Why Cops Screw Up: Constitution and Arrest Search & Seizure

Ever wondered where a traffic stop actually ends, or why a simple order to step out of the car can ignite a constitutional fight? We brought on a rare voice who has lived both sides of the badge—a former highway patrol sergeant turned Harvard Grad attorney, Anthony Bandiero—to demystify search and seizure with plain, usable rules. Together, we press into the places cops and citizens collide: Qualified Immunity, the moment a warning becomes a ticket, what Pennsylvania v. Mims truly permits, and how to handle speech without letting emotion drive enforcement.

We move from the curb to the front door and into the yard, where curtilage is the most violated and least understood terrain. You’ll hear a clean framework—consent, recognized exception, or warrant—for any search or seizure at a home, plus clear guidance on arrests at a suspect’s domicile versus third-party residences under Steagald. We unpack real scenarios: loud backyard parties and exigency, knock-and-talks that drift into unlawful entry, and what “reason to believe” someone is present actually looks like.

Then we widen the lens to modern surveillance. Flock cameras, fusion centers, and private feeds don’t automatically trigger Katz today, but a mesh of cameras tracking your movement like virtual GPS might. We talk policy, FOIA pitfalls, and how agencies can protect privacy while still solving crime. And yes, we tackle qualified immunity—where it makes sense, where it fails, and why courts should be forced to answer whether a right was violated before awarding immunity. The fix isn’t just legal; it’s cultural: more training, better articulation, less ego. That’s how you cut lawsuits, strengthen cases, and earn trust.

If you care about the Fourth Amendment, practical policing, or simply understanding your rights, this conversation delivers clarity without the legal fog. Subscribe, share this episode with a friend who loves a good legal debate, and leave a review with the one rule you think every officer and citizen should know.

Peregrine.io: Turn your worst detectives into Sherlock Holmes, head to Peregrine.io tell them Two Cops One Donut sent you or direct message me and I'll get you directly connected and skip the salesmen.

Chapters

• 0:00 Guest Intro: Cop Turned Attorney
• 3:50 Focus: Search, Seizure, Constitution
• 12:00 Founders, Ambiguity, And “The People”
• 19:30 Qualified Immunity: Where It Works And Fails
• 36:44 Traffic Stops, Speech, And Emotion
• 47:24 Flock Cameras, Tech, And Privacy
• 59:34 Mims And Ordering Drivers Out
• 1:10:44 Curtilage, Knock-And-Talk, And Doors
• 1:22:24 Training Gaps And Real-World Mistakes
• 1:35:49 Warrants, Homes, And Third-Party Entry
• 1:48:14 Detentions, Auditors, And Free Speech
• 2:00:04 Noise, Backyards, And Exigency
• 2:13:24 IDs At The Window And Discretion
• 2:23:34 Culture, Ego, And Better Policing
• 2:33:04 Resources: Books, Classes, And Closing

Transcript

SPEAKER_02: 0:00

Disclaimer Welcome to Two Cops One Donut Podcast. The views and opinions expressed by guests on the podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Two Cops One Donut, its host or affiliate. The podcast is intended for entertainment and informational purposes only. We do not endorse any guests' opinions or actions discussed during the show. Any content provided by guests is of their own volition, and listeners are encouraged to form their own opinions. Furthermore, some content is graphic and has harsh language at your discretion advised and is intended for mature audiences. Two Cops One Donut and its host do not accept any liability for statements or actions taken by guests. Thank you for listening. And uh he is coming with a wealth of credibility. So I just want to throw this out there before I let him start talking. Harvard grad, um law grad from Gonzaga, um, practices law in Washington and New Jersey. And now uh Idaho and Supreme Court.

SPEAKER_00: 1:19

Okay, U.S. Supreme Court.

SPEAKER_02: 1:21

Uh I didn't even get to former cop. Um retired uh out of uh Nevada Highway Patrol. Yep, Nevada Highway Patrol sergeant. Okay. So we've got a cop that knows the law that practices the law.

SPEAKER_00: 1:34

Right. So how are you, sir? I'm good, I'm glad to be here. I've been looking forward to this.

SPEAKER_02: 1:38

Yeah, we've been talking with Blue to Gold for quite some time and just trying to make it work and get it get it going, and you know how it goes.

SPEAKER_00: 1:44

Yeah, and we we've been uh blowing up in in Texas. Um I just got done teaching for uh Texas DPS down in Waco. Oh, okay. Yep, and then so had a little extra time and wanted to come by and see you.

SPEAKER_02: 1:55

Nice, excellent. When uh tonight's focus, guys, or I should say this morning's focus, is going to be search and seizure and constitution, um, which is your specialty.

SPEAKER_00: 2:04

Yes, it is.

SPEAKER_02: 2:05

Okay. Um it's funny that you mention Waco and we're talking about uh search and seizure in the constitution, because if there was one place that really royally screwed up search and seizure in the constitution, it was Waco, Texas during uh what was that dude's name? Uh Kare uh not Koresh. David Kresh, right? No, was it yeah, David Koresh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, the the the Looney dude that did the uh compound.

SPEAKER_00: 2:28

No, I I wanted to go out there and see the space and see what what was there, you know, what's there today. I don't know if that's kind of weird, but I just want to see like if it's actually rebuilt or something. But um, yeah, anyway.

SPEAKER_02: 2:39

Yeah, there's somebody's I this is what I love about having the live feed is they can tell me when something's messing.

SPEAKER_00: 2:44

And you know, I I think you sound fine, but you know, they hear something different.

SPEAKER_02: 2:47

Yeah, so all right. I just readjusted the mic. Let me uh make sure they are plugged in there. I'm not hearing any feedback in my headphones.

SPEAKER_00: 2:57

Yeah, no, it sounds it sounds good. Maybe it's a connection on their end too.

SPEAKER_02: 2:59

Yeah, but so uh two cops, one donut. It is not Monday. You were right. This is this is a bonus episode.

SPEAKER_03: 3:05

Yep.

SPEAKER_02: 3:06

We made it work. Uh we are still gonna have an episode Monday, so just be ready for that. And a matter of fact, I do have to get a hold of those guests to find out. Have you ever heard of the Pop Brothers? No. Okay, so the Pop brothers, they they go around and they're their big internet media thing is when the cops talk to you and start asking you about a crime, what should you do? And they're they have a slogan, it's shut the fuck up.

SPEAKER_03: 3:29

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 3:30

So yeah, um, they're they're funny, but they're right. Like, I mean don't I tell people ask me as a cop, like, what do you tell your family? Of course. So don't talk. And don't consent. Yeah, and don't consent to shit.

SPEAKER_00: 3:43

Yeah. I mean, you know, there's always an exception to every rule. Um, you know, the reality is that sometimes doing that for a relatively minor issue can just make it a little worse for you because the cops are gonna take a one-sided story. However, you know, the reality is if you look, I'll just tell you, let's just be honest about it. If if if somebody messed up, they shouldn't talk and consent. Right. Um, even if they didn't mess up, but they're being accused of a of a serious issue, don't talk or consent. It's just the reality. I mean, you know, you shouldn't dig your own grave.

SPEAKER_02: 4:11

Right. Um, sorry. I'm trying to see if there's a way I can adjust your name. I don't know if it's going to adjust everybody's name.

SPEAKER_00: 4:19

Yeah, it looks like that's probably the right way to do it. Yeah. Let's see here. Oh, we gotta be too late. Yeah, it might be. Oh well. That's okay. That's a compliment where I come from.

SPEAKER_02: 4:31

Yeah. We could just do this and nobody has any names. There we go. If you want to know the names, then you're just gonna have to log on. Uh, this is part of the the issue when you're doing a live stream and you're trying to do things. Yeah, and this is the second time I think you've done this? Yeah, this is only a second time. Yeah. All right, exactly. So, but let's get to you, sir. Um, first and foremost, give everybody a little history lesson on what led you to law enforcement. I want them to understand who you are as a person, how you came about to have a life of service, so to speak.

unknown: 5:01

Yep.

SPEAKER_02: 5:02

And go into that.

SPEAKER_00: 5:02

All right. So look, I'm uh I'm born in New Jersey. Uh that only matters is my mannerisms. I got my I'm an Italian kid. I put my hands all over the place. Uh, how I've not been, you know, charged with battery is beyond me, right? Just smacking into people. But my family moved to uh Las Vegas, Nevada, very, very young. I was six months old, raised in Las Vegas, um, very poor family, and that matters because I was a very poor but very good student. And that's what got me into Harvard.

unknown: 5:28

Oh.

SPEAKER_00: 5:29

And um I have a master's and a bachelor's from Harvard, which is really good. They actually um gave me almost a free ride. And while I was there, um I, you know, in my family is a lot of law enforcement. My uncle, my grandfather, my grandfather, uh, who recently passed away at 94, he uh NYPD, he was like, he was my father, right? My father wasn't around too much. And um, he, you know, he had a big influence on my life and and gave me a lot of moral character and so forth. And so um, when I was at Harvard, I was a uh a uh reserve officer at night to a small town. And you know, that's back east, that's the Boston area. You don't do much as a reserve. They're not like they don't embrace reserves like the West Coast do because they see them as competition. So I did like traffic control, very minor things, no real police work. And then I went back to my hometown of Las Vegas. I um was actually a lobbyist for a little bit. Oh um, yeah, and so I met my wife at, you know, while lobbying, and I had to get a real job, health insurance, and and so forth. And so um, because that was like a 1099.

SPEAKER_01: 6:31

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 6:32

And so I joined uh the Nevada DPS and I spent most of my time in Las Vegas. I also work for a smaller department, uh Elko, Nevada, which is like in the middle of nowhere, Nevada. Uh and then afterwards I was teaching search and seizure on the side. And I and and you know, your your guests, one thing uh I like them know about me is that I'm just uh I'm I'm an addict for uh for search and seizure. I I love it. I like I I read it every single day. I love cases. Um, you know, I just I've always loved cases. And I would look around my department and the sexiest guys on the block were the were the SWAT team guys and you know the the the use of force guys and they got all the love and maybe they should. But nobody really wanted to do the search and seizure stuff. And I started doing it and I started reading case law. I and I and I think like for whatever reason I have a brain for it. Like I really understand what the courts want, and I just under I get like when like the Fourth Amendment only prohibits one type of search or seizure, and that's the unreasonable one. Well, what does that mean? And and maybe we can get into that because I actually have a way to teach it.

SPEAKER_01: 7:31

Okay.

SPEAKER_00: 7:32

But the point is, like, I really knew what they meant by unreasonable, not just like the good faith argument, unreasonable, reasonable. I just knew what they were looking for. So, and I would predict these cases and predict these outcomes, and you know, I would read these cases, or if somebody would give me a fact pattern and say, you know, what do you think about this, Anthony? And I would say, Well, I think this is what the courts are gonna look for. This is very young in my in my game here, and I would almost always be right. And and so I'm like, all right, I got a knack for this. And so I wrote a book called The Search and Seizure Survival Guide. It became, but it has been proven to be very, very popular. You know, tens and tens of thousands of these books are purchased. And um, and so the uh and I have one for for every state as well, right? And uh yeah, there it is, you know, search and seizure guide. Yep. And uh, you know, it's on Amazon, it's also on Audible, it's on uh our Blue to Gold website. And you know, for those listeners, if they're looking for the book, get it from blue to gold.com. It's the exact same price, includes free shipping, um, and uh you get some extra stuff with it. And you support blue to gold and I support Braze, you know, Bezos sending his girlfriend to the moon.

SPEAKER_01: 8:39

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 8:40

Um, and so I I wrote the book and I was searching, I was teaching search and seizure and a side, a little bit of a side hustle, right? Because I was at I was with the patrol or I know what you mean. Yeah, yeah, exactly. I had a little side hustle, had a moonlighting agreement, and I'm like, you know, and I was getting these like um you know these departments signing up, and you know, and I had like, you know, just got lucky, you know, people like, all right, you know, you have no like no resume necessarily besides the fact I'm a cop. And so I was like, all right, so I'm getting some traction, people like the way I was teaching it. And then I realized that in order to be at the top of my game, right? Especially with the feds, like the feds aren't gonna invite a guy in that just worked at the higher patrol and has, you know, yeah, Harvard degree, fine, but it's not a law degree. So I'm like, all right, I gotta go to law school. So I went to law school and I graduated, you know, pro at the top of my class. I I really worked hard because I wanted to be here, right? Yeah. I I want I didn't want to be in the courtroom. And for those who, you know, um, you know, I'm a I'm a member of the US Supreme Court, but it's just that's an accomplishment. That's not, I'm not arguing cases for the US Supreme Court. I I I would love to. I maybe I I have it because wait a minute.

SPEAKER_02: 9:47

You're a member?

SPEAKER_00: 9:47

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 9:48

What does that mean?

SPEAKER_00: 9:48

So that means I could argue a case before the the US Supreme Court. Oh. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 9:54

How do you how do you decide?

SPEAKER_00: 9:56

Well, I don't so first of all, I I would have to have a client and I would have to petition the court for cert, right?

SPEAKER_02: 10:01

So, you know, all these cases that go before once it's already gone through it's it's already went through the appellates and all that stuff and gets up there and they're like, all right, it qualifies to be seen, and then you can be like, I'll pick that case up. Is that how that works?

SPEAKER_00: 10:12

Well, you would you would apply to the Supreme Court to take a case and if they if and if they accepted it, you can be of counsel. You can be the, you could be the, you know, theoretically, I could be the lawyer arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I have I have those qualifications.

SPEAKER_01: 10:24

Okay.

unknown: 10:25

Okay.

SPEAKER_00: 10:25

When I say qualifications, let's let's not hyperbole here, right? I'm, you know, there's a lot of when you're when you're at that level, like that is what you do, right? And so, um, but it's just kind of cool because I would like my dream is I don't think I'm ever going to be tapped to be like, Anthony, you're gonna argue this case before the US Supreme Court. Those are those odds are very But you can be on the team. Correct. Yeah. I want to be on the team.

SPEAKER_03: 10:47

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 10:47

I want to be on the team. There's a few cases, there's a few issues going out, uh going on right now that I would love for people maybe listening to this podcast, maybe another lawyer saying, actually, I do have a drone case that's going for the US Supreme Court. I do have a, you know, a technology case, and you know a lot about technology and how that intersects with the Fourth Amendment. Um, I would love to be uh tapped into those cases.

SPEAKER_02: 11:10

Okay, let's uh go to the comments section. One of the cool parts about trying these live stream podcasts that we're doing here, uh especially the educational ones, is we get to have incoming questions live while they're hearing the stuff. Or comments. And some of them actually, you know, are really good. Mike Cucumber is one of our um uh regulars, I should say. And uh he'll give us as much shit as we give out sometimes um to kind of hold us accountable. I like it. He said just because the courts are looking at it or looking for it doesn't make it right. It should be what the constitution is looking for. What do you say to that?

SPEAKER_00: 11:43

Well, I say if you know what that is, then you are better than me. I mean, in other words, if you're if you're saying you know exactly what the constitution is looking for, then you are the smartest guy in the room.

SPEAKER_02: 11:52

Yeah, because people will argue. I mean, look at Second Amendment.

SPEAKER_00: 11:54

Uh you let's don't even get me started by the Second Amendment.

SPEAKER_02: 11:56

The easiest thing in the world, to me, it looks like it's black and white.

SPEAKER_00: 11:59

I think I went to 7-Eleven today and got a coffee. I believe that Glock switches should be sold at 7-Eleven.

SPEAKER_02: 12:05

I mean, I mean I'm just saying, like, I mean, I'm according to the con the whole point, and you know, you're you know this stuff better than me, but when I look at the Second Amendment, they didn't say, well, certain weapons. The whole point, the the flavor behind it was so you can hold your government accountable.

SPEAKER_00: 12:21

That that was the main purpose. They they were not looking, uh, they didn't need to pass an amendment to tell people to have a right for self-defense. That was a given, okay, in America. Okay, everybody had muskets and so forth. It was because uh they were worried about having another king, right? Yep. Um, but the point is, is yeah, it's it's it's easy to say, well, just comply with the Constitution. Um and I and I agree with that, of course. I'm trying to, but what does that mean? I I like to say, you know, that the the Fourth Amendment has 54 words. And those 54 words at the end of the day are pretty ambiguous. It only prohibits one type of search or seizure. And I like to make a joke in my class. I'll say, um, you know, who in the class uh is a follower, you know, a connoisseur of colonial history, right? Who who at least likes to listen about George Washington, Thomas, and so forth? And they're like, yeah, you know, some people like I kind of listened to those podcasts and said, me too. And I said, but I'll tell you, I've studied the Founding Fathers in uh extensively, and they are the most lazy people I've ever studied because they put these 54 words down a piece of parchment, and they had no, you I'm like, you're telling me that James Madison, who wrote the Fourth Amendment, you're telling me he couldn't have taken 10 extra minutes to put in there the Carroll doctrine? Right. The border search exception.

SPEAKER_03: 13:34

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 13:34

Anything about hot pursuit? Anything about drones? So the point is, these guys, I like to say, you know, they just want to get out of Philadelphia, they're done with the content the convention, and they didn't want to go to the club, they want to go to the pub. And it's the same thing with the with the Second Amendment. I'm I'm like, you telling me that James Manson couldn't have wrote uh anything about the AR-15?

SPEAKER_01: 13:51

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 13:52

So, you know, it's it's it's easy to say just comply with the Constitution, but uh very smart people fight over every single day about what those words mean, right? Uh a great example is the people. Who, you know, we you know, the right of the people to be secure, right? Well, who are the people? Because right now the U.S. Supreme Court has held that anybody pretty much with any connection to the United States inside the interior is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Well, what about the Second Amendment? It says the same thing, the right of the people, right? But they say that people here illegally don't have gun rights, which is the right answer. But why do they have second the Fourth Amendment rights? I just thought I'm just saying, like, you know what I'm saying?

SPEAKER_01: 14:29

Like, I see what you say.

SPEAKER_00: 14:30

It's a different people. Yeah. And, you know, quite frankly, I'm not sure. Like, if I was the justice, I don't think the Fourth Amendment fully applies to people here illegally, okay? That's a federal law. What does the federal law say? I think the the Congress has more latitude. However, um, the Supreme Court has already made that decision. It it applies to everybody with some connection in the interior of the United States. So if, in other words, the number of Sicario? Yes. I'm like, if you're in the uh the holding pen of the uh the the border patrol, you don't really got Fourth Amendment rights. You know what I mean? Right. You're out of here.

SPEAKER_02: 15:00

You're in limbo. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 15:01

But if you make it past that point and you make it to the interior, uh then you get stopped by a guy like you. You're you got full Fourth Amendment rights. And I'm not saying we shouldn't act like that. I'm not saying that that's not the way to do business. But the point is we can fight over what that means. So when when um when people try to make it sound simpler than it is, I I wish it was more simple. But the Founding Fathers are lazy, they put 54 words down, and they now we have to fight over it. That's such a unique way.

SPEAKER_02: 15:28

I never heard it put that way.

SPEAKER_03: 15:29

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 15:29

And I never understood, or I never knew that that argument for the Second Amendment, you don't, you don't get it if you're not a citizen, but you get Fourth Amendment rights if you're not.

SPEAKER_00: 15:41

And it's actually one of the only amendments. Uh well, it's it's um the Second Amendment is the only amendment that that the courts have said does not apply to illegal aliens.

