced into giving up his rights… which the cops low level/low mentality government employees) are trained to do.

  4. the tree of liberty will be fed soon

    1. Another streetsheep copblocker. Does it feel good to box others into these neat little categories so you can judge them by your fucked up biased prejudice standards? You are a tyrant.

      1. Another idiotic oompa loompa copblocker trying to imitate me and very poorly.

      2. you used a four syllable word, I know it’s not the real JC.

  5. ‘Safety Check’? WTF? Am I the only one who’s never heard of these? So that’s what they call it now, of course! All about your ‘safety’. Could they be any more obvious? They’ll pop up a State lines next, and people will be just fine with them…

    1. Most people agree that the Supreme Court blessed safety checks that aren’t subjective with respect to who gets stopped.

      “” The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. “” – US Supreme Court in Delaware v Prouse

      Given the facts of the case in Prouse, demanding to see a paperwork (including a drivers license) would not be considered overly intrusive. The only argument against complying with officers’ demands at safety checkpoints is if you have a reason to believe that they haven’t been properly established or being properly operated – but that’s difficult to determine at that time.

      1. But what is the justification? What are checking for?! I was about to ask if walking down the street will be a considered a privelege next, but we already have ‘Stop and Frisk’ so I guess that question’s been answered already. For me the worst thing is that we call this ‘The Land of the Free’ yet you can be stopped, questioned, and searched by the Government at any time; and most people are OK with it! It’s sick!

        1. Excellent questions that require a long answer.

          “” But what is the justification? “” – That the government has an interest in ensuring that the roads are safe. The courts have stated that this interest isn’t high enough to allow officers to stop people at their own discretion. But in this case the court specifically stated that the government’s interest in keeping the roads safe might be great enough to stop drivers formulaically (e.g. every car or every third car).

          “” What are checking for? “” – The court wasn’t specific, but indicated that a stop that wasn’t excessively intrusive would probably be ok. I doubt a court would consider a brief stop to check a drivers license and insurance would be overly intrusive as long as if was run systematically (as described in my preceding paragraph.

          “” if walking down the street will be a considered a privilege next “” – I don’t think so. 1. Courts have long held that a person’s home and body should be afforded the highest level of 4th Amendment protection when weighed against the interest of the government. 2. It’s likely that the government would have a more difficult time claiming that “walking down the street” could constitute as much of a public safety risk as driving a 3 ton vehicle at high speeds. So, when the government’s interest is weighed against the individual’s 4th Amendment interest both 1 and 2 make it less likely that the government would win this case.

          “” we already have ‘Stop and Frisk’ so I guess that question’s been answered already. “” – As difficult as this is to believe, I don’t think this question has actually been answered already. I don’t think stop-and-frisk has been challenged yet. However, given the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown vs. Texas, I think it’s likely that stop-and-frisk would be ruled unconstitutional. In Brown, the court said that the location and general suspicion of the “suspect” didn’t allow cops to legally detain him. That seems to describe S&F rather accurately.

          “” you can be stopped, questioned, and searched by the Government at any time “” – I share your concern, but it’s not really accurate to use the term “at any time.” Again there are only specific circumstances (some broad and some narrow) upon which you can be stopped, questioned, and searched by the Government. Additionally, the lowest threshold that makes a stop legal doesn’t make a search legal. A cop can’t legally stop your car simply because he had the right to stop your car (neither a reasonable suspicion stop nor a checkpoint stop) allow that. That being said, the Supreme Court made it clear that not all allowable searches are the same. For example, Terry v Ohio made it clear that the court would allow cops to conduct a “pat down” type search for weapons during a legal detainment if: i) the cop had a reasonable fear that the detainee had a weapon; and ii) the cop’s search wasn’t intrusive enough to be searching for anything other than a weapon. Now, this has been complicated by the fact that the some state courts have said that a cop may search a detainee’s wallet for identification under certain circumstances. I believe these circumstances involved situations in which the identify of the detainee was important (because the cop was looking for someone by a certain name) and situations in which the detainee claimed not to have identification despite the cops seeing a bulge in the wallet area.

          By the way, never let anyone tell you that a “pat down” isn’t a search. It most certainly is according to the Supreme Court in Terry v Ohio. (I lost a bet about this a long time ago). I’ve heard plenty of cops on video say, “I’m not going to search you, I’m just going to pat you down for weapons.” That’s not accurate. A pat down might not be a “full” search, but it’s most certainly a search. In many of the cases, the cop didn’t have reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, but thought that they were entitled to do a pat down anyone. Too many cops think they have the right to search everyone they’re talking to.