SPEAKER_01: 15:53

Uh-huh.

SPEAKER_00: 15:53

But yet the First Amendment does, the Fourth Amendment does, the Fifth Amendment does. They all apply except that one. Weird. It is weird. Okay.

SPEAKER_02: 16:01

All right. Going to the comments here. Uh King Slayer said, um, I was and he dropped$5 in the super chat. I left it up.

SPEAKER_00: 16:07

Well, make sure you split it with me.

SPEAKER_02: 16:08

Yeah. Thank you very much, Kingslayer. Um, he said, I was able to attend a blue to gold class. I loved it. It was actually I actually was able to ask him about Stiegel disagreement. Uh, I watched all his videos.

SPEAKER_00: 16:21

I don't know what he's referring to about the Stiegel disagreement. I know uh Stiegald is a uh he's referring to a Supreme Court case. Do you know about this case?

SPEAKER_02: 16:28

I not off the top of my head.

SPEAKER_00: 16:29

It's uh it's the one that says that if you have an arrest warrant for a person, you cannot go to a third-party home and make that arrest, right? Right. That's that rule, right? But you could go to the first party, you could go to their domicile and enter that home with the arrest warrant to effectuate that arrest. Um Do you okay?

SPEAKER_02: 16:46

So we've had we have this debate quite regularly. My understanding from a law enforcement perspective is I have to have um something that I can articulate that that person is in that home.

SPEAKER_00: 16:56

That's correct. Um you have to have a reason to believe they're currently present, but the standard is very, very low in that. So the way I teach it is you need three things to enter a home with an arrest warrant. You need a valid arrest warrant, you should make sure that the thing hasn't been pulled. The second thing is you need probabil cause that that is their domicile. Now, that is, you know, for my smart people watching out there, they'll say, Well, Anthony, you know, in the fourth circuit, we only require reasonable suspicion that's their home. Well, I'm gonna, uh, you know, if that's the way you want to operate, fine. But that's not really good business. I mean, why should we kick a guy's door ring over reasonable suspicion that they l that they live there? Um, I teach that the Supreme Court really wants probable cause, and that just makes sense. But I do teach that you only need reasonal suspicion that they are currently present.

SPEAKER_01: 17:38

Okay.

SPEAKER_00: 17:38

Uh, except the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit wants probable cause in that too. But the point is, is that um the uh that's very easy. Their cars in the driveway. You know that they work day hours, you know, they work a day, they have a day uh they work at McDonald's during day show.

SPEAKER_02: 17:52

It's their mailing address.

SPEAKER_00: 17:53

It's their mailing address. Uh that's they did they updated their license uh two months ago.

SPEAKER_02: 17:58

Yeah, I checked their social media page and two days ago they were out front of the house.

SPEAKER_00: 18:01

And they should be home though, right? Exactly. And you see the lights on and so forth. So then you then you can make a forced entry. Now, some states have more particular or more specific uh restrictions, like uh Texas, you cannot make a forced entry uh with that warrant unless it's uh search warrant. It's a felony. Oh, okay. No, we can't do it with the misdemeanor with the misdemeanor.

SPEAKER_01: 18:18

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 18:18

Nevada, you can't kick a uh person's door in or force your way and you know, in um with a misdemeanor at night unless you have nighttime service. So you shouldn't be doing a misdemeanor search arrest warrant at night anyway. Well, I'll tell you though, um, okay, you're you're absolutely correct. But I'll I'll just but but what about the guy who um is causing a disturbance in a neighborhood or whatever? You find out he also has a misdemeanor warrant, you don't really have agency to enter his home, but he answers the door and he's like, You ain't coming in my house, and you know, he but he's he's causing neighborhood issues, whatever. And you haven't you like you know you have this misdemeanor warrant, it'll be nice just to grab him out. Yeah. And be like, you know what, you're going at the subject of convenience.

SPEAKER_02: 18:57

I get that. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 18:58

Just but but but you're but but as far as kicking doors and yeah, I'm not gonna go.

SPEAKER_02: 19:01

All right, boys, let's get the team together. We're gonna I'm not doing that for a misdemeanor. Um, going back over to the comments, I know these guys are gonna be going crazy today, um, especially having you on. Uh the Don Dunpeel said, Unfortunately, we see too many officers who try and build a case without the most important tool, which is active listening. Uh Renee, Renee Harden. I love donuts, but only the fat-free ones. They don't exist.

SPEAKER_00: 19:25

No, they're called bagel. Well, bagel's not fat-free. That's a donut. Okay. That's a that's a healthy donut, though.

SPEAKER_02: 19:30

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 19:30

That's the no healthier.

SPEAKER_02: 19:32

We disagree on what a donut is, then, sir. Uh Steve Wallace in the house, what's up? Uh, Mike Cucumber said, I am the smartest guy in the world. Thank you. Um, what is your take on flock cameras tracking people? That is actually a very modern question and is going through the shit right now.

SPEAKER_00: 19:48

Well, when what in Seattle you mean? Or the um in Washington? Yeah. So here's my opinion on flock cameras. They do not implicate the Fourth Amendment at this point. And the reason why is that there are two searches. Under the Fourth Amendment, right? There's right of privacy and there's trespass. Right.

SPEAKER_02: 20:04

So I'm just adjusting the mic cables.

SPEAKER_00: 20:06

That's fine. So the um the trespass does not apply this trespass argument, which is U.S. versus Jones 2012, that does not apply to flock cameras because they're not conducting any trespass. You have to have a physical trespass in order to implicate that that search. Now, they could arguably implicate a reasonable expectation of property, right? And that case is CATS. That's K-A-T-Z, that's U.S. Supreme Court 1967. The problem is that, you know, for the people who are saying that these are searches under the Fourth Amendment, is that you would have to, the, the, the cameras would have to be so intrusive that they are really giving government information that you you had just have a high level, a reasonable extent of privacy. I don't think that that's really, we're not there yet. Okay. There are a lot of flaw cameras. We, you know, they definitely can give you um, they can they can share lifestyle in in in you know what time you go to work and you know, maybe what area of the neighborhood you're in. And it's just, but it's just not there yet. I mean, it's just not there yet. Okay, there's there's way more intrusive things that the government does um, you know, that the courts have found that is not an expectation of privacy. So, but I will say this, okay? That one day there will be a time that sorry. Yep.

SPEAKER_01: 21:31

Go ahead. There will be a time.

SPEAKER_00: 21:33

There will be a time when that the fusion centers, you know, these these these crime centers and so forth will have so many cameras feeding into it. Whether it is, you know, flock, whether it's also the nest cameras, um, or the the ring cameras, I should say, the ring the cameras, the security cameras from private businesses. And these are all combined into this master feed. Yeah. That you will basically be able to track people from their door to other people's houses, and it'll it almost would be like a virtual GPS.

SPEAKER_02: 22:12

Really?

SPEAKER_00: 22:12

Yes. Absolutely. I mean, we have the technology now. Right. Right. It's just that it's not really used to that degree on a wide scale. When that occurs, when we have that kind of level of surveillance, or at least close to that, that's when I think you have a viable argument that flock, the flock cameras and the well, it's it's and it's flock will just be part of the mesh.

SPEAKER_01: 22:33

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 22:33

But but at that point, the government is going to have to answer some questions. And I think that they're going to have to say, um, yeah, look, yeah, maybe, maybe it is a, you know, a police state type stuff, right? Which the Supreme Court, I think, is concerned about that technology is, and they talk about this, that the technology is giving you information that there's just no way that was even conceivable when the Constitution was was ratified. Now, of course, the founding fathers had no idea where this is all going, okay? You know, technology and so forth. They couldn't have, in a million years, believed that we could have uh, you know, that we have the the the that we actually have the capacity right now in 2025 to send a private person to the moon, right? Yeah. If you had enough money, right? So, but um, it's just that, you know, and what happened in Washington uh with the flock camera, you know, the uh the Freedom of Information Act stuff, that's just to me an agency kind of caving on it, right? They're just saying, look, we don't want to have that battle. But also remember that Washington is one of the most uh restrictive states in the union as far as they have a they have a very deep-seated um expectation of privacy in their const in their you know in their ex their constitution. So they their protections are much higher than the Fourth Amendment. So you got to be careful what's seeing stuff coming out of Washington and saying that must apply to Texas. Because Texas does not have the same um robust mentality on privacy.

SPEAKER_02: 23:58

Right. Okay. Fair enough. I think that was a very well thought out question. Um, this is somebody from your page. I'm I'm going back through trying to catch up on the if if they're from my page, they're probably hating on me.

SPEAKER_00: 24:10

Yeah. Um I get more sovereign citizens. Oh, really? Oh, yeah. Oh, those we should talk about sovereign citizens. Yeah, they they they they uh they they you know they they beat me up in the chats, which is oh yeah, tumbling diary.

SPEAKER_02: 24:21

I hope you never speak in front of the Supreme Court. I take that back. I hope you do, because you definitely blow it for your side. Wait, what do you say? He said, because you'll definitely blow it for your side. Oh man, I didn't know you got the haters over in here.

SPEAKER_00: 24:34

Yeah, they uh they they they but look at the end of the day, I I'm here to share information. I really don't have any like, you know, I don't I definitely don't have any hate on them at all. Like I'm just you know, I and I'm actually glad that well you're getting love too. So I'm getting some love. Good. There you go. You know, but I do uh I I like the fact that they are they're also you know considering the constitution, they're trying to have these arguments because you know I do think that cops mess up. And I and I'm the first one to to to call it out.

SPEAKER_02: 25:00

We gotcha. Um just uh going to the comments here. Please let me give me an update on the audio too. Can you push, see this this cable here? Just push inward towards you. Yeah, there we go. Just checking connections and making sure, because I don't know whose mic it is that could be crackling. Um if it's getting feedback from any of our devices here. But all right, we we've done what we can do. Yeah, we've done what we can.

SPEAKER_00: 25:30

We moved the computers and the phones.

SPEAKER_02: 25:32

Yeah, everybody says the audio is good, it just has a slight crackle to it, but um I'm not sure what it could be. So uh Beckham, UK Han Live said a freedom of information request to flock camera data has shown an allowed tracking of people by stalkers. I've proven this with a FOIA in Indiana a month ago. So privacy violations, yes.

SPEAKER_00: 25:57

So what what's the question there?

SPEAKER_02: 25:59

I don't know that it's a question as much as a statement that the they think that it's a privacy violation because it has allowed stalkers to find people.

SPEAKER_00: 26:07

Well, that's that's that's a law issue. That's not a that's not a that's not a constitutional issue. Okay, if if the government is giving out, you know, location information for people's plates, they shouldn't be doing that. That's that that's pass a law that says that your FOIA does not include other people's plates, right? I mean, that's it's it's like it's like it's it's the same thing with body worn cameras.

SPEAKER_01: 26:29

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 26:29

We you know, really, really, the the person, you should not, you should have restrictions on, you know, I gotta be careful here because you got a freedom of the press, but it's like if the if the if if I call the police to my house because of a of a neighbor dispute, and they're, you know, of course the body camera's rolling and I bring them into my house, I really don't want members of the public to request that video and see inside my house. I really don't. I I think it's a safety issue. I don't want them scoping up my house and seeing nice stuff they can steal. Um, but at the same time, I also want transparency for how the police act, right? So I'm not smart enough and I have enough study issue about what that balance is, but that's what's going on here, okay? It's just it's it's not it's not a constitutional issue, it's a legal issue. Go to your legislature and say, hey, we don't want to give out this, these plate and the plate information to um members of the public that are not, that that's not their car. And they have no and they shouldn't have a right to it, quite frankly. Yeah. Now, but but but back up. If you're a if you're a news reporter and you want to see like how much tracking is going on and so forth, that's different. But as far as specific, like tell me where this car has been, no, they should not give that up.

SPEAKER_02: 27:42

Yes, yeah. Any, any, and something else to consider for the law enforcement side too, is when you do these searches, there's a a portion that tells you to list your reason for search and the case number associated, right? Which you should be doing. But officers need to be careful at the reasons that they're putting in there because some of them put in there contacted um a CI or uh narcotics investigation. Like you're giving up one, your identity as a narco officer, or two, you may be giving up a confidential informant, yeah, um, which is also dangerous. So you don't want to don't want to make those mistakes either.

SPEAKER_00: 28:19

I like what Mike says though. He says just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't like you. Actually, that's uh that's a that's a good comment because I feel the same way that like if somebody's on my channel and um you know they they disagree with me, but they're but I think they respect me to a degree. Otherwise, if they thought it was a looney tune, they probably would just you know keep going. And uh, you know, I I the the but I like I like I I think I respect because I like that discussion and so forth.

SPEAKER_02: 28:41

Yeah. Um Kingslayer said also I also don't want to be stalked by the police through flat camera tracking.

SPEAKER_00: 28:47

Yeah, but it's not stalking though. I mean, you know what I mean? It's at the end of the day, if you're gonna go through an intersection or you're gonna go on the highway and go east on 80, it's not stalking to know that you went east on 80. It's just not. If that's the definition of stalking, then we all have been stalking, right? I mean, what you know, I mean, I'm just saying, like, that's what what's the definition of stalking is a criminal intent. And just knowing that a car has done, you know, quick trips back and forth to LA is not stalking.

SPEAKER_02: 29:15

Yeah, and that's another thing that I find a lot of the arguments I see in the chats is they don't know uh I'm checking right now, Anthony. Um different, Anthony. Uh they don't know the culpable mindsets of right that people need to have for intent on crimes.

SPEAKER_00: 29:36

That's right. So I mean, okay, you you talked about, you know, um, you know, if if a if a detective, right, in an undercover car follows a suspect for eight hours straight, right? And is looking to see where this person's going, you know, are they going to the cannabis shops? Are they doing this? Are they doing that? Are they going to known drug houses? Is that detective stalking? Of course not. If it was, then they're doing, then cops would they're committing crimes every single day. Stalking has a criminal intent. Right. And that's I just, you know, it's so it's important to realize, have that perspective. I don't, you know, I would, I, I, I agree as a as a constitutional attorney that I don't want my government surveilling me. And, you know, I would be, you know, I would be, uh, I would tell you that I would be a little unsettled if I found out that my government put a poll camera pointed at my front door for 18 months straight, like they did in uh a case out of uh Illinois. Um but and I do think that has constitutional dimensions, right?

SPEAKER_01: 30:36

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 30:37

Um, but if they put it up there for two weeks, probably not.

SPEAKER_02: 30:40

Yeah. Um just going over to the chat says as long as law enforcement isn't facing better accountability, flock is a very bad idea. Right now, cops can do what they want, and if they get caught, most of the time department change is the you cut it in half here.

SPEAKER_00: 30:59

Yeah. Um kind of get the the the you know, the the idea though is just the accountability stuff. And and I believe in accountability too. I mean, during the um the COVID uh, you know, pandemic, um, you know, there were agencies that were using drones and you know, they were using it to for thermal imaging. They were they were they were talking about, and one of the Dragonfly was the company that adapted their drones to actually read people's temperatures. And they were also using them to count uh to measure distance between people. And and then they had uh the PA system on there, and it said that you know they were, you know, there was a back East agency that wanted to use these. And then if they if the the drone measured that you were within six feet of each other, this is in public, it would over the PA say, you know, separate. Can you imagine living in that town? No. Oh and uh you know miserable. So is that a constitutional issue? Uh probably reading the body heat is probably constitutional, right? Because it's a it's a fact, it's something that you can't see with plain view. Uh, but measuring people is not, but but yes, but that's mission creep. That is creepy. Yeah. And I think that if if the message here is that agencies need to be respectful and and also have a balance here with technology, then we're 100% agree.

SPEAKER_02: 35:14

Yep. Um looking at the comments, uh Kingslayer said, yes, that detective is stalking. He intended to do actions, he's just legally allowed to stalk you. Well, then by your own definition, it's not stalking because it's legal.

SPEAKER_00: 35:27

It's not, it's not, it's not stalking because this there's no criminal intent. Yeah, you know.

SPEAKER_02: 35:31

Um there's to catch a criminal maybe the intent.

SPEAKER_00: 35:35

Yeah, I mean, but it's not, it's not, it's not a criminal intent. Right. It's no mens rea.

SPEAKER_02: 35:40

Um Mike Cucumber said, I filed a complaint against my sheriff's department and had sheriff stationed outside my neighborhood and workplace the following week when that never happened before. Coincidence, question mark.

SPEAKER_00: 35:52

Um, yeah, I mean, look, I've seen stuff like that happen. And it and it, if it's true, then if if they're doing that for intimidation, then that's you know, obviously um not professional.

SPEAKER_02: 36:00

Right. Um remove the cop element, the idea of how many cameras there are watching us at any given time is huge. Tesla cars, traffic control cameras, phone road cameras, et cetera.

SPEAKER_00: 36:12

Yeah. It's it's true, right? I mean, and Tesla's watching you too, right?

SPEAKER_02: 36:16

So um shit, your phone's watching you.

SPEAKER_00: 36:18

Oh, it unfortunately. I mean, so yeah, so I mean, it's it's when it comes to the search and seizure stuff, right? I will tell you that um the one thing I'm uh that I have a passion about and I'm on a mission about is to try to teach the Fourth Amendment in a way that cops just get. Because it's you know, and I'll tell you um a good example is that a lot of officers believe, and since this is kind of in the in the theme in the comments here, right? Is that you know getting it wrong or whatever. It's this a uh cops believe that if they mess up, if they violate the constitution, but they but they didn't mean to, okay. I mean, you know, they they they they were trained that way or that they made a mistake, but as long as they have good faith, that that will get them out of legal trouble, right?

SPEAKER_02: 37:06

Right. And that's what frustrates a lot of our audience is they think that cops good faith it intentionally knowing they have qualified immunity.

SPEAKER_00: 37:16

And I'll tell you, but I'll tell you my opinion on that. Um, so the so but I think your audience should know that there is no good faith exception. And my audience should know, the people that are, you know, um that that push back on me too, there is no good faith exception under the Fourth Amendment for warrantless searches and seizures. In other words, what I'm trying to tell you is if we have an officer who, you know, chalks a door, like he's talking to somebody, you know, over some neighbor dispute, and the the suspect here is like, you know what, this is kind of a BS. I'm done talking to you, and they want to close the door. They can do that unless, unless there's exigency, which there probably wouldn't be, or a warrant. They can close the door. Now, have officers, you know, mistakenly put their foot in the door saying, look, I'm not done talking to you. And the answer is yes. I I think I've done it, right? Um, you know, because I didn't know better. And if I would have gotten sued on that, I probably, you know, and and I went to court and said, But your honor, I didn't mean to violate anybody's rights. I uh I had good faith. That the court would say, that's not what we're looking for here. We're looking for what's called objective reasonableness. Were you objectively reasonable in what your actions are? Now, good faith applies to warranted searches and seizures, right? Um, that ended up being defective. So I think the audience needs to know that the courts do have that mechanism. Now, qualified immunity, okay, we can we can definitely um have a discussion about that because qualified immunity is is I it's a hundred percent legit in the sense of it's it makes sense. Okay.

SPEAKER_02: 38:43

I think it's broken.

SPEAKER_00: 38:45

It is broken. Well, I'll tell you, I we'll see if we agree on why it's broken. I'll tell you why I think it's broken. But it's it's it the the idea though is that when you have a debatable issue and there is no cases or statute to tell the cops what to do, and they end up picking the wrong side of the equation. Should the taxpayers really be on the hook for that? Like when they when it when even the judges weren't sure what the law is.

SPEAKER_01: 39:10

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 39:11

Okay. And um, so uh the the probably a great example is the GPS tracker. So the um, you know, there before Jones, this is the 2012 case, before Jones, there were courts out there that held that putting a GPS tracker on a vehicle is a search under the Fourth Amendment, and it was a search under trespass. You still trying to fix the yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 39:34

I I got one more idea.

SPEAKER_00: 39:36

Okay. You want me to keep talking?

SPEAKER_02: 39:38

Yeah, yeah, keep talking.

SPEAKER_00: 39:39

So um, but courts went back and forth. You know, A, you know, a lot of courts said it wasn't a search because there's no privacy and so forth. Um, you know, and so, but then, you know, then the Supreme Court says, look, it is a search. Those cops were still there were many dish or circuits and so forth, a few at least, that that did not know the answer, like they didn't decide on it, right? Right. So the cop is gonna have to make a decision about whether or not is this court right about it, or is this court right? My courts haven't told me what to do. And then the Supreme Court ultimately held that it was a search let's say that they did put the tracker on the car. Should they really? I mean, they're just trying to figure out what the answer is. I mean, even judges are confused by it. And that's what qualified immunity is good for. Now, where it's broken, I will tell you where it's broken, uh, and in I don't know if your opinion is going to be this, but the part I don't like about it is that you have a court that says, you know what, the constitution was violated. You shouldn't have done it. But because it wasn't clearly established. Yes. We already agree. Yep, yeah, you you walk. Like you, you don't, you don't pay this person a dime. So I call that the the the one free by the apple problem. So you got this, and it really what I really don't like is, you know, and I think it's unfair, is that you have this attorney who is suing the police, okay? And he's like, You violated the constitution. And the court says, you are correct. And then the court says, but because you are you are blazing this trail that has never been blazed before, because you blaze this trail and it's never been clearly established, you don't get one dime. Period. Get get out of here. They don't give you don't get one dime because of qualified immunity. But the next guy behind you gets paid. That's crazy.

SPEAKER_02: 41:27

That's wrong.

SPEAKER_00: 41:28

It's wrong. Yeah, you know, that part is wrong. I mean, yeah, you know, it it's it's so maybe the compromise is, you know, some nominal damages here. Like, okay, attorney, you did, you did prove to the court on behalf of your client that the constitution was violated. You should get something for that. You should get rewarded for your hard work because it is hard. And remember, when when a when a j when an attorney um you know wins these cases, they're going up to an appellate level, whether it's a circuit level, a Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, it's a lot of hard work. And then they get hit with no qualified immunity, so they leave um out of all those, you know, sometimes thousands of hours of legal work, they get nothing. That's not right.

SPEAKER_02: 42:09

Yeah. And then, okay, so another thing that I again, guys, I'm not a lawyer, so luckily we have one and knows the shit. Another part that people I don't know if they don't understand or because of the, you know, no previous cases that match it. But one of the things that people understand, they won't, they're like, get rid of qualified immunity. I'm like, listen, if a cop actually makes screws up criminally, yeah, and it the judge says, Yeah, you you behaved criminally, you lose qualified immunity.

SPEAKER_00: 42:38

You don't well, you have criminal charges.

SPEAKER_02: 42:40

Right. So in that, you you don't have QI anymore, correct? Is that true?

SPEAKER_00: 42:44

That's not true? No, because there was um uh, you know, I don't look, uh, these are these are controversial in the sense of, you know, oh my god, because I even I think they're unfair, but there was a cop in um in California who stole money. And and so not only did he get, you know, charged, but he they also sued. And uh the it was a complicated case, but the he got qualified immunity. He says that the court said it wasn't clearly established that under these facts he couldn't take the money. Or it wasn't like a constitutional deprivation or something like that. Yeah, it was kind of stupid. But um but look, but the but when you have it when you have criminal charges, you know, usually you do have a deprivation of of of the Constitution. I'm just saying, you know, you ask the question is is that true? You you can actually have criminal acts and you can have qualified immunity.

SPEAKER_02: 43:29

Okay.

SPEAKER_00: 43:29

But it is rare.

SPEAKER_02: 43:31

Okay.

SPEAKER_00: 43:31

It is rare.

SPEAKER_02: 43:32

But but that that's that's one of the ways QI gets taken away possible.

SPEAKER_00: 43:36

No for sure. Well it's one of the ways you don't have you know it's not taken away the one way you don't have QI because committing criminal like battering somebody, right? Okay, that's probably the best example is that when you when a cop you know engages in street justice and so forth that that that's obviously not only is that battery, you know, but or you know oppression of the color law, all these violations, but also it's it's clearly established that you can't dump on people without reason, you know, without a use of force, Graham versus Connor analogy, right? So, you know, you're gonna you're gonna have a cop that goes to jail, hopefully, if they committed a crime or get charged and get convicted. And you're gonna have an agency that pays money. Which is which is the right answer.

SPEAKER_02: 44:16

Okay.

SPEAKER_00: 44:17

Which is the right answer.

SPEAKER_02: 44:18

Um the Don Dunpeel said I understand why qualified immunity was established to protect officers against frivolous lawsuits. It seems to me that officers are actually earning the lawsuits.

SPEAKER_00: 44:30

They do they well they do earn some lawsuits. I mean look I mean I I'm I I show these videos in my class I show videos of officers violating clear law like and I'm and these are cases that have not even been decided yet.

SPEAKER_01: 44:42

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 44:42

But I'm showing these cops these videos I'm like hey look do you think this cop did the right thing? You know we had a cop in California he was responding to a fireworks complaint and by the time he got there the fireworks weren't being you know shot off whatever but he's Oh that's the was that the one that goes inside yes he says I own this house right yeah um and that cop clearly messed up yeah based on what we know about the case right you know there's I don't want to you know say if if he calls him says Anthony did you also know that this was that he shot they shot somebody you know I'm like I didn't know that you didn't say anything about it. But the point is based on what we see in that video that's clearly established that you can't do that. And you should pay her money. Because if it happened to me I want money too.

SPEAKER_02: 45:23

Yeah yeah and it was so egregious like how he thought he had any claim to be in that house was was crazy. Beckham UK Han Live said trying to get a prosecutor to press charges is a one in a million shot. Even having one cop charge another is rare. Rational basis does not apply to either situation yet they try.

SPEAKER_00: 45:45

That's true. I mean the the the reality is that it it it is very rare that prosecutors take criminal act uh criminal action against cops that do commit crimes in a in a in a literal sense okay we're not you know look we're not talking about the the big cases and so forth but even the minor ones it is rare I mean you'd be lying to say if it's like using NCIC to look up somebody that they're not that that's a that's illegal. You can't yeah I I call that you know uh you know running a background check on your babysitter is a crime but you ain't gonna get charged for that and and and one of the reasons why is you know all prosecutors have discretion police have discretion and you know part of that discretion you know um there there's often like bullet points that just kind of consider and one of the things is has this issue been resolved in another with another way and agency discipline is part of justice like you know if if a person working at the car wash you know does something elite um illegal their job usually is not going to re resolve that issue you know I mean right like for example um well maybe they get fired but but cops do have a real you know the the agencies with internal affairs do have a legitimate mechanism to to punish police officers for their misconduct and so that's just part of it or they get fired and maybe that's a you know teaches them a lesson and so forth. But no it's it's true.

SPEAKER_02: 47:02

A lot of I mean one of the problems with hiring of police in general is these cops that get fired. We have no national registry with law enforcement and I but I'm of the opinion we should have one. Yeah if you leave under investigation if you are allowed to resign if you had criminal charges or whatever it is like that should all be a part of a a background check that we all have access to.

SPEAKER_00: 47:27

I agree. And so um that was tried um I guess it you know hasn't been implemented yet obviously but yeah they started it and then it kind of like they lost the federal funding for it or something like that. Yeah it fizzled out but but you know but when you when you apply for a cop job for most places are going to ask you have you ever you know have you been a cop before did what why'd you leave? But let's let's be let's be honest here I mean there are a lot of small departments out there that are so desperate for personnel that they do hire people with checkered pass or people that are not completely being clean about what happened at the last last agency. Yeah at least that database would show them like yeah you did work for Mayberry PD it did say you know you were terminated. Let's let's call Mayberry and find that or you know and there could be some um you know some information in that file that actually is uh you know that's private but that the new agency could see if if they had a uh a legitimate reason.

SPEAKER_02: 48:19

Yeah um Mr. Billfo we actually had him on he's one of our um dedicated followers that uh he debated with von clean um from force science if you know him at all um he goes to he he he's also lawyer got his he used to be a cop um his specialty is use of force yep so he's always talking about use of force stuff but they got in a debate um live and discussed why they were for qualified immunity and not for qualified immunity and um to the point that you and I just agreed on I think he logged in just a little late but uh Mr. Billfold we we just discussed it this is the same thing we don't like about qualified immunity is the minute factual difference to destroy the clearly established nature of violations. Oh he was kneeling he was kneeling not prone different fact scenario not clearly established. Yeah I'm not sure if I have any comment but yeah yeah so um let's see here going to the internals affairs if read some IA reports and compared the video with the report 90% of the time I thought I watched another video.

SPEAKER_00: 49:25

Yeah that's okay let's let's talk about that um I think your your audience especially the the nonpolice officers need to appreciate this that is absolutely true that is absolutely true um the vast majority of complaints by the public are absolutely embellished some are outright frivolous okay the the the the these these quote unquote victims of police brutality misconduct and so forth absolutely for the majority are are lying okay I'm not saying that the event did not occur to some degree yeah they were stopped by the police but the language that they're saying that the cops are using or the way that they were treated it's it's the vast majority is there's just embellishments in there. The body worn camera has absolutely uh fixed a lot of this issue but how many times I mean you know you've been around for a minute um especially before body well you know let's say uh in-car cameras you know that's what I had in my day right yeah and I would tell this complaint hey look I you know I'm listening to you and obviously making some serious allegations but I do want you also to know that that we there is an in-car camera and so you know the the trooper is mic'd up we're gonna be able to hear what he says and we're gonna be able to see what he does um is is his video and audio gonna be consistent with your accusations and if not do you want to you know do you want to edit and you know update your your complaint and um a lot of times they will do it sometimes they won't but when you watch that video it's almost always different.

SPEAKER_02: 50:54

Yeah yep absolutely um I've I've noticed as a supervisor in the field I would you know kind of try to squash some complaints before they get started like now listen I've got the technology is to this point now I can go watch this body cam footage right now. Yep like I don't need to wait. So I'm gonna go watch this before I do just know that you're you're about to you know basically sign a sworn statement. Yeah and that's a crime if if you're lying. Yeah if we can improve that you you know yeah yeah committed perjury and something yes um and in every time I'm like so what do you want to happen? And they don't want nothing to happen. So um Mr Billfold said why is it never discussed that the Supreme Court ignored the notwithstanding clause that was originally in the US code in 1983.

SPEAKER_00: 51:42

I I actually don't know what he's talking about. So uh if if if you want to put something more in there and and you know um I teach 1983 but that particular I'm not sure what the notwithstanding is referring to okay without seeing it.

SPEAKER_02: 51:54

Yeah I have no clue. I'm sure he's brought it up on here before but I don't have the memory I have a memory of a goldfish so it doesn't help me. But Anthony, what about cops that embellish and the video shows something completely different.

SPEAKER_00: 52:08

We have a mechanism for that cops get in trouble for that you know I mean they they that that's if that happens the cops are held accountable. I mean it's very rare that we have a cop who's caught lying who's not held accountable. It does I mean look there's always exceptions they rule and if you if you want to talk about misconduct let's talk about doctors okay how many people are dying at uh at the hands of of malpractice okay so I mean I I the number I heard last time and I and I'm you know I don't hold me to it but it's like 600,000 people are dying uh a year where there is some connection to malpractice. Okay. So yes I'm I'm I'm not here you know uh saying that the cops are perfect but but but but the the profession of policing is absolutely without a doubt the most accountable profession on earth. No profession holds their people as accountable than police officers. No that I'm telling you doctors don't lawyers don't my my state bar I mean you know I mean we we have I I've seen it personally where lawyers are you know um you know uh embezzling funds and this and that and and they you know and they they act that they they they have uh you know you know some unprofessional allegations so forth and yeah they get held kind of accountable but it's not really very aggressive. Police departments for the most part are very very aggressive with their with their IA programs and and holding people accountable. Now can they do a better job? Of course but think about just tell me a profession that is like they have their own full-time IA guys investigating their own people and holding their them accountable as much as law enforcement I think what the can the the follow-up to that statement's going to be from some of the people in the crowd is they're not seeing that accountability.

SPEAKER_02: 53:48

Where is that accountability? And I think that is it's something I've tried to bring up on here that like just my one department alone that I'm at every year that I've been there it's been multiple people but at least one person has been fired, charged every single year that I've been there. But that doesn't mean anything if it's not a common thing.

SPEAKER_00: 54:11

And it's also transparent. So um that's probably one of the issues is that because somebody mentioned that earlier it talked about how um you know internal affairs or a person's personal record should be should be public record. And to a degree that's that's true. I think you know sustained findings and you know stuff like that. I think that the public absolutely deserves to know um but there's a lot of stuff in there that probably is you know it's it's it's it's not sustained or you know I mean how about I mean what's good for the goose is good for the gander or do we think that other public you know all public employees just because you make an accusation against a public employee that that I should be able to go online and see all those accusations? You know what about uh you know uh cops going through a messy divorce and there's a lot of accusations in there but they're just they're not true, right? Yeah. And so you know I I you know I don't think that I don't think I think when you I will say this and just kind of go off script here and just get like a like a like a squirrel brain. When you put the public whether it's politicians whether it's the news media um you know community activists when you put them into shoot no shoot situations they almost always come out saying what? Oh my God.

SPEAKER_02: 55:22

I had no idea.

SPEAKER_00: 55:23

I had no idea I had no idea how to do your job right I didn't realize it was so stressful. They almost always do that in fact um I'm a big proponent of putting them those people into those you know those use of force scenarios it's kind of like this okay yes you know I I I I I believe in transparency. I am I trust me I'm the first one you know and but be bad but be like just realize that it's it's not all black and white I mean when you you when you have a uh a civilized society but also as we get smarter and smarter we have to realize that you can also victimize good police officers by by just having a blanket statement. Everything should be transparent um and it you know it's it's a lot of it is it's not really worthy of of telling the public it's private it's just a personal employer thing. But the uh the sustained misconducts and so forth should be transparent for sure. Kingslayer said how many cops who've illegally entered someone's home have been charged with breaking and entering I'm not aware of of any um usually what happens in those cases is it's going to be the use of forces right it's not going to be the actual entry you know right but it's gonna be the um it's gonna be the the the use of force but look I got to tell you I I you know I don't know if it's actually a burglary in a lot of these cases because again where's the intent right you know if I'm going in there let's just say you know first of all let's say illegally right let's just say that um illegally under the Constitution and so forth but let's just say that I go to a house and it is a verbal dispute between the husband and wife and the um the you know the wife calls up and says hey my my husband's getting out of control he's been drinking like a fish and I just can you guys just get over here and just and help me out over here I gotta I gotta get him out. And okay that's our allegation there's no indication of battery and so forth, right? And um you know he answers he answers the door will not let the cops in and cops just push the way in okay yeah probably not correct in no with those bare facts right now according to some of the viewers uh he should go to jail for burglary he should go to jail for home invasion the cop yeah that's not the answer okay he didn't have the cop did not have criminal intent he was not looking to steal anything he was not looking to hurt anybody he was just looking he just wanted to help somebody the way you handle that is with civil rights lawsuits the way you handle that is with complaints and having uh a robust IA that does account uh you know hold their people accountable um you retrain them okay that's what I do that's what I do for a living I mean I not only do I train people to try to not make these mistakes but if they do make a mistake bring me in and let me retrain this officer so they know that the rules of engagement.

SPEAKER_02: 58:09

Right. Um and that's a common these are common questions that come up repeatedly that I can only do my little copic you know cop splain the best I know how. But I I try to explain you got to have the the intent. The intent needs to be there for something criminal. And they're not meeting those elements. The other one like when you arrest the wrong person or you know you they let's say well that's kidnapped they're kidnapping him now because they didn't have a right to make the contact in the first place. Okay so fruit of the poisonous tree I get all that yeah the the the stop was unjustified whatever but it's still not kidnapping because they put you in cuffs and put you he believes he has the right to arrest you.

SPEAKER_00: 58:56

He's not there to physically take you and pull you away from somewhere with that criminal mindset that they need to have they he's there because he thinks he's doing a law enforcement action yeah you're not you're not sending a guy to prison for 20 years for making an arrest that in retrospect lack probable cause. And it's also the same thing as the Walmart loss prevention officer who detains you thinking that you were a thief, totally got the wrong guy, you know, he he messed up and he locks you in you know he he takes you physically so you need transportation for kidnapping he transports you to you know the loss prevention office or something like that. Yeah that the the the way you handle that is lawsuits you handle that with complaints you know you handle that with with public disclosure you don't send the loss prevention officer to prison for a crime he didn't commit that's not that's not a crime that's not there was no the the intent was not to you know deprive of somebody of their their liberty for you know for an unlawful purpose like sexual assault and so forth. And so um yeah just I just think people need to realize that a lot of these issues are not of constitutional dimension or or or or or criminal dimension. They're they're internal they're just us as human beings trying to we we need to do better. We all agree on that. But let's not also you know send people to prison for 20 years for a crime they didn't commit. And go and it goes the other way too by the way we're not talking just about cops. Cops also need to good job do a good job and make sure that they're not sending the public to jail for crimes they didn't commit. It is both ways.

SPEAKER_02: 1:00:22

Yeah um so Mr Billfold sent me a message on Discord so he could clarify his 1983 question. So he says the notwithstanding clause in the original 1871 text of text of 42 USC 1983 explicitly stated that the state laws couldn't block federal civil rights claims meaning state immunities like qualified immunity were eliminated but this crucial language was accidentally dropped during the 1874 compilation leading to decades of legal debate though some argue the original intent still voids the state defenses today according to legal scholars I'm not sure I I I'm I'm I'm understanding the the the the point of that as well as I I would like to but to me I'm gathering that because the notwithstanding part didn't make it into new bill like but we don't we the 1903 is a federal that that's we're in federal court on that and we care about the federal constitution so state claims usually don't affect those anyway people oftentimes make state claims and federal claims in the same lawsuit.

SPEAKER_00: 1:01:33

So I'm not sure you know I mean yeah I'm just not sure if I'm really uh maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand what he what he's talking about there. I haven't researched it but I just I mean we're if we're in federal court and you violate the Constitution you you get you get and you don't have qualified immunity you get jammed up. So maybe that's what he's talking about. I don't know.

SPEAKER_02: 1:01:51

Okay. Fair enough. Um so I I want to get into some some of the common things that get brought up a lot um with police work. Um and I I'm gonna lead this one off with an example. Okay. You got an officer pulls you over for speeding on the freeway this is right down your alley that's right. So pull him over for speeding you write him a warning the officer is on a passenger side approach not that this makes a big difference but passenger side approach comes up all right sorry I'm gonna give you a warning here's your warning it's a written out warning hands it over to him with license the guy grabs it and instantly drops it down onto the passenger seat attitude no attitude really hard to tell from the video the officer doesn't like it grabs the ID and the warning back goes I'll be right back. Doesn't say anything goes back writes the ticket comes back up to the car issues a citation. Obviously pissed off police incident there. But now the question is asked The stop was technically over.

SPEAKER_00: 1:02:57

Well, that's gonna be the debate.

SPEAKER_02: 1:03:00

The stop was over. Um, and did the guy make an illegal search seizure by reaching in through the threshold of the vehicle out the window and grabbing that guy's ID?

SPEAKER_00: 1:03:14

Well, this is funny because this is this is this is the qualified immunity debate, right? So if we're gonna sue this officer and say, hey, you violated the constitution, you unlawfully seized me. Well, the question is gonna be was it clearly established by handing him his uh license and that warning that the stop was legally terminated? And I gotta tell you, I you know, you gotta do some research on it, right? I mean, as a lawyer, you don't just but I'll tell you that I don't like it, okay? If if one of my officers did that, I I would, you know, I he would be called in, okay? Because it is at least if it's not legally over, which it probably is, yeah, it is constructively over, okay? And also, I I teach officers do not, especially when the stop is already over, okay, don't change your enforcement at that point emotionally, right? Because my grandfather, again, he was NYPD, he worked motors for a little bit. He was like, What do you expect these people to do after you give them a ticket? Like, hug you, thank you.

SPEAKER_02: 1:04:13

They're not happy.

SPEAKER_00: 1:04:14

They're not happy. Oh, man, thank God. I'm so glad I got a ticket today. Um, look, I've been pulled over. And, you know, I don't get much, but I do have a lead foot. But I'm like, I'm like, the last thing I'm like, man, please don't give me a ticket, right? And if I do get a ticket, I'll probably be a little burnt, you know? Don't you know who I am? Yeah. No, but the point is, is that um it it I think that the better legal argument at the end of the day, let's get qualified immunity out of it. Because, and can I just also tell you this? When I teach classes, I don't teach about qualified immunity really, because I think that's a cop out. Whenever I talk to when I talk to a lawyer, no pun intended, guys. Yeah, exactly. Um, whenever I talk to a lawyer and I say, hey, look, this is what I think the courts are looking for here, right? I think that once the cop handed his ID and his ticket to this guy, the stop is over. This is it.

SPEAKER_01: 1:05:06

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:05:07

And then I'll have police attorneys, like advisors and so forth. Well, you know, but we'll just uh we'll probably just get qualified immunity on that. I'm like, That's your attitude, dude. That's your attitude. And I gotta tell you, nothing makes my blood boil more.

SPEAKER_01: 1:05:20

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:05:21

Because it's like, what a way to, you're saying, like, you're just gonna roll the dice on this? Like, don't you think your cops deserve to know at least what you think the answer is? What will the US Supreme Court say if they're hit with this ex this this very question?

SPEAKER_02: 1:05:36

And this is what the audience with what we do and that I'm on their side about is that attitude that other cops won't even begin to to accept that that's an attitude with any cop. No, cops don't have that attitude. I I I'm like, they don't? I'm like, because sure as hell are being taught that way about some well, qualified immunity will save you on that. No, it should be based on is it morally and ethically sound? Like, do you are you okay with what you just did?

SPEAKER_00: 1:06:04

That's fine to you. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 1:06:05

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:06:06

Drives me insane. No, it drives me insane. In fact, uh yeah, I have a recent experience of that. But it's like, look, we get paid the big bucks here, okay? The lawyers in law enforcement, and be in order to make these decisions, okay? Now, you know, look, I I, you know, if if there have been some some lawyers that I've worked with, not worked with, but know of that have made the wrong decision. And I and I and I wish I I try to to try to fix them before I'm like, look, I think you're gonna lose this. You know, I I just I why are you arguing this? Like, why not just capitulate? Yeah, just pay this person money and get it over with, okay? Because, but you know, they don't want to because they have a culture of, you know, and but it's like in and there's times to fight. Right. But there's times when just be like, you know what? I think my cop messed up. Even though it might be qualified immunity, just pay the plaintiff some money. You know, if this happened to you, you'd be probably thinking your rights are violated too. But I don't like it as a cop out. So um, it's a cop out. I don't like it. Just give the um, you know, give the uh just acknowledge when the when the people's rights have been violated. Um, somebody's talking about the the Texas two the Kansas two step. Um, I'm familiar with that case, by the way.

SPEAKER_02: 1:07:17

Okay, yeah, because I've got Rodriguez v United States also pulled up, which is I think that's what talks about exactly when a traffic stop is complete.

SPEAKER_00: 1:07:26

Um, well, it no, I mean, look, let's just let's be frank here. I mean, you know, Rodriguez does not answer the question you you asked, you know, handing that right. Um, there I could definitely see a court saying, well, also the explanation of the of the ticket is part of the stop.

SPEAKER_01: 1:07:41

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 1:07:41

In other words, if that officer so what he did there is still different, but if the officer is like, hey, I'm handed to you, but I'm also going to explain to you, and that's part of the traffic. So if the stop may not be over, that may be part of the mission. Rodrigue.

SPEAKER_02: 1:07:53

That's part of the argument that I made in that exact video, is the trooper is still in the window. Not not even like stepped away to go turn or anything like that. Like he's in the window.

SPEAKER_03: 1:08:03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 1:08:03

Um, his lights, he's still parked behind. I mean, so the argument can be made that he's still on the stop, but it's bullshit. We know it's bullshit. It's all yeah, it's a warning.

SPEAKER_00: 1:08:11

Well, and there's two different things going on there, okay? Just uh the the the first thing is the stop over. That's Rodriguez. Rodriguez says that once the mission of the stop has been completed, the stop is over. Okay, the word is mission, and also the other thing is we have to diligently pursue the traffic stop. However, we don't have the cases, we don't know what circuit we're in and so forth, in order to say when that stop, if that stop has been over. Has it been in reality over? Has it been in best practice over? Yes. If the guy doesn't want to hear your spill about what court to go to and how, you know, and and what to do, if you want to, you know, not fight this and just get, you know, uh go to traffic school. Well, actually, it was a warning, right? So, you know, it it it right, and maybe the cop would have been like, hey, just so you know, you only get one free warning from us. Okay, fine, we can debate that. But what happened also there, which was bad in your scenario, is the officer is really punishing that person for their speech.

SPEAKER_02: 1:09:04

Yes.

SPEAKER_00: 1:09:05

And we shouldn't be doing that. As I say a blue to gold, you you you focus on people's conduct, not their content. Okay, we I really you really should not care. You you do care, but you shouldn't care legally. You're a human. Human, of course. We care because I have feelings too, right? Yeah. Um, um, I know I'm losing my hair. But the thing is, yes, it hurts. But I'm not gonna change my opinion about what my enforcement action is on you. Because the thing is, one of the things that makes this country the best in the world is that we have a robust freedom of speech. And don't care about what people say. As George Thompson said in verbal judo, we have the last act, they have the last say. Let them say whatever they want. But as long as they're doing what we want, and you know, the guy took the ticket, he didn't throw it on the ground, you know, like he's gonna ignore it. He um, we have, you know, we have the last act. Give him this ticket and kick him loose.

SPEAKER_02: 1:09:53

Yeah, left it in his vehicle. Yeah, that was a that was that's a pretty recent video that we shared um that kind of blew up. So, and that was the debate. When was the stopover? What was it? And I my uh personal opinion on it was this was an emotional-based ticket, uh action, whatever you want to call it, and that you us cops should not be making any decisions based on emotion. It should be the facts of the case.

SPEAKER_00: 1:10:17

So it should not just give you an example, okay? Um, you know, maybe find this interesting. But I I I was behind this car in um in Vegas, and it, you know, it it blew a yellow light. Okay. I mean, well, it it it tried to make the yellow, but it it it had a red. And so I pulled this guy over, a young man from California, and um he starts giving me the the right act, right? You know, call me a racist. Why you pull me over? You're targeting me. I didn't run the red light. And um, you know, I was kind of taken aback, right?

SPEAKER_02: 1:10:49

Had you even said anything yet? Nothing. Nothing. Of course.

SPEAKER_00: 1:10:52

Doesn't he know me? And you know, and by the way, it was at night. I didn't even know his race, by the way. It, you know, I just just just to add to the facts, but um, it wouldn't matter, but I just I didn't know either, right? So he he uh he gives me the right act and I go and I get his paperwork, you know, he he does what I want, say what you want, do what I say, and he gives me his paperwork, I go run him, he, you know, maybe a couple minor runs with the law, not a big deal. And I said, you know what, I'm gonna go back up to this because okay, I'll tell you that. When I when I uh was behind him, I was gonna give him a warning, okay? Because it it was a violation, but it wasn't, you know, it wasn't egregious, right?

SPEAKER_03: 1:11:26

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:11:27

So I just want to talk to him, make sure he's not drunk and so forth. And he does, he wasn't drunk. So I went back up to him, I said, sir, let me ask you a question. You know, you you don't know me, I don't know you. And um, you know, you you said some pretty offensive stuff to me. So I said, Why'd you give me the right act? Like, why'd you just come off like that, you know, before even I can even get a word out? He says, because you know, you guys are all the same. And he says, I'm from LA and I've been treated wrongly. And I said, What do you mean by treated wrongly? And he starts telling me some stories. And uh I said to him, you know, if I if I first said, look, I don't know if you know, I don't have the other side of the story, but I said, if if you're telling me the truth, I would hate cops too.

SPEAKER_01: 1:12:05

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:12:06

And I meant every word of it. Yeah. Because he's telling me some bad experiences. Yeah. Racial profiling, being beat on and searched unlawfully. I said, I absolutely. I said, if I, if I, if, if you're telling me the truth, I would hate cops too. And I said, um, I said, before I pulled you over, I was gonna give you a warning. And I'm still gonna give you a warning because I really appreciate you telling me why you went off on me, you know. And I and you know, you're you know, I just I I just appreciate the candor. And so I let him go. And I and I was hoping, I was hoping that maybe that's because you know, I always treat people with respect. I I I'm a good talker, and I I just I believe that part of being a professional is is just is being nice to people, yeah. You know, like like Patrick Swayze in Roadhouse, right? Yeah, it's a time to take out the you know, be to be not nice, but and so um the thing is is that um people have their reasons and so forth.

SPEAKER_02: 1:12:53

So yeah, discretion. Um, Mr. Billfold, I appreciate you putting that effort in on Discord. Um, I'm going to we're gonna I'll have him take the time to read it and look into it deeper offline. I don't want to tie up our time reading into a big thing on that.

SPEAKER_00: 1:13:13

Um, but yeah, and then city versus uh Houston versus Hill. I don't really think that's an accurate statement, uh, quite frankly. You know, um Houston uh Hill protects people's conduct as speech. That's not really the case is about freedom of speech, and you cannot get hit with disorderly conduct just because you are, you know, yelling at the police and so forth.

SPEAKER_01: 1:13:33

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 1:13:35

Okay, but I mean it's obviously it's it's right similar, but it's still special.

SPEAKER_02: 1:13:39

And that's something we've covered on here, uh, not not the particular case law, but yeah, just in the spirit of that's you know, catch-all crimes, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, stuff like that, is you you need to have a complaining party, for one. You can't just, at least where I'm at, you can't just go and throw out you're disturbing the peace. How are you gonna how are you gonna articulate that when you and the cops are the only one out there?

SPEAKER_00: 1:14:05

Yeah, that's that's there. There's an argument for that. And there's also an argument for the boat, you know, yeah, that but but I but usually you want to vic them because how are you gonna prove that case, right? I mean, right you can't disturb a cop's peace. Is that necessarily true? Maybe not, but uh I get the point.

SPEAKER_02: 1:14:17

Yeah. I get the point. Yeah, they get um spirit. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:14:19

But I do want people to know that people's conduct can be regulated even if they are engaged in freedom of speech. And that's why I just think that I want to be careful with the the Houston versus Hill using that to kind of try to transform that into be like, oh, you can actually do what you want and just call freedom of speech. I don't think that's what the person meant when they made that comment, but I want the users to know that police can take enforcement action on people's conduct, even if they're also engaged in a freedom of speech. We do it all the time, right?

SPEAKER_01: 1:14:45

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:14:46

Um, you know, uh, if you have a protest downtown, but they're blocking traffic, throwing Molotov cocktails, you know, uh flipping over cars, and while they're at the same time saying F the police, the F the police part is protected.

SPEAKER_02: 1:14:57

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 1:14:58

But not the Molotov.

SPEAKER_01: 1:14:59

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 1:15:00

Um, this is actually some good questions coming up here. Uh I was hoping we'd get into uh Mr. Bill Fold said that the biggest issue that he has with the traffic stop is in fact a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, but not treated as such.

SPEAKER_00: 1:15:13

Um Well, it is it is a seizure under Brendan.

SPEAKER_02: 1:15:15

Yeah, it's absolutely a seizure. Who's not treating it as a seizure? As soon as I turn my red and blues on and you start pulling over, it's a seizure.

SPEAKER_00: 1:15:23

Well, I'm glad you said that. At the point you pull over. Yeah. You know, we know that if you don't pull over, it's not a seizure. But um, no, it's absolutely a seizure. And it's California versus Brendan.

SPEAKER_02: 1:15:32

Yeah. And then um, so this is this is what I wanted to get into with you. Um, if someone has signed a ticket but hasn't given their been given their copy yet, can the cop pull the person out of the vehicle via pen uh v mems? And or does Rodriguez count that that is an unlawful extension? But I want to get into just pen v mems in general.

SPEAKER_00: 1:15:52

So that is for some reason, that case mems is is the hot topic lately.

SPEAKER_02: 1:15:58

It's abused. I think it's abused.

SPEAKER_00: 1:16:01

I think so too. Um in well, okay, well, I'll ask you why it's abused, but okay, so let's first of all let's let's let's establish what this case uh holds for, okay? What's the proposition? So the proposition is that during a routine traffic stop, officers can order, you know, we what you know, hopefully politely, you know, professionally, we don't want to de escalate escalate people, but people, uh cops can order a driver to get out of a vehicle during the traffic stop for two reasons. Number one, for officer safety. You know, there was an officer safety component in MIMS.

SPEAKER_02: 1:16:35

Correct.

SPEAKER_00: 1:16:36

Um, I guess they they saw like a gun in plain view once he got out. Um, but they also did talk about de minimis. And that's where the problem is. Um the Supreme Court really gave us, they gave us a why MIMS was ordered out, but they ultimately upheld the the um the order out under de minimis. De minimis is a Fourth Amendment doctrine that basically holds that some searches or seizures, in this case, you know, part of the seizure, some search or seizures, you know, it's just so de minimis that you it's not going to be of constitutional dimension. In other words, if you had me stopped for a pedestrian violation and you said sit on the curb, which they do in California every single day, okay? Cross your legs with the gang members and so forth. But they stopped these guys for flicking a cigarette, um, you know, uh not being a crosswalk sign, and they say sit on the sidewalk. Uh, it's de minimis. Okay. Now, if the guy doesn't want to do it, you know, you're gonna have to figure out what you're, what you're, you know, what you're gonna do with that, right? You're gonna arrest the guy and so forth. Who knows? I'm I'm not, you know, but the point is it's really, and then the guy sits on the curb and he sues later and says, I can't, I'm suing the police department for telling me to sit on the curb. I'm suing the police department for telling me to get out of my car. It's the minimis. But, okay, when I teach this class, though, it's called advanced traffic stops. I teach officers to have a good reason. Or I should say have a legitimate reason.

SPEAKER_02: 1:18:01

Yeah, an articulable thing you can say, uh, I saw this, I needed to get him out of the car.

SPEAKER_00: 1:18:05

Correct. Let's actually go back to your your your home state here, the great state of Texas.

SPEAKER_02: 1:18:09

My home state's Michigan.

SPEAKER_00: 1:18:11

Well, but okay, this is where I call home now. I won't hold, I won't hold that against you. Yes, please don't. Okay. I I I prefer Texas. Yes, I like I do too. I like the Texas swagger. So we have here in Texas the Sandra Bland Act, which you're familiar with. And the reason, one of the reasons we had this is because we had a trooper who told Sandra Bland to get out of her car for really no good reason. Okay. She was smoking a cigarette. He she wouldn't put a cigarette out. And he he she he gave her, she gave him a little lip about getting a ticket. And um, and just so, you know, and actually I don't blame her one bit because she was her violation, according to what I know about the story, and if you know more, let me know. But she was she saw the trooper coming up hot on her ass. And she kind of quick, she quickly moved over to get out of his way. Now he wasn't super close, but he was he she saw that he was moving. Yeah. No lights or sirens. She did not make a turn, she did not use her signal, but she thought she was helping the trooper out. She got pulled over for that. Okay, fine, okay. But also she got a ticket for that. I gotta tell you, I'd be, I'd be pissed.

SPEAKER_02: 1:19:09

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:19:09

I'd be pissed because I'm trying to help you.

SPEAKER_02: 1:19:10

You're trying to do a good thing.

SPEAKER_00: 1:19:11

I'm trying to do a good thing, and I'm getting a ticket. So she gives Lip about that, and he says, you know what? Why don't you get out of the car now? And it goes back and forth. She gets arrested, and she ends up hanging herself in the jail three days later and killing herself. So the point of that story is I look at that video and I teach that video. I say, look, does the trooper actually have the authority under memes to order her out? The answer is yes. I do. I I absolutely show me a case that says uh after the ticket is written, you can no longer order the person out. It doesn't exist. However, did he do the right thing? No, he did not.

SPEAKER_02: 1:19:43

Yeah. And and and that is like one, the way that I teach it and that I like to present it to officers is big picture stuff. Like, one, why are you getting them out of the car? If you can't answer that other than some emotional issue, you're in the wrong. Um, and I want you to articulate an officer safety issue. Tully. I think you should have to. I think that that should be how Penn VMs is.

SPEAKER_00: 1:20:08

Okay, now maybe, but but also not just a safety issue, but also there's other that's why I say legitimate. Like, what about just uh having a conversation with them, looking them in the eye, you know, um, you know, trying to maybe take them away from their their their other passenger so we can have a right.

SPEAKER_02: 1:20:22

So when you say But you also have an inkling that there's some sort of thing going on and that can be. Might not be safety, though. Yeah, true, might not be safety, but criminal. So that's correct to me, criminal and safety issues. Like I get like that makes sense. But a lot of these times it's you we watch it, like I said, it's I think it's heavily abused.

SPEAKER_00: 1:20:41

Well, it's ego.

SPEAKER_02: 1:20:42

It's ego, yeah. It's controlled. Yeah, our last episode was all about ego.

SPEAKER_00: 1:20:46

No, I I I uh we haven't, you know, we do have a a huge look, the the the problem with we have a huge ego problem in our law enforcement profession because we have a lot of power. And don't think doctors don't have egos too. They they have the biggest ego. And lawyers do too. Yep. Because they're powerful people, they can they can they can affect people's lives. Um, and you know, with with power comes responsibility. And can I can I tell you something, Mr. Donut? Yeah. All right. Um when I watch police videos, okay, which I do all obviously all the time, right? The number one thing that you know, the number one thing that thing really upsets me is when cops act like jerks.

SPEAKER_02: 1:21:26

Yes.

SPEAKER_00: 1:21:27

I hate it. Yeah. And I get pissed, you know, and I'm like, I just I think to myself, like, out of all the, you know, because we do have a tough profession, and it's tough to be on your A game in these somebody's calls because you're talking about human behaviors and so forth, but it's like, why are you treating people like dirt? And also, even if they're not a good person, even if they don't deserve your respect for their lifestyle, okay? There are a lot of people that we contact and we don't respect their lifestyle, but we respect them as a human being.

SPEAKER_01: 1:21:53

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:21:53

And also, like, I gotta tell you, like, I walk into the DMV, and if I get treated like dirt, I'm saying something, number one, because I'm past this, at this, I'm at this age where I'm not gonna take it anymore, right? And it's like, that's a DMV clerk who has probably a crappy job, not making six figures, doesn't have your pension and so forth. And I'm like, if I get pulled over or whatever, I see cops pulling over people, I don't care that you think that they don't have a good lifestyle, they're not living the moral care. You know, that that's probably why you're kind, but you they deserve to be treated with some some respect. Yeah. Okay. And also it helps. People give consent searches, they wai Miranda, they treat you with respect when you treat and and now and actually I can prove that it works because when you look at gang officers that are really on their A game, how they talking to gang members. They ain't talking down to them. Oh, you POS. No. Well, you man, your mother made you raise you wrong, huh? They're like, Hey, man, how you do hey, I'm not oh, they'll say this. I'm not trying to disrespect you, man. I'm not trying to disrespect. No disrespect. But can I ask you something? You know, that type of stuff.

SPEAKER_02: 1:22:53

Yep, absolutely. Um, this gets brought up quite a bit. I've uh I've argued um against it. Uh that Pennsylvania v. Mems offsers safety as a key part of its decision. Lower circuit courts have removed that their removed from their decision. Second circuit made a ruling saying cops can pull you out for any reason.

SPEAKER_00: 1:23:13

But look, that is true. Okay. And first of all Mims, Mims, you gotta read Mims as a lawyer, okay? Mims is the the Supreme Court is telling you why Mims was pulled out. Okay. There was a safety reason in that court case. Fine. That is the motive. That's what happened in Mims. But they did not say that you have to justify a safety reason to do it in the future. They said this is why he did it and the holding was that it was de minimis. Right. That it was just a something that really wasn't of constant dimension, which means for lawyers that cops can do it without a reason because that's what de minimis is. De minimis is when you do a search or seizure you don't need to need to justify it. Right. Okay. And so it is what it is. Okay. However, the the the having the reason part is is professional policing and it's de-escalation.

SPEAKER_02: 1:24:05

Yes agreed. I I I can't remember exactly how it was worded in there but it did say that they found under the Fourth Amendment that it is a minor inconvenience or something like that.

SPEAKER_00: 1:24:18

That's what they mean the minimum is yeah and somebody's saying yes they did. No they did not okay they did not that's not how that's not what the holding of the case is the holding that case is not officers may order a driver out of the vehicle with a legitimate officer safety reason. That's not what the holding of that case is it's that they can do it because it's not that much more of an intrusion than the original stop.

SPEAKER_02: 1:24:38

It was a factor of the case not a ruling of the case.

SPEAKER_00: 1:24:41

It was not a ruling it's what they call dicta. Dicta is Latin for extra information. It's just telling you what their motive is why they did what they did. But that's not the as a lawyer that's not what you need to hang your hat on. The holding of the case is the minimus.

SPEAKER_02: 1:24:56

Yep. And guys that's this this is what make this is what makes the difference between us me trying to argue some of this stuff with y'all and somebody that does it and is trained in it.

SPEAKER_00: 1:25:09

I'll also tell you that I do like the last comment there. It's a minor I also think that um an argument could be made that it's actually unsafe for cops to pull people out. Yeah. Yeah so I think we should have a reason. That's another reason why that's another reason why tell cops to have a reason because like like I'm the to me when I was a trooper I have the advantage. 100% they're in their own coffin if they want to start blasting. You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_02: 1:25:30

Yeah like in Florida it's common practice to unarm people. I don't know what that that's a and that is not a that's a culture issue within some of them departments. Not all of Florida. I know not all Floridian Floridian cops do this but I've every video I've seen where especially like that lady that shoots the the guy with his own gun trying to disarm him um and he was completely cooperative like everything was yeah above and beyond and I I hate I I I I I will look first of all you you're talking to one of the most avid Second Amendment advocates you know yeah out there.

SPEAKER_00: 1:26:05

I believe I know clearly what the Second Amendment means and so do you we had that conversation. And uh the point is disarming people is so disrespectful. First of all, you're treating this person like literally like a criminal and you know because I to me the people who have guns and are telling you about them and that you know they have the proper paperwork unless it's constitutional carry just the fact that they're telling you. It's 100% I I've never had a problem with a guy that says hey and he's sober and all this kind of stuff right 10 and 2 hey just to let you know partner I I do I do got my gun on me it's in my it's in my ankle holster or something like that. That's the last guy that's probably looking to kill me that day.

SPEAKER_02: 1:26:38

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 1:26:38

Yeah absolutely yeah and also it introduces a safety issue when you touch their guns.

SPEAKER_02: 1:26:42

And I'm not gonna lie it does help me you're you you're less likely to get a ticket with me. I'm like that was fucking awesome. Yeah yeah yeah um Mr. Billfold said Pennsylvania v Mims the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that during a lawful traffic stop police officers routinely can routinely order the driver to exit the vehicle the court concluded that they need to ensure officer safety outweighs the minor inconvenience to the driver.

SPEAKER_00: 1:27:07

Correct. So you can just say officer safety and just call it a day.

SPEAKER_02: 1:27:10

Yeah. I again I I still think it's uh I still think you should uh the the the best practices will say best practices you should be articulating some sort of safety concern or or just any yeah again anything legit yeah or yeah a criminal um so as far as that goes um okay I want to get into we we've been talking all about the constitution um but uh particularly they want to get into search and seizure you you see cops training all across the nation now I tend to lean that the bigger departments that have the bigger budgets they get better training and they get to practice that training all the time and that's why they tend to do better. Yes versus small town departments and and what I'm talking about small town departments um you know low population low call loads things like that guys they're learning this stuff in the academy and they haven't touched a search and seizure in two years since they graduated the academy and all of a sudden now they're expected to remember and know how to practice what they learned. And and they're screwing up they're putting their foot in doorways they're doing all these different things um you know searching cars that's on traffic stops illegally all that stuff so in your in your experience now how how rampant is is the issue with improper search and seizure and what are we doing to fix it?

SPEAKER_00: 1:28:38

I feel like the Pennsylvania Mims thing is like the ongoing it'll never happen oh bro you're never going to the only thing I'll say I think somebody said something about uh I said officer safety or something else. I think somebody took offense that I'll just give an example I think that's what they're saying that they're getting all pissed off about is like if you had a young let's say you have an older guy in a car and a young female in the passenger seat and you think that there's something going on there something nefarious you know human trafficking human trafficking yeah I was gonna say you should get that guy out of the car and have a conversation with separate. That's right. That's the whole I think that's what I meant by that. So I'm not sure if that's what they took offense to uh because they keep pointing to the what the what the course in officer safety but you don't need officer safety yeah always in every situation.

SPEAKER_02: 1:29:19

Yeah. I'm gonna I'm gonna put Mr. Billfold in check here. Um simply because the arrogance it takes to think that you understand better about a case that not only are you an attorney you practice law this is specifically like a doctor that specializes on the heart this is specifically what you specialize in.

SPEAKER_00: 1:29:42

And look I I've I'm I have the the best selling search and seizure book in America. Like I've sold over a hundred thousand books you know search and seizure. So I mean I'm proud of what I know but I'm not saying I'm perfect. But on this issue I'm pretty damn good because this Pennsylvan Penn Vern v Mims um is uh is is a case that comes up all the time and I'm just very familiar with it. All right so um back to the story at hand. So um here's the deal uh police officers are undertrained especially in search and seizure they are usually get adequate training and use of force. And so let me just kind of take you down the way I look at this and like the kind of like the where we are where we've been where we and where we're going. Back in the early 70s um police officers were getting killed left and right. Okay. They were in a lot of shootouts um the number of deaths per year were around you know almost 300 but you know uh felonious assaults on police officers and you know now it's way lower because we have good tactics. Like we don't go up to cars anymore and just like how you doing fellas you know with gun like uh robbery suspects come on fellas get out of that car you know keep your hands up and then boom you know we now call them back. We do tactical things and so forth we have bulletproof S. We have good you know um tools and so forth. Okay. The point is is that law enforcement as a profession has spent billions and billions and billions of dollars trying to keep officers safe over the last 50 years and they've done a pretty good job. It's not perfect.

SPEAKER_01: 1:31:05

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 1:31:06

But what have they done for search and seizure right search and seizure has always been you know um no offense redheads but redheaded bastard stepchild right yeah they just don't give it the love that they that they it deserves and out of every thousand decisions that implicate the Fourth Amendment because use of force obviously falls under Fourth Amendment um you know a handful are use of force legit use of force the others are search and seizure issues. And so um now what has changed that dramatically and changed the paradigm right the that they call it a paradigm shift which is basically a mental a way of looking at things differently is the body worn camera. And the and to me you know that's the one of the blessings of the body worn camera is because we need to have an honest conversation about what your officers are doing out there. They um you know in in my classes I talk about the most violated thing under the Fourth Amendment is curtilage. Now curtilage is that area around your home and it's also the door you know the chalk in the door and I'm not done talking to you mentality but it's just it's just this mentality that we can do whatever we want on people's cartilage as long as we we're doing some kind of law enforcement purpose. But the the videos are coming out and they're showing more and more officers not doing the right thing. Now they have good faith we talked about that their heart is in the right place and not they're just trying to solve crime right but sometimes their lust for the bust is not giving them the right perspective they need to care about not just the ends but the means. In other words it's not just we don't care just about hey getting the guy in custody that's important. But how'd you get there? Yeah you know and so um so I think I don't think I know I know agencies are becoming more and more um interested and you know and and serious about this training issue but I mean I'm going to agencies that are like 20 people or you know or so which are small and I'm like what's your training budget? They're like$3,000 a year. You're not gonna be able to do a lot with 20 people with$3,000 a year you know that you know but yet okay can I also tell you my I just have stories for everything. Because I think because the thing is like I I went to ICP ICP is the international search and seizure um you know right ICP which is International Association Chief Police Police and I was there and I had my booth and I had you know a nice little island booth and it's kind of nice and it's not huge but it's decent and across me are are um is the the drone people. Yeah Axon has of course the wait line you know waiting line right yeah and I'm so I'm talking to these chiefs and I'm like hey I would I really like to come into your agency and train your guys for search and seizure and I'm like they're like we got no money you know can we can we do it for free? Can we host you? I'd speak Texan by the way can we host you fellas? I'm like no that's me that's just we want to train your whole agency and like yeah but we just spent uh 25000 on those drones I'm like you know the drones are getting all the love right and I'm like look you need drones drones are the drones are the future I and I really do mean that uh they're as important as the police radio but it's like where is the love for the training you know you can you can have all these tech tools you can have the nicest cars you can have the nicest guns you know shit uh you know these six hour P320s are so nice that they shoot off themselves they even I mean yeah right yeah actually I like I like 320s I actually I I I I have a flux legion which I love but um so I'm just saying like you have all these nice toys but and it's not just me by the way it's not just search and seizure it's there's a lot of important things that we need to train our officers. I mean that these officers are going out there with a lack of training and the other thing is you can pay now or you can pay later okay but but Eric it's not just pay now in in in lawsuits it's also paying with officers who don't know what to do. You know, because I get these calls I'm sure my my phone is is the is off but you know I'm sure when I get off we'll have calls and like man you know I had this call last night I'm not sure I did the right thing and so forth. And it's like we need to build confidence in a search and seizure space because one can I you know because one of the things that officers when they leave the academy they just don't really know like they're they're still new but even a five year officer with a big agency like Dallas and and so forth they still have a lot of confusions about what the courts want from them. When I teach my classes and I and I give them scenarios and I show them videos, I'll say hey did the officer do the right thing and uh they're like you know and I and I pick these cases on purpose because I know they're getting it wrong. And I I'm like give me a thumb you know thumbs up they did the right thing and the cop's like yeah they did the right thing. I said well this officer's agency paid two million dollars for that for that mistake right there. And they're like what mistake and I said this is the mistake and I said oh oh oh I see you know we're not supposed to do that right well I was try I wasn't trained that way it's like you know two million dollars it's like you know that and plus the sh the the the morale issues the lack of confidence um I call it the iceberg theory yeah the the the tip of the iceberg is what we're paying out law enforcement pays$250,000 in plaintiff payouts every seven hours wow and so and you know that's just kind of how it breaks down right yeah and so um it's it's a lot of money and it's like so I talked to these chiefs and chiefs if you're listening out there you know you don't have to go through me there's other great instructors out there just kidding there's there's not but um we're the best in town but but it's like chief your your cops need need more what they got into the academy what they're getting through at FTO is not right is not enough and also the FTOs um unfortunately are also teaching the wrong thing can I just give you an example yeah from your from your great state so on October 27th um the Fifth Circuit came out with a case called Sosito versus Sanit Benito is that my is that's sounds familiar. Yeah I like when you say it though because it rhymes does rhyme and what happened there was an officer was talking to Sosito and he uh Sosito was engaged in like a neighbor dispute and something like that and he was also engaged in disorderly conduct now Sosito was in his yard and there was a fence that the cop like there's a like a little pony pony wall fence with the gate and he was talking the cop was talking to him over the over the gate right and uh and he was in again he was engaged in disorderly conduct so the cop had the PC it was in presence so we don't have that kind of issue and um the cop says hey look you you're gonna have to take a ride right you're you're going to jail tonight and Sicido turns around he starts walking towards his front door and the officer opens the gate takes Sicido in custody and um places him under arrest. Do you see the problem there?

SPEAKER_02: 1:37:44

Okay well he just violated the the the gate he broke the threshold for with no compliance with no what we teach at Blue to Gold is called crew.

SPEAKER_00: 1:37:52

In order to do a search or seizure you need crew you need consent a recognized exception or a warrant right here they had no consent because he actually when he turned around and started walking away he he's kind of talking about withdrawing his consent any consent that he would have had that's exactly right absolutely right if he would have went in before maybe right actually that that'd be problematic too but the um he had no recognition exception he had no agency no emergency he had no warrant and now this comes back full circle to our conversation we had earlier about qualified immunity the Fifth Circuit said all right this officer violated the constitution it was clear it it is it it is a violation right however you're gonna get qualified immunity so that goes back to original issue this officer did the wrong thing not a big deal but it was the wrong thing.

SPEAKER_02: 1:38:40

Right okay it's not the the if he was if he was a foot the other direction it's an arrestable offense.

SPEAKER_00: 1:38:45

That's right but yet susito did not get a penny because they gave the the the so the next guy who does it gets paid but susito doesn't get any money. I I do think that's wrong. As as just as a philosophy there has to be a middle ground here with between yeah maybe you don't get the million dollar pay you know something right you but you but you got to give this people something at least I mean it doesn't help Sosito but at least pay the lawyer and I'm not and look I don't do this business so it's not for me. I'm just saying you know and don't overpay him but but you're gonna do this legal work you should it's like and it's like a Sicido if I'm a plaintiff's attorney and see Sicito comes to me and says hey I got this case and I look at it I'm like man that cop violated the Constitution.

SPEAKER_01: 1:39:28

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 1:39:28

But I ain't taking it yeah and Cecilia says why because I can't get paid it's not clearly established in the state of Texas.

SPEAKER_02: 1:39:34

So beat it you know you're actually making the system worse worse 100%. Yeah I mean think of Roe v. Wade that kid's walking around full grown adult now. Yeah no Roe vade Roe v.

SPEAKER_00: 1:39:48

Wade so look so you know to answer your question somebody had to be first yeah so we but we have yeah exactly right they're happy yeah yeah they're they're they made it um but uh but the point is is that uh we we do have a lack of training but I but I look at it I feel and I and I kind of I mean this I'm I feel like I'm those use of force instructors that were out there in 1971 trying to scream from the top of their lungs hey guys we got to do something better like our cops are dying out there. Now my business is not dying my business is financial liability right so I like to say I'm not here to help with your you know your your physical survival I'm your legal survival right yeah and um and I'm just like I gotta I'm trying to keep you legally safe. And I'm also here to tell you officers out there that you know this whole like you're gonna if you mess up you're gonna lose your house nobody's losing their house. Okay. The only people are losing their houses they're called criminals. Yeah they deserve to lose their house. Okay if you're gonna you know uh you know uh uh uh brute brutally beat somebody you know um then you deserve to go to jail and lose your house but but departments are paying big money and insurance pools and so forth yeah and the argument's gonna be that the if the cops started actually losing money themselves that we would have less power problems with cops violating rights. Totally. In fact in all these people that are like you know um on my channel and so forth that like give us a hard time with the law um the one thing we can agree on I know is hey we need more training because um and they you know that doesn't mean that we're gonna agree on what the law is you clearly we we we see that right but you know I look I I I see these these lawyers these officers violating people's rights and I'm like man don't I mean if that was me I'd be pissed off too.

SPEAKER_02: 1:41:38

Yeah um King Slayer dropped five bucks in the uh chat and said to clarify yep the Stiegel disagreement from earlier was banning one of our co-hosts that comes on here said um that a murder arrest warrant alone grants exigent circumstances for third party home entry.

SPEAKER_00: 1:41:58

Um I'm not sure that there's a case on that right I mean what case you must be for referring to a specific case on that. However um because Steagall wasn't about a murderer is about a drug user but um but I I I I guess I can imagine that there might be a case out there um there might be a case out there that said that because he had this warrant that maybe there's some agency there. Maybe you think that Eric that's where they're going with that yeah um and that would that that would have to be a real uh a here and now thing right hey there's there's agency besides this warrant let's just say we have PC for him because the warrants doesn't get you into third party homes but but based on the tie my my I see my hands go over to your space but uh sorry about that. But um but you know but the but their agency the situation because we have Peyton Peyton was also a murderer right then I didn't they didn't have a warrant for him but Peyton was a murderer and they didn't even they the cops didn't even have agency to go into his own house to arrest him because it happened three days ago.

SPEAKER_02: 1:42:50

Yeah um this is uh Mr. Billfold he's he he actually Opened my eyes to this before is that of all these cops that do lose QI, even then, none of them pay out. None of them.

SPEAKER_00: 1:43:04

Well, wait, so so say it again.

SPEAKER_02: 1:43:05

So the ones that so he said QI prevents clearly establishing any case law. So it is a sick feedback loop that prevents justice for people whose rights have been violated. And then he goes on to say that 99.99% of cops who lose qualified immunity are covered by municipal identification policies.

SPEAKER_00: 1:43:24

All right, let me clarify a couple things. Um he's right, and but it's not coming off correctly on the QI comment. So what he's talking about there is first of all, qualified immunity does not prevent establishing qual clearly establishable case law. What he's talking about there is that the US Supreme Court allows courts to skip out, skip over the first question of qualified immunity, which is was there even a violation of the Constitution? Because if there wasn't which is the really, isn't that the most important question? Right. But in this, okay, now we can agree on something right now. That this would fix a lot of these problems. At least, you know, force the courts to just address the damn issue. Okay. And what he's talking about there is that most of these court cases coming on a QI, they skip over it and they say, you know, we're not even gonna address whether or not it's it's even lawful. We're just gonna say it's not clearly established. And I hate that. Yeah. I hate that. You're already, you're already there, court. You already have the facts before you. You already have a c a case in controversy. Deal with it. Tell us what if this is wrong or right. Yeah. That's what he said for so it doesn't prevent it. It's just that it's a it's a lazy way out by the courts.

SPEAKER_01: 1:44:37

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:44:37

How do we fix that? You fix it by the Supreme Court overturning their decision. I forget the case name. I want to say Hendricks. Um, but there's a case that allows the Supreme Court says that you don't have to address both questions. Is it a violation? If it was, was it clearly established, right? You got to fix that case. You got to tell the Supreme Court, you know what, we messed up. You have to answer both questions.

SPEAKER_02: 1:44:58

Sounds like you got some work to do, really.

SPEAKER_00: 1:44:59

Uh that's the I that's why I have my uh my bar a license for the Supreme Court.

SPEAKER_02: 1:45:04

Hell yeah. I like that.

SPEAKER_00: 1:45:05

May it may and if I got may it please the court. That's what you gotta say, by the way.

SPEAKER_02: 1:45:09

Oh, is that that that's the vernacular?

SPEAKER_00: 1:45:11

That's the vernacular. As you as you start your, you know, uh you start your argument.

SPEAKER_02: 1:45:16

Yeah, I like that. I'm trying to.

SPEAKER_00: 1:45:17

But that was a good argument. Whoever brought, I forgot the name, but yeah, Mr.

SPEAKER_02: 1:45:20

Billfold, yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:45:20

Yeah, Billfold, that's an excellent issue that's drives me crazy.

SPEAKER_02: 1:45:24

Yeah, I I wasn't aware um of uh, you know, I've I've heard of cops losing QI, and I'm like, I've I know what happens. Yeah, and then I you don't follow through with that, you just think, oh, they lost qualified immunity, so they got fucked. And that's rightfully so. Well, it turns out even when they lose it, nothing's happening.

SPEAKER_03: 1:45:43

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 1:45:44

So yeah. Um, and I don't think a lot of people know if I didn't know it, I mean, I'm not saying I'm the most stout astute person out there for knowledge.

SPEAKER_00: 1:45:52

Let's say what's go up there. Uh it says cops don't get identification. Go up a little bit. What's this one's because if there was another identification issue, uh there it is right there. Uh, what does that say? Cops don't pay identification, insurance pay at all. Um, that is true. And that's just uh, but I will tell you that has to be that way. It has to be that way. Um, you cannot have law enforcement in 2025 without identification. Identification is basically insurance, right? Identification is saying, hey, if you get sued, um we will pay the bills. It has to be the way. No cop, I if if we lost identification, if you don't lose identification, agencies provide it. But if agencies did not provide identification, I would be the first one telling every cop to walk off that job. Because cops make mistakes. Okay. I've made mistakes, you've made mistakes, um, we all make mistakes. Now we may not have been called on it in a sense, but what identification requires, though, is these policies and these like the laws and so forth, they require good faith.

SPEAKER_01: 1:46:55

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:46:56

Meaning if the officer acted in malice, they don't have identification, but they have to have identification because the constitution is too damn complicated. I mean, I'm making a business over here, doing pretty well for myself over people's confusions. Yeah. And that's not right. I shouldn't really have a business. I have the largest search and seizure company in the nation because cops don't understand the Fourth Amendment.

SPEAKER_02: 1:47:17

Okay, so let me get into this part because this is um and and Freeman uh or friends and codes, I'll read your your thing here in a second. Um no way. What I know. Um sorry. One of the things that I try to convey is that just because you know the constitution, practical application in real life scenarios doesn't, it's not clear all the time. It's not, you know, like we watched the video of the guy putting his foot in the doorway, and I I could look at 20 people, and 18 of us are gonna be like, that's clearly a violation. Like this was egregious. Yep. But there's still gonna be two people. No, no, that's not. Now you expect cops to get that right every single time. And I'm telling you, there's a I don't know how to explain it, but there's a difference in being able to read something and think that you know how to apply that to any scenario that happens. And it's just not true.

SPEAKER_00: 1:48:16

And Eric, can I tell you one other problem that we have here? Judges. In other words, you're gonna say, not only are you really expected to know every single case out there that's binding on you, and you're supposed to get this right. I mean, I've been doing this for 20 years, and I got so many damn questions. I don't know if I'm right about everything. I I mean, you know, I actually changed my tune on something the other day that I was teaching. I was like, eh, actually, somebody convinced me that I probably wasn't right on it. And we don't have a case on it, right?

SPEAKER_01: 1:48:44

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:48:44

And it's but it's so, but here's the other thing. It's like, not only are we right, but it it's um uh, but you have to have you know it's funny, it's like even lawyers don't have to be right, but cops do. Right. Lawyers don't have that standard. When I got my bar license, it says I just have to be have to have the professional judgment, but I don't have to know all the cases, okay? I I should, but if I go to, if I litigate something for a client, I don't have to know, but you do.

SPEAKER_02: 1:49:07

And you also have time to prepare.

SPEAKER_00: 1:49:09

I I I don't I I work in the ivory, I work in the ivory tower, but do you know that you have to be a hundred percent? You are absolutely legally obligated under the Constitution to know every binding, not persuasive, but every binding case from the U.S. Supreme Court, 650 of them that affect your job, all of them from the uh the Fifth Circuit, thousands that affect your job, and all of them from the Court of Criminal Appeals, thousands that affect your job. I bet you probably don't know 200 of them.

SPEAKER_02: 1:49:37

Even the ones I could tell you I know, I still only know them correct. Partly.

SPEAKER_00: 1:49:40

Um anecdotally. Yeah, exactly. So for the for the per for the people out there, okay, and hopefully I'm the microphone. For the people out there that say cops should get their own insurance. Um, I want to make sure that we're on the same page. If you go get a job at the HVAC place and you're driving their company truck, make sure that you get your own insurance on that too. That's like walking into the um, you know, hey, here's the keys to the company car. Where's your insurance for the what do you mean it? Why do I have to provide insurance? I'm the one working for you.

SPEAKER_01: 1:50:06

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:50:06

It's just, it's just, it's I understand we want to hold cops accountable, but you don't do it by telling them they have to have to take a job and then they also have to provide their own insurance. No job is like that.

SPEAKER_01: 1:50:17

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:50:18

Um malpractice. If you and if you and if you're a doctor, you have malpractice insurance, it's because you work on your own. We don't have we don't have private police here.

SPEAKER_02: 1:50:27

Right. Nor should we.

SPEAKER_00: 1:50:28

Well, I don't know about that. Uh uh, Arizona has the uh the posse. The posse, yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 1:50:32

I I had so I had uh Mark Lamb on and and made him talk about. I'm like, bro, you got fucking posse.

SPEAKER_00: 1:50:39

I like I like the posse. I think that's crazy. I so I think we disagree there. I think we should have some more posse. I'm actually being kind of serious. I think that there is value in having some restoring some of the policing responsibly back to the public.

SPEAKER_02: 1:50:51

With you.

SPEAKER_00: 1:50:52

Yeah, but they need some training. They need some training. And also let's keep them with the big stuff. Not not the let's they're probably not gonna go to the homes investing in domestic violence. But I do, I I do wouldn't mind a little bit of roving patrols at night, right?

SPEAKER_02: 1:51:05

Um, so Mr. Billfold said all QI does is prevent new, or it's gonna be hard for us to separate from QI now that you open that doorway, but um I avoid it like the plague because I'm not qualified to no pun intended, not qualified to to argue anything on it. Um, but um he said all qualified immunity does is prevent new case law that clearly establish our rights, it does not save cops or government actors from financial liability. Anything to that?

unknown: 1:51:33

No.

SPEAKER_02: 1:51:34

I think we kind of covered it. Yeah, I was gonna say I think we're beating a dead horse because we we're of the agreement. Qualified immunity is busted and it needs to be fixed, especially on the clearly established part of the cases. So we're with y'all. Like we we agree. Um so no need to beat a dead horse on that one. But um, I want to get back to um sorry, I want to get back to uh training, fixing the problems we're seeing with the police on search and seizure. And you've already kind of alluded to it's a problem. It is a problem, and now we're addressing that issue. Money being one, so getting the proper training. Yep, um maybe not spending, you know, especially departments that don't have a lot of money, not spending so much on going to the range four or five times a year, yep, and dropping all that. Maybe, maybe you only go three times and you get a proper search and seizure class because every single day that you go out, you're seizing something, more than likely. Yep. Uh just one traffic stop. There's a seizure. Yep. Um, so you need to know what the hell you're doing. You have to. And in that, it's not just, and this is the okay, this is the part where we'll probably we're probably coming off as cops planing. It isn't just to cover your ass legally. Yes, that's a big part of it. I don't want to get myself legally hemmed up. I don't want to violate your rights. Yeah. That's that's the other part that we're not saying, I think, that we need to kind of emphasize. I don't want to mess up your rights. I don't want to step on them. So that's the other part that I feel like we're not saying, but we should be saying.

SPEAKER_00: 1:53:11

Well, I think I said it in a roundabout way when I said that I teach not only to prevent lawsuits, but also to give confidence. Because cops, look, there again, I you know, we have plenty of people that can, you know, I'm sure, understand that there are some bad actors out there, just like there are bad doctors, mechanics, and so forth. But the point is, is that cops, the the 99% of them, right? You know, they want to do the right thing. They don't, just like you said, they they don't they want to know the law. They want to have that confidence. Um, in fact, if they have confidence, they, you know, you'll you'll see them, they'll that'll fix the ego issue too a little bit because sometimes ego is like their fallback position. It's like, you know, I'm a uh you know, I told you this, you're uh I saw a video on your channel about, you know, a guy, uh, a cop who's trying to detain somebody when they even talk to the the sus the complaint and yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 1:53:59

They just went straight to the auditor.

SPEAKER_00: 1:54:01

Went straight, yeah, and went straight to the auditor. And it's like, and you can see it's an ego issue. And it's like he doesn't like being told no, and he doesn't like you know, people knowing the law probably better than him. But but in that case, the the guy probably did know the law better than him. But if the but the cops need to know the law the best. And they need to be like, okay, you know, I like to say if you've been legally beat, you have to have to tactically retreat, okay? Cops need to recognize when they've been legally beat. Because out of the reality is that we do have a lot of laws in our favor, okay? And, you know, we we have agency, we have, you know, use of force, and you know, we have these laws that can give us the tools that we need to keep our community safe, but there are also a lot of things that the suspect has in their favor. They can keep the police out of their home unless they have crew, consent, recognizing exception, or warrant. Um, they don't have to wai Miranda, you know, and so forth. They don't have to consent to search. Um, they don't have to talk to cops.

SPEAKER_01: 1:54:53

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:54:53

So, and cops need to recognize that, yeah, okay, I've been legally beat here. This guy, the law is more in his favor than mine. I'm gonna have to do something else to solve this issue.

SPEAKER_02: 1:55:02

Yes, agreed. Um, Mike, cucumber in the super chat. Thank you, brother. Appreciate that. And I just as a reminder to everybody that does support the channel. Um, one, make sure you're going over to Blue to Gold. Uh, like, follow, subscribe to all their stuff. Um, two, uh all these donations and stuff that you guys make with the memberships and the super chats and whatnot, um, it's not going in my pocket, it's going directly back into the channel. So uh we appreciate that. It gives us things like when we do share videos and you don't want to watch ads, like we put that into the premium YouTube membership. They they tore me apart one day because we were watching body cam review videos and we had to wait for the commercials. Oh, and they were they were upset about the commercials. I would be upset too. So cheat bastards somebody dropped like 50 bucks, they're like get YouTube premium. I was like, all right, I got it. So um that's funny, but yeah, so we appreciate that, guys. But uh reading Mike's thing over here said cops can have qualified immunity uh if citizens can have QI as well. That doesn't even make sense, bro. Um I can't sue a citizen, can I? On duty. Um you you can. How does that I I've never heard of that? Oh my god, imagine being that kind of okay.

SPEAKER_00: 1:56:13

So there's a couple rules here. The the main one is that you're not a uh I forget the doctor name, but you're not it's I think it's called the the the firefighter doctrine or something like that. It's it's not that, but you you're not allowed to sue a doc uh a person if you go, let's say they they they catch their house on fire, and um, you know, and you go into their house and you get hurt, and you can prove that they actually did it on purpose, right? So your injury should and you got hurt. You got hurt. You should have never got hurt, right? They should never put um you can't sue them over that. It's there's a there's a doctrine for that. Um, but I do know a lot of officers who've been uh on duty and been hit, hit, you know, hit on by a vehicle, right? Not not not necessarily in person, but but their car gets hit and they sue the insurance of that person and they get paid.

SPEAKER_02: 1:56:57

Really?

SPEAKER_00: 1:56:58

Yeah, that's kind of common.

SPEAKER_02: 1:56:59

I've never I I guess I've never heard of a cop.

SPEAKER_00: 1:57:02

But that's just but you're taking, yeah, yeah, but you're taking, you're not suing them as a you assume as a private party.

SPEAKER_02: 1:57:07

Okay. Yeah. Interesting. Um, shout out to uh internal service air 503. I know who you are. Uh that's Harrison. Um, he changed his name or he got a new name, but he did he's delivering five uh 10 gifted memberships, and I believe he did a 10 earlier. So thank you very much, brother. Awesome. Um they do go to random people. I also want to give a shout out to Rogue Audit, I think that was the name. Uh Rogue Nation Audits is in the house. I see uh Freeman saying hello to you. And I know that if Freeman is getting all hyped up, that he really likes you, so I should really like you too. Um if citizens conspire with government to violate rights, they can be included in 1983.

SPEAKER_00: 1:57:50

In fact, that's actually why that law was passed, was to go, was to basically go after the KKK. Really? Yeah. So it was passed after the Civil War, and what was happening was uh vigilante justice, right? So um and and and mobs and so forth. So the KKK was conspiring with local officials, local cops, sheriff's departments, and going and violating uh African-American rights. So uh they passed that law to go to actually have a mechanism for for citizens to sue the the the KKK when they are acting under color of law. Now that's that's the piece that it that needs to be established is the K, you know, normally if the KKK is operating by themselves, they're not operating the color of law. But when they team up and conspire along with local police officers to do it and they are along with for the ride, or vice versa, right? It's a 1983 claim.

SPEAKER_02: 1:58:41

Oh, it's interesting.

SPEAKER_00: 1:58:43

It's a civil rights issue.

SPEAKER_02: 1:58:44

Is there any modern cases that you can think of where that's a thing?

SPEAKER_00: 1:58:48

Um hold on. About conspiring. Uh actually, okay, this is a small one, but it was involving a tow truck driver where um the the the tow truck driver, and I don't even really remember the facts. It wasn't, it was just I just kind of I remember because it's like, oh, that's kind of weird. Like they went after the tow truck driver and the cops for illegally seizing their vehicle.

SPEAKER_03: 1:59:08

Okay.

SPEAKER_00: 1:59:09

And the court upheld it. They can't they upheld that the tow truck driver and the cops uh conspired, I guess.

SPEAKER_02: 1:59:14

Was it getting a cutback or something financially, probably?

SPEAKER_00: 1:59:16

No, just just no, just something about just something about just unlawfully certain uh seizing the vehicle. Oh something like that. Okay. But yeah, but it's rare. It's rare. Most because most of the time we don't have, you know, we don't have well look the posse.

unknown: 1:59:29

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 1:59:29

Actually, there it is right there. Yeah, the posse. The posse would and could be sued under 1983 because even though they're private actors not getting paid, I don't think they get paid, um, they are working on behalf of the sheriff's department, and they could be uh absolutely sued under 1983.

SPEAKER_02: 1:59:47

Ah, okay. This is actually you guys are putting out some interesting shit today. I like this. I because I didn't know this either. Police raided Afro Man's home and found nothing. Uh, you remember that singer? He sang because I got high. Really?

SPEAKER_00: 2:00:00

Because I got high. And they rated Because I got high. Yeah. And that's they raided his house because of that? Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 2:00:04

No, no, no, no. But they rated I they raided his house for some unknown thing. And they I do remember that they didn't find Jack shit. Yeah. Um, and they used they used the raid footage to sue him for alleged damages to their reputation. Man, you can sue about anything, can't you?

SPEAKER_00: 2:00:19

Yeah, probably. I mean, you know, but look, it's it's it's it's if the shoe's under their foot, you'd probably want to sue too.

SPEAKER_02: 2:00:26

Yeah. Um somebody said Pit Bulls and Bonfire said, uh, Eric, I'm curious about the video you put out. The driver wanted the cop's name so he could file a complaint about him speeding. My question, how would you go about how would that go down if a civilian did file a complaint?

SPEAKER_00: 2:00:45

So I th I the the the flavor I get here is that maybe the the issue is how do you get the cop's name? Is that maybe the issue here?

SPEAKER_02: 2:00:52

I'm not sure. I I don't I think she may be kind of talking about where the cop put the ticket in the window, the example I gave you earlier and dropped the warning and uh assum it it wasn't about a name. She said, I'm curious about the video you put out. Driver wanted the cop's name so he could file a complaint about him speeding.

SPEAKER_03: 2:01:13

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 2:01:14

Oh no, I know what video she's talking about now. So an off-duty cop had an unmarked car, or it was a marked police car, but fly by him. He's like, What the fuck?

SPEAKER_00: 2:01:25

Was it in Florida?

SPEAKER_02: 2:01:26

No, no, no. This was in Colorado, I believe. It was some cold state.

SPEAKER_00: 2:01:29

Okay.

SPEAKER_02: 2:01:30

And uh guy flies by him, and uh the off-duty cop's like, this motherfucker, and then he goes and pulls someone over for speeding.

SPEAKER_00: 2:01:39

So the off okay, I think I got it. So the off-duty cop sees a marked unit speeding.

SPEAKER_02: 2:01:43

Yep, with no lights, no sirens.

SPEAKER_00: 2:01:45

And then then that marked unit pulls somebody else over for speeding.

SPEAKER_02: 2:01:47

Okay, and so now the cop's like, you hypocrite, motherfucker. So he gets his camera out, he's down the road on the other side, and he's filming. So now the cop comes up and makes contact after he completes his traffic stop and wants this driver's ID and all this stuff.

SPEAKER_00: 2:02:03

Of the person who's filming.

SPEAKER_02: 2:02:04

Of the person who's filming.

SPEAKER_00: 2:02:05

Who happens to be an off-duty city? Who happens to be an off-duty camp? See, we're protecting, we're we're we're calling, we're enforcing our own, policing our own. Yeah. Um, and how do you do that? Uh well, first of all, you don't. You you you you that person filming uh should not hand over anything. And with those facts, right? Right.

SPEAKER_02: 2:02:21

And him being a cop, he that he he knows better than the average bear.

SPEAKER_00: 2:02:25

God and and what I look, I haven't seen this video, but what what a what a dummy. The guy, you know, come the cop on duty going over and trying to engage this guy. Like he right, he's just engaging the first amendment. He's a he's a first amendment auditor. Like, why would you even engage this guy so dumb?

SPEAKER_02: 2:02:40

Yeah, she said, yep, that video. Yeah. So um, and I he did. He wanted the guy's name and badge number. Um, and then he I he was reluctant at first, but then you know, asked he asked for a supervisor. Supervisor comes out and basically lays down. The law and tells them what the deal is, like a good supervisor should. So I mean all the checks and balances worked out in that. Yeah. Um, and now I believe that cop is suing as he should. He violated his rights.

SPEAKER_00: 2:03:06

If he well, if he felt detained, which you probably did.

SPEAKER_02: 2:03:09

Oh, he was absolutely, he told him you can't go. He's like oh, there you go. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 2:03:13

All I can say is that what should happen to me?

SPEAKER_02: 2:03:14

Yeah. Okay. So let's not since we tapped onto that subject. Um clearly establishing detention. That is another problem that officers have where you can see it when they're not quite sure. They'll be asked, Am I being detained? Am I free to go? Yes. And they're like, I'm trying to get your eye. Like they don't answer the question.

SPEAKER_00: 2:03:33

I know. Because that's part of this whole thing. First of all, it's this part of the theme. They're then they're not answering the question because they don't know.

SPEAKER_01: 2:03:39

Yeah, they're unconfident.

SPEAKER_00: 2:03:41

They're not confident. And they need to answer it yes or no, okay? And they need to have confidence. If a per if a person is detained, they say, Yes, you are you are being detained.

SPEAKER_02: 2:03:48

So can you can you clearly say before the camera, if they ask, you have to tell them.

SPEAKER_00: 2:03:55

You should tell them.

SPEAKER_02: 2:03:55

Yes.

SPEAKER_00: 2:03:56

I mean, you know, have to, you know. But yeah, you you need because you come off when the cops are not or when the cops are not even saying if a person's detained or not, that looks it's it's like you lack credibility there.

SPEAKER_01: 2:04:09

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 2:04:09

It's a it's a it's it's first of all, a detention is like the most ubiquitous, common, elementary thing that you know. I mean, it's it's you that's like a first day of the academy thing, right? So why aren't you asked answering the question? Are you detained or not? Is this person free to leave?

SPEAKER_01: 2:04:29

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 2:04:30

And do you and they're not gonna be free to leave, but if you have reasonable suspicion, criminal activity is a foot.

SPEAKER_02: 2:04:35

Yep.

SPEAKER_00: 2:04:35

Or a feat. That's a lot more, even more suspicion.

SPEAKER_02: 2:04:38

Um, red tag 7915, I believe he's on your channel, or she said, Where do you send questions for this? Just in the comments, guys. Um, we can see them. Yeah, we see them as they're coming up. Where uh we grab them as we can. Um, obviously, we we don't want to interrupt uh free throw flowing thoughts. So this is part of the fun part about doing a live stream interview style podcast, is uh we're we're still getting the the material that we want to talk about, which is search and seizure with officers and where they're screwing up and the constitution and how we're trying to make that better. But at the same time, we're going down rabbit holes with y'all with your questions. So we we do appreciate it. Throw those in there. Um Pitbulls and Bonfire said, internal, I think it's it that it is appropriate. Um if a cop doesn't answer the question, if I'm detained, then I'm not detained.

SPEAKER_00: 2:05:29

I agree.

SPEAKER_02: 2:05:29

I agree.

SPEAKER_00: 2:05:30

I agree 100%. Walk away.

SPEAKER_02: 2:05:31

Yep. And then hope to God they grab you.

SPEAKER_00: 2:05:35

And hope and yeah, and hope to God that they don't have reasonable suspicion. Because if they do have reasonable suspicion, then I think you're gonna lose that case. Because you're not, you're not gonna qualify immunity. You're not gonna find a case out there that says if you do not tell people they're detained, then you then you that's not detention. It's gonna be a show of authority, right?

SPEAKER_02: 2:05:53

And it's gonna be based on reasonableness.

SPEAKER_00: 2:05:55

Correct. And if you have a show of authority and a reasonable person, not feel free to leave, but they also had reasonable suspicion. So it's just it's just one of these things, right? Uh talk about cartilage. You want I can talk about cartilage.

SPEAKER_02: 2:06:04

Well, that says cartilage, and that's what's in your ears and your nose.

SPEAKER_00: 2:06:07

Actually, what's funny is uh I got a funny story about that. No, no, it's it's actually it's it's actually somewhat common. Um, so I was teaching in in in Arkansas in Arkansas, and uh, I was teaching at the academy, you know. And I normally don't teach at academies, I teach in service.

SPEAKER_02: 2:06:20

Did you have the most teeth in that?

SPEAKER_00: 2:06:21

I I probably did.

SPEAKER_02: 2:06:23

I'm just messing with you, Arkansas, relax.

SPEAKER_00: 2:06:25

And I could, you know, but this is actually this it's going along with this this joke, right? This the southern joke. So I said, I said to these new guys, you know, these young men and women, I said, Hey, I'm gonna talk, you know, I'm gonna talk about cartilage. And I said, Who even knows what the word even means? And this young man raised this and he said, Sir, it's that stuff in your nose. I like it.

SPEAKER_02: 2:06:46

Uh I like it. I like it. You know, that gets everybody's juices flowing for learning. I like a good laugh when we're talking about that stuff.

SPEAKER_00: 2:06:53

Um, reminds me of another joke I gotta tell you in a second. But uh, but uh curled is the area protecting around your home. It's highly protected and it's highly confused. And that's also why we need, you know, qualified immunity and you know, just because courts have not given us a lot of cases on curlage. They've given a lot, I mean some, but we are making some judgment calls here.

SPEAKER_02: 2:07:12

Okay. Um, and this is from your page. Uh red tag 7915 said, question duplex. Cops go to the backyard for loud music investigation. Person is intoxicated, lowers music, person tells them to leave. Cops tell him to go back inside. He says, No, I'm on my backyard.

SPEAKER_00: 2:07:30

Yeah, I think he okay, so there's two things. Number one is if he already committed the violation, which is allowed music, right? And the cops are lawfully present in the backyard, which they may be, to help turn the music down, they can issue him a ticket, right? You know, they can take enforced actions, they're lawfully present. Now, uh, they arrested him for public intoxication. That depends on state law. Most state laws do not allow people to be arrested for public intox on cartilage. And that's the rule, I believe it's also in Texas. It's not a vi it's it's not a crime to be on your porch drunk. In fact, that's where you're supposed to be, not in the, you know, not on the street.

SPEAKER_01: 2:08:08

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 2:08:09

Um, so you gotta, but but other states have held that if you can you basically if you can see them from the public view, then it's public intox. I don't like those laws because I think it's kind of wrong. Uh I think it's bad discretion.

SPEAKER_01: 2:08:20

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 2:08:20

You know, I think get them for something else, right? They're they're they're uh tumultuous conduct, their disorderly conduct. If you want to do something like that, if that's applicable, you know, shooting their gun in the air. Um, but to be drunk on your own cartilage is straight up wrong.

SPEAKER_02: 2:08:34

Right. Um and he said, E uh it is it even lawful for them to go to the backyard for loud music investigation if the front door wasn't answered, and is it legal for them to arrest him in the backyard standing on his steps?

SPEAKER_00: 2:08:47

So the answer is probably. So here's what I teach. Um so the first thing is that when the officers arrive on scene, we have to establish is the is the ongoing violation, is the violation ongoing? Okay, if it's not ongoing and they did turn on the music, then we don't really have any agency. We can do a knock and talk. But it but presuming that I think from the case, from the facts here, that the music is still blasting. So the next thing is all right, we have an ongoing nuisance. Now, we're gonna have some debate about whether or not that is enough of a of an agency to actually go into the backyard, right? However, I do believe that most courts are gonna uphold it with the right facts because it is ongoing. It is, there is some urgency there to resolve this.

SPEAKER_01: 2:09:29

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 2:09:29

Um, if you're gonna say, well, they're blast, they're they're they're blasting their music, they got the the band, the live band in the backyard at two o'clock in the morning. You've had 10 fuck freaking phone calls from uh from neighbors saying, please, I gotta work in the morning. This is built bullshit. And you're like, I gotta get a warrant. That's not the right answer. Okay. Judges also realize that, you know, this they will just say it's an ongoing kind of agency nuisance. So we go into the backyard. Hey guys, you gotta shut it down, right? And so the next thing is um, you know, look, if they're lawfully present, then we take care of business. And that means that you can get the ticket. I mean, it's like, yeah, I'll take enforcement action. Or if it's an arrestable offense, you could get arrested. You know, some states are not gonna allow you to get arrested for uh noise complaint. But, you know, you could take the guy with you. Hopefully he's gonna be, you know, he might be drunk, but hopefully he'll be cooperative and try to be like, oh, I'm sorry, sir, and you know, talk his way out of a ticket and you know, and and be like, oh, it won't happen again. I got excited and so forth. I got I got a new job, I'm celebrating, whatever, right? But um, you know, so the arg I think the argument look, the argument's gonna be if he turns down the music and he wants to go into his house. So, first of all, if he makes into his house, leave him alone.

SPEAKER_01: 2:10:37

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 2:10:38

But if you can't put, you can like detain him temporarily, like, look, you've already made the violation. I am lawfully present, you are gonna get a ticket, and just escort him out to the front if you want to do that and give him his ticket and then kick him loose.

SPEAKER_02: 2:10:48

Yeah. Um, we don't have any mods on right now, guys, because this was uh this was a bonus episode. What's a mod? Uh uh moderators. Oh bonators. Yeah, so they're asking for I'm doing everything myself. So the person that asked, why are we intentionally ignoring some question? Um, I'm not. I don't I'm trying to engage in a conversation and we're trying to monitor the chat at the same time. It's not just YouTube chat that you're seeing. We also have Facebook, LinkedIn, his YouTube. Uh, so all of these chats are just flying through. We can't possibly keep up with all of them.

SPEAKER_00: 2:11:22

Now, personally, I think you should have ignored his. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We are just to prove just to just to prove a point.

SPEAKER_02: 2:11:27

Yeah, yeah. Um but uh yeah, so if you want to throw that question up there again, um like Mr. Bill Full gets it. I know you guys are getting on him earlier, uh, but he he throws a question up. If we didn't get to it, it'll throw it up again because he understands that this thing is scrolling past, and I can't possibly with no mods on to help me tonight, guys. Like or on this one, um, it's just not possible. But yes, the Discord link is on the chat right now. Um, you should be able to see that. Uh I promise you, I don't ignore any questions. Yeah, Mr. Belfold just said Eric does not ignore anyone.

SPEAKER_00: 2:12:03

Um Yeah, so see, you know, you can but what Mike said, you know, the sanctity of the home shall not be infringed upon them for minor or trivial issues. Um that's not in the Fourth Amendment necessarily, but you know, that's the whole problem, isn't it?

unknown: 2:12:16

But it could be.

SPEAKER_00: 2:12:17

I mean, I'm just saying, like, what is that, you know, that's not what the Fourth Amendment says. It doesn't say that we shall not infringe the home for trivial issues. Uh, but what's trivial trivial to you? I don't know. I don't I think if I was living next to a a gang party, you know, and they were blasting their music and I was trying to get some sleep at two o'clock in the morning, it wouldn't be trivial to me.

SPEAKER_02: 2:12:32

Yeah. Um, to make sure you're good said officers 99% of the time feel that they have to get them for something. Anything, the us versus them mentality train into officers has ruined officer discretion.

SPEAKER_00: 2:12:44

And I think that's that's that's absolutely true.

SPEAKER_02: 2:12:46

You hit the nail in the fucking head.

SPEAKER_00: 2:12:48

That is absolutely true. We we got to, you know, and also look, you know, we talked about, you know, you you you mentioned about you know, um, you know, ex-military guys, you know, joining the force, and there's a lot of value in that. Yeah but there also can be there's some major there's some major framework issues.

SPEAKER_02: 2:13:02

It's a roots in in yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 2:13:05

Because you know, they weren't trained like when you go to a boot camp, that is the opposite of what the of of of of constitutional policing. You know what I mean? Like they don't, you're not thinking about the Fourth Amendment when you're when you're being trained as a soldier. Right. So the only thing I would say is that sometimes that mentality comes from that military mindset because that's where it really you should have that mindset. Like we're gonna conquer. Yeah, nobody's gonna tell me no, whatever. Uh, but I have seen officers struggle with training when they have a when they're tenured in military mindset. Yes.

SPEAKER_02: 2:13:34

And as a military cop, I see it especially. You'll get this mentality from, and I'm gonna call out my security forces members in the Air Force. Um, that's military police. They think, because they're military cops in the Air Force, that they can just transfer, just lateral transfer into a cop job in the streets. Where's the camera? Look at me, security forces guys, and every other MP for every other branch. You are not a municipal cop. You are not a sheriff, a deputy, you're not any of that. You're not ready. You need to go through an academy and you need to go through search and seizure courses, you need to go through all of that stuff. No abbreviated, no nothing. You need to go through a full fucking academy. Sorry. Oh, sorry.

SPEAKER_00: 2:14:16

Of course, no, no, no, you know, it's definitely true. Uh, somebody did ask a good follow-up question. Somebody says, Does it really matter if it's a gang party or a loud party? I think that's actually a very good question. I think the answer is no. It does help, you know, that you may have other, you know, contributing factors. Contributing factors, you know, maybe a, you know, but no, I was, I was adding, I was adding, you know, embellishment to my response just to make it more interesting. You know, in other words, to be a victim of some of these dirtbags that don't care about the fact that they live in a society with other people that have a life too.

SPEAKER_02: 2:14:46

You know, yeah. Um, Beckham said, in regards to presenting documents at the window instead of handing them through the window, what are your stance? My stance is as long as I can get the information, I don't give a shit. But I'll keep going. Um, if an officer breaks into the car to get the documents during the stop, is that okay? Uh let me go, I'll go first because you I know you know this inside and out. And I'll I want to see if I'm wrong. This is me putting myself on the line, but um my credibility may get damaged here a little bit. But the way that I read the law, at least in the state of Texas, is that identification needs to be presented as far as I need to be able to get the information. Um, it does not say that I get to physically and visually or physically inspect a license. I think it says visually. You think it says that? I think it says visually inspect a license.

SPEAKER_00: 2:15:34

Well, okay, okay, okay, okay. Maybe okay.

SPEAKER_02: 2:15:37

But anyway, the point being, I I think there's no specification that I have to physically be able to be in control of it. Um I regardless, I don't need to be as long as I can read it. So if they push it up against the glass, which has happened to me before, I need to figure out is the juice worth the squeeze on that.

SPEAKER_00: 2:15:56

Okay, I think you're saying two different things though, right?

SPEAKER_02: 2:15:58

Okay.

SPEAKER_00: 2:15:58

You're saying that they don't need to do it, but then you're saying juice worth the squeeze. The juice worth the squeeze issue only comes in if they you can make it happen, but it's not worth it.

SPEAKER_02: 2:16:08

Because I know in some states like Arizona, um, because I've talked to um Fridays with Frank, uh, Frank Slope, in theirs for their state law, it says physical. Like you physically have to inspect it to hand it over. Yes, hand it over to ensure that it's a legit license.

SPEAKER_00: 2:16:23

Yeah. So look, uh, here's my answer. I don't know. Um, I've never researched this before. Um, I have been I I I have watched videos from Florida where allegedly, according to the commentary, uh Florida is not require them to actually hand it over, that they can slap it on the window.

SPEAKER_01: 2:16:40

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 2:16:41

And so uh I don't know what the law, you know, you you you know the law better in Texas than I do, that's for damn sure. Um I believe in Nevada, you have to hand it over um and be able to, I think that's what the law means and so forth. But I will um so I think it I think it it matters what your law says, but even I I but I I will tell you, I wholeheartedly agree that even if your law is crystal clear, you shall, under penalty of death, hand over that license physically to that officer. I believe you should not arrest somebody and break windows and pull people out through windows and all the stuff because even in but yet but yet you could have verified everything. Yeah, the MDT comes back with their picture, everything comes back. They put the they put the slit down so you can put in their ticket to like a mailbox. Like that, just yeah, just just do your just go ahead and yeah, just that that's one out of 5,000 stops that are ever gonna go that way. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 2:17:37

And just get it over with.

SPEAKER_00: 2:17:39

It's like it's it's like the same thing with the car getting them out of the car issue. Yeah, you know, it's like going back to the Sandra Bland Act. I mean, yeah, you do have the authority to to order people out, but why? I mean, what the guy says, no, I'm not coming out. And all you want to do is just, you know, puff your chest, you know, that I I have this, I have this authority, you know?

SPEAKER_02: 2:17:57

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 2:17:58

Let him just let it go, disengage. Just like, you know what, actually, get out of here.

SPEAKER_02: 2:18:01

Something that I try to make cops understand is you're contacting somebody who's now having the worst time of their life or their day. Absolutely. Even if it was speeding, then they were they were heading to go get this, you know,$10,000 work bonus, whatever it was. They're having a great day. The moment you pulled them over, it's now the worst day.

SPEAKER_01: 2:18:21

Yep.

SPEAKER_02: 2:18:22

And in doing that, some people's defense mechanism is just a level of control in a moment of no control.

SPEAKER_00: 2:18:29

Yep.

SPEAKER_02: 2:18:30

And you have to recognize that. And if their moment of needing some sort of control triggers your also need and ego to have the control, we're going to have a fucking problem.

SPEAKER_00: 2:18:42

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 2:18:42

And you need to recognize that.

SPEAKER_00: 2:18:44

Yeah. Go to go to first best, um, right up there. GT. So yeah, he brings up a good point. He says, you know, I see why they would want to touch it. Now, I work the bar, fake IDs. Yes, there's one key difference between what we're saying and what you're you would do in that case. If I go to a bar and they ask me, first of all, if they ask me for my ID and they really meant it, just not going through the motions because they have to, I'd be complimented, but I don't look that young. But but the but the key difference is that you don't have an MDT, you don't have NCIC, you don't have DMV records. We can, we can the police have those, you know. Now, if you have a cop who MD the MDT is down, he's looking at this ID and it's like, man, I don't know, man. This thing might be illegitimate. And I I don't want to, or I can't confirm this guy's information because my MDT is down and dispatch or whatever, we have a problem. I'm sorry, I'm getting I'm gonna get that license.

SPEAKER_02: 2:19:31

Yeah. Made in America said ego is the keyword. It it's gonna be a recurring theme on my on my show. Um, guys, do you guys the last live we did was about ego. We actually put on a course. What we're doing now is we're taking that episode, we're going to cut it, repackage it, and then it's going to be a free guide. The ego course, the whole ego course is going to be on there. If you find your department or somebody else's department that you think has an ego issue, just send them the link. Yeah, doesn't cost them anything. It is literally a recruit class that um that department puts on. And I don't know of any other one in the nation currently that's doing it. Um, and that class literally got stemmed because of the podcast. Uh the videos we were showing. It's constant. Yeah. You know, um, again, it's it's it's cops not wanting to face issues that we have. Yeah, totally. And and be mature about it. Be mature. Yeah. If we there's obviously a bigger issue going on out there if we can see video after video after video on the social media.

SPEAKER_00: 2:20:34

Like I look, I think that cops should be more like Patrick Swayze in Roadhouse. They should be more like you know, Clint Eastwood, not with the whole hand cannon in your face. But just calm the F down, you know? Yeah, stop taking yourself so seriously. It, you know, especially with these minor events like the car stops and the pedestrian violations. And it's just like these cops are taking themselves way too seriously.

SPEAKER_02: 2:20:57

Yes. Yep, I agree. And um, you know, and to like Mr. Billfold's point, this this is listen, guys, it's I I can hold cops accountable way more than I can ever say anything about citizens. Okay. I don't have that right. I can't, if if you're within your rights, it's not for me to tell you what to do. Um, but to your point, just hand it over. It's a state property after all. There's no reason to give police further reason to fuck with you. I agree with that sentiment. 100%. But if you choose to make a point or make a stand, holy shit, we live in a beautiful country that you have that right with hopefully no fear of retaliation from your government.

SPEAKER_00: 2:21:35

Yeah. Oh, look, look, if if you're if you want to I think that all the time, if you want to roll around and you want to play these games with cops and that's the lifestyle you want to live, uh, just know that, hey, cops are not gonna give you a lot of discretionary, you know, I mean, they're not gonna give you a lot of breaks. They don't have to give you any breaks. I do believe um strongly that, you know, that cops should give breaks when it's when it's, you know, because we're trying to change behavior, right?

SPEAKER_01: 2:22:00

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 2:22:01

And I don't need to give a ticket to everybody to change their behavior. But when I got a guy, you know, in my face, mother effing me, telling me that your your your laws are illegitimate. Uh, I, you know, whatever. And he's like, well, to me, you're just telling me it's not I don't care about your speech. Um, but you're telling me that you don't want to change your behavior.

SPEAKER_02: 2:22:18

Yeah. Mike Cucumber, thanks for the super chat. Uh, he said to share a link or air raid to share a link due to fear of retaliation. Um, what was I? I was just getting ready to show one of these. I missed it. Um Okay, so there's another topic that I wanted to bring up. Um, if we did we hit everything on getting police trained where they're screwing up. Did we hit did we go down that ramp as far as you wanted to?

SPEAKER_00: 2:22:48

Probably. I mean, I think we've had some really good conversation here. Um Yeah. Uh yeah, maybe. I mean, there's I I just wish they would take it more seriously. Well, seriously it's not there. I just wish they would put more money towards it. And I'm not trying to be selfish here, but it's just like, you know, we just have some agencies just they they they they don't don't have any money, but they have, you know,$120,000 kid at Octaho. And, you know, yeah. And it's like, I'm sorry, like, you know, you you you gotta pick, you know, you gotta you gotta pick your poison too.

SPEAKER_02: 2:23:16

I mean, there's we need training. Afraid, that's what he meant to say, not air raid or array, whatever a red. Yeah, that's awesome. I sometimes I don't put words.

SPEAKER_00: 2:23:26

You get some funny people on here.

SPEAKER_02: 2:23:28

Oh, yeah, for sure. Yeah, some good personalities. Uh the Don Dunpeel said that there is not enough bandwidth in the world to send videos to the NYPD, who, in my opinion, is one of the biggest ego departments in the country. Well, when you keep calling them New York's finest.

SPEAKER_00: 2:23:43

Yeah, that's that's not the biggest ego in the country, though.

SPEAKER_01: 2:23:46

No, no. Oh.

SPEAKER_00: 2:23:48

Oh, not even close. I'm not gonna call anybody out. No, I think uh NYPD to me is tame compared to some of these egos out there.

SPEAKER_02: 2:23:55

Yeah, yeah. I've I've run across them.

SPEAKER_00: 2:23:57

I've yeah, you you get them out there and I'm like, what is it about your agency that I think in the South you probably have you know, ego, but you just have this like it's it's just this mentality of like we just this is the way this is this is Johnny Law, you know, this is the way we do business around here. Um and it's like you better listen to me. And you know, it's and it's and it's there's some probably there's there's it's um they're making fun of me now.

SPEAKER_02: 2:24:24

I like listen, I'm like Ron Burgundy up here. If it's on the prompter, I'm gonna read it how it is on the prompter.

SPEAKER_00: 2:24:28

Yeah, that's actually pretty funny. Yeah, you're like wrong.

SPEAKER_02: 2:24:31

I like how Eric reads super chats exactly as they are written. I am.

SPEAKER_00: 2:24:36

Oh, actually, okay, so if somebody does bring up GSP, okay, let's okay, look, he called it out. Georgia State Patrol is absolutely uh, I mean, they they they they they are very prideful.

SPEAKER_02: 2:24:47

I mean, I was thinking of a case law. I was like, what's a GSP? What are we talking about? Oh, Georgia State Police, by the way. Yeah, well, they will chase anything that moves.

SPEAKER_00: 2:24:54

Yeah, they have a reputation for that, man. I you know, and I kind of respect it. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 2:24:58

Because, you know, I mean citizens obviously back it up because they're still doing it.

SPEAKER_00: 2:25:01

Yeah, and you know, you you do like they will say in in Georgia that if you are, you know, if you're a bad guy and you're like, you know, I'm thinking about running, and you're like, but you you you look at the car first, and if it's a Georgia State Patrol, you don't run.

SPEAKER_02: 2:25:14

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 2:25:14

Um, because they will F you up, man.

SPEAKER_02: 2:25:17

Uh Don Dunpeel said, I was away from the computer for a second, but um, he said, had you addressed my question about the departments hiring non-U.S. citizens as officers to uphold a constitution they have no allegiance to. Um, I I think you pretty much self-explained that. Uh, there's no need, like, I'm against it. I don't think that should be a thing at all.

SPEAKER_00: 2:25:37

Without question.

SPEAKER_02: 2:25:38

Yeah. Um, oh, um, Harrison did. Do you know much about all of the police corrupt? My dogs are fighting out there. Uh, all the police corruption stuff going on in Kentucky. Uh that's pretty big over there.

SPEAKER_00: 2:25:53

Um I did hear something about this.

SPEAKER_02: 2:25:57

I'm just I he had asked, and I I lost the question. I don't okay, I can't really find it. So yeah, Harrison, if you want to post your Kentucky question again, um, let me know. Uh 85% of citizens are bootlickers. Of course they support GSP. Well, I mean, technically, power is in the people, and if they support their law enforcement doing certain law enforcement acts, uh, I mean, look, I mean, I you know, I don't I don't mind being heavy-handed on the on on the people running.

SPEAKER_00: 2:26:26

I mean, you just, you know, I mean, this like, yeah, pit them. You know what I mean? I mean, you know, they're causing a danger to all these people around them. I mean, it's it's you know, I don't know, I mean, but be but be easy on the stuff that doesn't really, you know, it's the victimless crime stuff, right? But running from police is not victimless. People die all the time uh from people that are run from police.

SPEAKER_02: 2:26:46

Yeah. Um, I think I already know where we're gonna be on this one, but um, King Slayer said if someone consents to an officer to be in their home and the officer wants to disarm the person for safety reasons. Nope. Uh, if the person says, if you want to disarm me, you need to leave, and they said that's part one. Okay. So I'm assuming he's typing, uh, I'm already on the side of the homeowner. So I I don't know where you're going with it, but I'm already on the side of the homeowner. If this is all consensual and the homeowner wants to remain armed, that's their fucking prerogative.

SPEAKER_00: 2:27:17

Yeah, no, I think you you need to handle you need to handle the the that issue with consent as well. Yes. They've already given consent to search the home. Why wouldn't they want to give consent to put the gun away?

SPEAKER_02: 2:27:25

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 2:27:26

And if they're not going to put the gun away, then not even search, just to be in the home.

SPEAKER_02: 2:27:30

I mean, you are technically doing a search.

SPEAKER_00: 2:27:31

Oh, you no, you no, I'm sorry. You I'm glad you corrected me. It's just in the home. Just to be in the home, yes. No, I ain't no, absolutely. I mean, uh, I I I carry 20, I don't care 247. I carry 247 when I'm at home, right? In my my home state of of Idaho now. Um, but I carry, I always carry. Yeah. Always.

SPEAKER_02: 2:27:47

I just oh I think Idaho is the state that that California chief was commuting from. Did you hear about that?

SPEAKER_00: 2:27:55

No, but that doesn't surprise me.

SPEAKER_02: 2:27:57

There was a people were all butthurt about that. Um saying that that shouldn't be allowed. And I'm like, listen, a chief's position, he's doing all his job from the phone anyway.

SPEAKER_00: 2:28:09

I yeah, but I don't like it though. I I think I think it should be part of the contract. Hey, look, if you're gonna be a chief of our town, you do have you do have to live within I'm not saying you have to live in our town, but you have to live, you have to be able to respond.

SPEAKER_02: 2:28:21

Yes. I I don't disagree with that, but if you didn't have that in in the contract that wasn't in writing, like Well, I know San Francisco cops that that do that. Yeah, there's fire jumpers or whatever they call them. Yeah, the ones they they usually live here in Texas and Arizona and all that stuff, and then they fly out to California and do their shit.

SPEAKER_00: 2:28:37

Yeah, no, it's uh I mean if you know the San Francisco cops are probably a good example because they're making so they're one of the highest paid in the nation. And you know, it's not a place I would want to work because I don't, you know, that the politics there is really bad, but but they they go, they go to Nevada or they go to uh Idaho or you know, yeah, but you can't blame them.

SPEAKER_02: 2:28:56

Yeah, um, okay, so here's what Harrison was talking about earlier. He said, um Kentucky troopers lying under oh, so this is this is all been it's this isn't just you know alleged, this is happening. Um, because he's he lives in Kentucky, so he shares Kentucky stuff with us all the time, and he's definitely one of our biggest contributors. He's probably the biggest contributor. Okay. Um, and he said, keeping their jobs, getting promotions, lying to get warrants. Like um, I I guess he's basically trying to see what you may know about it. I know nothing about that. Nothing about that, nothing. Something interesting. Uh Mike Cucumber. I appreciate Eric listening to dissenting opinions for two plus hours. Totally.

SPEAKER_00: 2:29:33

I mean, I I'm actually I'm actually gonna tell you right now, Eric, I'm never coming on the show again because I thought we're gonna have a bunch of love on here. Hey, man, Anthony, you're on here. I support you. Keep doing what you're doing, brother. Yeah, all I've been hearing is bashing on Pennsylvania versus Mims for an Irish trade. Okay, I'm never gonna bring up that case again.

SPEAKER_02: 2:29:52

No, guys, this is uh I mean, honestly, any real lawyer, it's what they live for. They want you to have an opinion that's not theirs. Yeah, no, we want we want good debate.

SPEAKER_00: 2:30:01

We want, you know, in and and I'm also don't forget, I'm not closed-minded. I'm not I'm not perfect on this stuff. So I'm looking for feedback to you.

SPEAKER_02: 2:30:07

Yep. Um, two cops when donut the DOJ has charged them a few of them now. That's good. Good. The system's working.

SPEAKER_00: 2:30:15

Yep, you got it, you got to have it working, yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 2:30:17

Yeah. Uh GG said, gotta go. Chat. Thank you for joining us, Gigi. Appreciate it. Um, I saw another comment up here. Where did it go? I appreciate you listening. Then you'll know more about the subject than the cops and lawyers, present company included. Shut up, Mr. Billfold. Uh you got it wrong. Most people are butthurt because he sleeped in the station, in my opinion. Oh, yeah, yeah. They got mad because he was sleeping in the station, which, bro, you were a cop too. Like, there's a cot in several rooms. Like, yeah, but he made it their, he made it his like temporary home. Um, yeah, he was staying like the the night or something. I I don't know to the extent.

SPEAKER_00: 2:30:58

Yeah. Um he should have his own place in California. You know, he that's kind of common, right? You would have your own place in California and you would stay there during the week and he would just bolt out of there.

SPEAKER_02: 2:31:07

Yeah. Down the road. Again, I'm they wanted it to be some sort of criminal thing. And I'm like, this isn't a criminal thing. This is a you need to figure out what's allowed, what's not allowed, but it's all policies and procedures. Yeah. I don't see that being a criminal thing.

SPEAKER_00: 2:31:19

Why is this was say, Anthony, when do you go live?

SPEAKER_02: 2:31:24

Anthony, when do you oh this is from your page? Um, what does that mean? I think they're asking, like, are you gonna start going live? Because you're live right now on your channel and you probably don't do this.

SPEAKER_00: 2:31:33

Oh, so yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 2:31:35

I want to know when you're gonna make this more of a regular thing.

SPEAKER_00: 2:31:37

Right. When like it's almost like when did you start going live? Yes, yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 2:31:40

I think that's what they're asking.

SPEAKER_00: 2:31:41

Of course, I'm saying. Hey, maybe we'll do this we'll do this more, maybe.

SPEAKER_02: 2:31:43

Hey, yeah. Well, we can definitely do it remotely if you can't make it here every time. But um, yeah, for sure. Uh, one of the things that I have been wanting to have is a legal portion of what we got going on.

SPEAKER_00: 2:31:54

So uh is it illegal to film someone peeing in public if it's legal to pee? What?

SPEAKER_02: 2:32:04

What's yeah, what's Mayflower so Mayflower has asked some weird questions before. So he says, Is it illegal to film someone peeing in public? If it's legal to pee in public.

SPEAKER_00: 2:32:13

Well, first of all, I'm not sure it's legal to pee in public anywhere. Yeah, most unless you're in San Francisco.

SPEAKER_02: 2:32:18

I was gonna say, I don't think it's legal, but maybe what they're getting at is body cam footage.

SPEAKER_00: 2:32:23

Yeah, maybe. But look, right to be, right to see.

SPEAKER_02: 2:32:24

I mean eye cup.

SPEAKER_00: 2:32:27

Yeah, there's also I see you pee. Yeah, I see. That's actually I didn't I didn't hear that. I've heard that's old time. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 2:32:35

Love it. Um, okay, let me see. Anthony, I would love to have you clear up my misconception sometimes. I am always wanting to learn, especially from people I disagree with. Um, so what we can do is we can get uh I'll get you your own channel on our Discord. Um, and then like you can literally have Discord on your phone. And if you ever feel like popping in and seeing questions people have asked you, there's no rush. So if you answer it two weeks later, like it's not a big deal. But yeah, we can we can get Anthony a channel, we'll make it a blue to gold channel, be a free little advertisement thing for y'all as well too. So um, all right, we're at two and a half hours, which is usually about our limit. Um, yep. I want to one guys, Anthony trains cops, that's what he does. Um and who the hell is bumping in? I think Alan's behind the scenes fucking with me. Uh so he is able to uh get police trained in search and seizure and all that stuff. So if you guys want to be able to do that and get the police or you want to recommend, I'm gonna actually pull it up right now. Let's go to uh bluetoold.com or yes this is Bluetooth, so it takes it a second from this distance. There we go. There we go.

SPEAKER_00: 2:33:53

Blue T O. What did I say? Bluetooth. No, okay.

SPEAKER_02: 2:33:58

Bluetoothold.com. Yeah, I'll just do it. I knew it would be the top guy. Yeah. All right. So we are going to share this screen. Remind me later.

SPEAKER_03: 2:34:08

Um share screen.

SPEAKER_00: 2:34:15

Can you just X that out? Yep.

SPEAKER_02: 2:34:17

All right, guys. So what we're looking at here is uh the blue to gold page. Um if you need to call or contact any of them, obviously it's all up at the top. Um we got the training going on. I'll let you talk about your page.

SPEAKER_00: 2:34:30

Yeah, so look, I mean, we have uh about 170 classes scheduled right now across the US. Um, you know, as I said before, we're the largest search and seizure instructors in the nation by far. Not nobody even comes close. We have a search and seizure book for you know for every state go down a little bit. Um you see the the map right there, it'll populate. Um that's actually that's something wrong with that map right there. It should actually have more pins, right? But okay, usually has all the classes pinned out. But um, so yeah, we uh we have uh well it's the end of the year. That might be it, but usually it it does all of them. But that that could be it could be the end of the year.

SPEAKER_02: 2:35:04

I don't know why it would be probably showing what's remaining for the year.

SPEAKER_00: 2:35:07

Actually, you're probably right. We do have a we have an IT guy that's full time. Uh he might have programmed it that way, but I don't know why you would. But but anyway, so um yeah, basically, that's what it is. That's what it is. Yeah, interesting. Um, so so somebody's gonna get fired. We just called them out. Yeah, totally. My bad. But we uh no, we do a um we have a also a YouTube channel where we have uh you know 1,400 videos on there uh about search and seizure. We do free webinars as well every week. So I I do like talking about these topics. Um great instructors. Uh this is this is our jam. I mean, search and seizure is our jam. This is what we are known for. Um we do a lot of agency-wide training, which is like a really big thing now. We talk about our agencies taking it seriously. Things are getting a lot better.

SPEAKER_01: 2:35:50

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 2:35:50

Um, and so why do you why do you kind of look like Keanu? I don't that uh that or something else. But I I I hate you kind of look like Keanu. Yeah, maybe um a certain version of him, but yeah. Um it's a dumb picture. I don't actually I'm not photogenic, so the AI stuff that the point that you see that looks like you that's better. That's better. But my instructors look really good. Like, you know, you go uh, you know, anyway. So I like it.

SPEAKER_02: 2:36:18

I like it. So yeah, guys, this is the Blue to Gold page. Make sure you check that out.

SPEAKER_00: 2:36:22

Yeah, thank you.

SPEAKER_02: 2:36:23

Um, looks like we got some books here that you guys can subscribe to as well. I always like to make sure we plug that stuff.

SPEAKER_00: 2:36:29

Yeah, but if you have a search and seizure question, we're the we're the go-to guys.

SPEAKER_02: 2:36:32

Yep. Yeah, absolutely. Um, very cool. Uh, I will try to get oh, we're getting some more questions in chat in here, suggestion. Um says uh his looks to the left.

SPEAKER_00: 2:36:45

Oh, I see what he's saying.

SPEAKER_02: 2:36:47

Oh, because we're here you go.

SPEAKER_00: 2:36:49

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 2:36:50

Now we're looking at each other.

SPEAKER_00: 2:36:51

Yeah, that's actually next time, you know. Yeah, yeah, get your get your act together.

SPEAKER_02: 2:36:56

Live and learn.

SPEAKER_00: 2:36:56

No, that's actually that is actually a good pro move right there. That's a good pro.

SPEAKER_02: 2:37:00

Yeah, I guess I wasn't paying attention to that part. Yep, yep. My bad. Um, yeah. But cool. All right, yeah. Looking, I just want to make sure we didn't miss anything else in the chat. Uh, so it's Anthony's fault. Uh join us in the Discord. Yep, absolutely. Um cool. All right, guys. Uh we're gonna end it here. Uh again, Anthony. Thanks for being out here. Everybody in the chat, thank you very much for joining us on this impromptu uh or I shouldn't, it's not impromptu. We knew we were gonna do this, but um but but not but it wasn't scripted at all, is it?

SPEAKER_00: 2:37:33

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 2:37:33

This is a bonus, and we just freestyled it, and I think it is what it is. Um, here's money for new mic. I don't think our mics are messed up. I think there's something that is interfering with the signal. That's all. Just got to figure out what it is. But thank you, Mike. Appreciate it. Everybody that supported the channel today. Shout out to our sponsors, peregrine.io, turning all the crappiest detectives in the world into Sherlock Holmes. Uh, shout out to Ghost Patch. Let me grab Ghost Patch. They make these flex shields. So Ghost Patch Customs. This looks metal, looks metal to you, correct? Yeah. So um it's not, it's Bendy Flexi, and it is Velcro. They also do coins and and patches and and badges, like the badge that you guys always see on my vest. That's a metal badge, it's a real badge. Um, so shout out to them. And yeah, that's it. And and retro rifle, as I'm supporting my retro rifle shirt right now. So shout out to all those guys. Um, everybody else, thanks for joining and take it easy.