          1. The main problem with any legal restrictions placed, weak as they are, is that there are no consequences for violating them. Even if you’re a ‘good’ citizen and comply with commands/actions you feel are illegal, what redress do you have? We’ve seen people run out of police stations, even assaulted and arrested for daring to even inquire about lodging a complaint. Officers have stacks of complaints and lawsuits and continue with impunity. Not surprising given that you’re asking the very organization who violated your rights to investigate itself. Do you really believe people aren’t stopped because they were in the ‘wrong neighborhood’? Or they ‘looked suspicious’? Or they ‘Matched the decscription’? It’s a daily occurence! Police culture is ALL about strategies to get around whatever rights you think you have.
            Unless you have it on video, forget being taken seriously. Even then you have a large swath of society (like our CB trolls) ready to defend even the most egregious crap. To see this happening (and getting worse) right in front of my eyes is so depressing…

          2. Yes. This is the biggest problem. We need to continue to encourage people to record their interactions. The video evidence helps with the lawsuits. Eventually, the municipalities will begin to realize that the lawsuits are costing them more than allowing the unions to protect the bad cops.

            “” Do you really believe people aren’t stopped because they were in the ‘wrong neighborhood’? “” – Not at all. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen. I’m saying that it’s illegal.

            “” Police culture is ALL about strategies to get around whatever rights you think you have. “” – Yes, and they are assisted by the fact that we have thousands of unnecessary laws and regulations on the book. Police use these to enforce their will on people that don’t respect their authority.

            “” To see this happening (and getting worse) right in front of my eyes is so depressing… “” – Actually, I think we are seeing more of it simply because it’s being captured on video. I think it’s been bad for a long time. I think video will help make it better. As an example, take a look at videos of open carry stops from 3 years ago and look at videos from today. The rights violations that were a regular occurrence are on a steep decline. Police have been educated about people’s rights, and they know that everyone has a camera now. The same thing can be said about recording police and the internal border patrol checkpoints. The videos are getting boring because the police are now behaving themselves.

          3. We treat you like we treat ourselves…we treat ourselves to your treats.

          4. You have no redress…you are property. You are an inferior to us.

          5. Imposter t:
            I never use the word “property” in that context. I’d prefer the term “chattel”.
            Thanks for playing thiugh

          6. Its all about revenue gen…. the gov dont give a fuck about safety….. you think in a country that executes citizens and arrests a patsy to help move along their agenda cares about us!?!?!

          7. Your safety is not a priority….we want you to appresciate us.
            It is because of us…you are safe…your welcome guy… you should be gratefull.

          8. And unless you in a big truck your vehicle os nowhere near 3 tons…

          9. we don’t have to justify ourselves to you…obey or else is all you need to know.

          10. “” obey or else “” – Another mentality that isn’t a surprise.

    2. Like the young man says in the video – “your papers please”. Welcome to the USSA.

      1. Everything you have…is because of “nazis” like me…to defend your freedom….all your rights are priveleges…thanks to heros like me.

        Your welcome guy

        1. “” all your rights are priveleges (sic) “” – I’m not surprised to see this mentality from t.

  6. To be fair, he was kind of being a dick from the second he stopped. I’ve been through one of those. I was polite, it took between five and ten seconds for the cop to see I had a belt on and no drinks around me, and I was waved on. Didn’t even have to dig out my license. Sometimes you have to pick your battles, eh?

  7. This site could be a really positive, useful tool to encourage debate about where the line should be drawn, and instead you guys use the anonymity of the internet to turn it into an asshat contest.

    The situation in this video is the common “mutual misunderstanding” video, where both parties—the police and the citizen, misunderstand their legal position and both go down an escalating path of “wrongness.”

    1. The driver was incorrect to assume that he could not be briefly detained. Illinois law does indeed provide for checkpoints, about 40 states do. SCOTUS has delegated to the states the power to allow this given certain criteria are met.

    2. The officer was incorrect to believe he had a right to see the driver’s license. In
    most states, a driver must voluntarily present their license and insurance whenever
    asked while operating a vehicle. Illinois has a legal loophole issue though. Statute 725 ILCS 5/107-14 states that an officer “may demand the name and address of the person.” The problem is that this law only says that an officer can demand it. The corresponding 1961 law covering the responsibility of the citizen does not say
    that the person being asked must provide. So there’s a problem—the law gives the officer the authority to demand compliance of a request that the law does not require the person to comply.

    3. The driver is incorrect about not having to provide proof of insurance. 625 ILCS
    5/7-602 does require the proof of insurance be physically handed to any
    uniformed officer and does not limit this to a probable cause or “Terry” stop.

    4. You can see the confusion this creates… The driver does have to produce his insurance card, but not his license. The officer can demand his name and address verbally, but not his license. And because there is no probable cause in a
    checkpoint, the citizen need not provide his name and address even though the
    officer believes he has the authority to demand it. This sets up an almost certain conflict.

    5. There’s another problem for the officer—in Illinois, 725 ILCS 5/107-14 says that in order to ask for the driver’s license, he must “reasonably infer” that “the person is committing, is about to commit, or has committed an offense.” Presumably, if there is nothing about the interaction with the driver that leads the officer to believe
    he is impaired, he must send the driver on his way.

    6. I know of no state, and no court, that allows an officer to interpret “am I free to go or am I being detained” as resistance. Terry vs Ohio clearly states that a citizen
    has a right to inquire, and must be told honestly, about the nature of his
    detention.

    The real underlying issue is this. License or no license, camera or no camera,
    checkpoint or no checkpoint… The driver deserves to be treated by the officer with the respect due any law abiding citizen. Absent legitimate suspicion of criminal conduct, the officer has no right and no standing from which to demean, threaten, and belittle the employer to which he reports. “I don’t like your attitude young man” is no excuse, the litmus test is proof of criminal conduct, not suspicion of being unlikable. In this case, the officer very fortunately realized after a few seconds that he was in the wrong. He should have said so, but at least he didn’t make the situation any worse by pulling the guy out of the car.

    And just to be clear, driving is by definition a privilege and not a right. There’s no gray area here. A person has a right just by virtue of their innate dignity as a citizen, and they can only be taken away by due process. A privilege is by definition
    something I earn, by taking a test, being physically and mentally capable, demonstrating responsibility, etc. I was born with the right to free speech regardless of my circumstances. I was not born with the right to drive. The burden of proof that I am capable of driving rests on me, where the burden of proof to limit a right rests on the state. You diminish the word “right” by throwing it around inappropriately.

  8. Oh my god what is wrong with Americans!!! This guy was being a dick from the get go, the coppa is just trying to do his job. Here is a thought wanker, try this approach and see what the coppas response is instead. “Evening officer, here are my papers and license….(because he knew he was going to get asked for them)..then just shut up!!! Dont start asking if your being detained (because you know there just doing a safety check) Dont start mouthing off about your constitutional rights like a smart ass….then when you get the all clear trying saying “thankyou officer have a good night” and be on your merry way!!!!!!! Cops arent paid to put up with immature smart asses like you, so go cry about how scared you were to your mommy who obviously didnt teach you any respect for authority.
    If i behaved like this and my grandmother who raised me saw it she would wonder where she went wrong with me!!!!!

    1. Treating people with the presumption of innocence is a mandatory element of all public service. If you don’t believe in constitutional rights, you are morally obligated to not take a job where the first line of your oath is to uphold the constitution. The officer VOLUNTARILY chose a career field in which he knew he would have to take an oath to obey the constitution. You either believe the guy in the car is your employer, and a law abiding citizen until proven otherwise, or not. It really is THAT simple. The officer had plenty of time in school to decide whether he could live with that or not. Illinois statute does not allow for a demand for identification unless the officer has probable cause that a crime is being committed. Illinois statute does allow sobriety checkpoints, but only allows the officer to ask for ID when the spot check leads him to believe a crime is being committed. So what is “smart ass” about an employer telling his employee, “um, check your job description there Jackson, you don’t have the right to ask me for that.” If I behaved like the cop, my grandmother would bring an ass whoopin that would trump your grandmother’s.

  9. I thought it was Barney Fife from the Andy Griffith show when he lost his temper

  10. Does piggly wiggly carry axe body spray? Anyone?

  11. The unhinged cop in this video at the least shows he is unprofessional by his outburst. I find it odd that LEOs are not expected to maintain a professional demeanor. Why is it permissible for a cop to lose their temper and treat the public with anger and contempt just because someone is being more difficult to deal with than the officer would like?
    A McDonald employee would get fired for making such an outburst to a customer.
    Why are LEOs who represent the executive branch of the government held to a lesser standard of behavior when dealing with the public than a burger flipper?

    1. I agree. Yes, we want cops to be safe and they deserve a lot of latitude. I am not anti-cop. But I agree with you. Why does the idea that a law abiding citizen can’t be threatened, demeaned, belittled by any public servant even need defending? Why is a person asking one of his employees to please limit his conduct only to that allowed by law “being a dick?” We either believe that a law abiding citizen has an innate dignity or we don’t. Why is asking someone to behave constitutionally now seen as harassment? Why does holding our employees accountable to our rules bring scorn and criticism from so many? The majority of Americans seem to now want a revolving, term-limited monarchy, and those who stand up for the Bill of Rights are marginalized and dismissed by liberals and conservatives alike.

      I go farther than your McDonald’s analogy, because the McDonalds employee doesn’t work for me directly. The cop outside the door is an employee of the guy inside the car. The guy in the car pays the salary of the guy outside the car. The guy outside the car went before a magistrate and took an oath saying that he would always be loyal to the guy inside the car.

      Your McDonalds analogy would imply that the cop works for some other third party (the company) who then has a vested interest in serving me, but is free to choose not to if they don’t mind the loss of my business. If I am served poorly I am free to leave and the company suffers, so they have a motive in correcting the behavior. This is different. We can’t go to the state and simply say “you are free to do as you wish, and if you betray us, we’ll take our business elsewhere.” We must say “we are your employer, not your customer, and you will follow our rules and treat us with the respect we’re due.” Why are people all over America, even people on THIS board, so vehemently opposed to this construct? As you said, I find it “odd” that so many are opposed to this.

  12. Those of us without legal names are not allowed to get tags, insurance, or licenses. No worries! We can not give cops that which corporations refuse to give to us. Zero problem traveling! losethename.com

  13. This guy has a law suit on his hands. It’s not legal for them to ask for license and insurance unless he is being detained like during a traffic stop. A DUI or safety check point only allows the officers to get a peek at the driver to check for clues to a driver under the influence. To physically stop the driver and ask for anything other than casual conversation is illegal. That is the law I know because I am a cop.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *