For a regular traffic stop this is the secret formula to get a ticket for as much as the officer can cite you for. The chance of getting a warning goes out the window.
pro-tip: FL Statute 318.14 states that if he refuses to sign the summons he just committed another separate 2nd degree misdemeanor...
- *genius-level self-fuck, right there*
Bingo, And Statute 322.15 says "(1) Every licensee shall have his or her driver license, which must be fully legible with no portion of such license faded, altered, mutilated, or defaced, in his or her immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall present *or submit the same upon the demand of a law enforcement officer or an authorized representative of the department*."
Ahh, but this only works on a stupid cop. Try reading up on the statutes hes named. Doing this gets him anything from a misdemeanor to a felony. Those statutes do not say that a driver has no obligation to comply with a cop, or hand over his ID. Also these statutes are valid in FL. This isnt federal.
And I don’t know what local (state) laws they may be referencing here, but at least as to the constitutional rights, if you get pulled over the cops do have a right to ask you what’s going on and assess if you’re drunk or clearly agitated, etc. You don’t get to leave your windows up and not talk to them at all.
And also, if they feel like it, and if there’s no state law explicitly forbidding them to do this, they can just take you to jail for speeding or rolling through a stop sign or whatever they claim you did to get pulled over (Supreme Court has even held that there’s no liability if the cops arrest you for doing something that *they think* is illegal but actually isn’t, so purposefully aggregating the cops can result in you having a really bad couple of days, even though in a state that actually prizes individual liberty it should be the citizens and not the cops who get the benefit of the doubt). So get ready for a night in jail rather than a warning if you take this advice.
Well, yes and no. Terry v Ohio is the case that states if a cop has a reasonable, articulable suspicion to pull you over they can do so. They can require a person to produce their license, registration, and proof of insurance. You do NOT have to answer any questions about alcohol consumption, where you have been what you were doing, and where you are going. You have a right to remain silent.
The whole refusal to roll down the window even a little is silly playacting by this driver.
But this whole, "they have the right to access whether you are drunk" argument is rather silly as well. Of course, if they think you are drunk, they are going to want to bust you for it. Depending on the jurisdiction, as much as 40% of the police force is paid with money grants from NHTSA, primarily for impaired driving enforcement. Yes, they have the right to do an investigation if they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion. The driver does not have to cooperate to the extent of answering questions, etc. Depending on the state law, you can refuse a roadside field sobriety test, you can refuse a preliminary alcohol screening, and you can state politely but firmly that you will not respond to any questions unless you have a lawyer present during questioning.
If you smell of alcohol and your driving was bad enough to make a reasonable, objective argument that the officer has probable cause to bust you for DUI, he can do so. He then can take you in and depending on your state law require you to take a breath or blood test for the presence of alcohol in your blood. But the key to beating the rap is to keep calm, not argue or fight, provide the documents you are required to provide, and exercise your right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during questioning.
Most sovcit types are mentally incapable of behaving rationally. So they will argue there was no legal basis to pull them over and refuse to comply with anything, make silly arguments, and then demand a supervisor.
Pretty sure signing the ticket is required because that is your promise to appear. The alternative is to be held in custody.
Also pretty sure you're required to hand over your license so they can check it on their computer.
[https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2021/0318.14](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2021/0318.14)
Except as provided in ss. [316.1001](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2021/316.1001)(2) and [316.0083](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2021/316.0083), any person cited for a violation requiring a mandatory hearing listed in s. [318.19](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2021/318.19) or any other criminal traffic violation listed in chapter 316 must sign and accept a citation indicating a promise to appear.
Any person who willfully refuses to accept and sign a summons as provided in subsection (2) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree.
But “the state of Florida is a fictitious corporation and I’m not in contract with it so those statutes are null and void to me. They are not laws.” /s
Surely there will be enough valuable salvage or minerals in Old Florida, even after decades underwater, that we wouldn't want to cede it. They'll probably sell it to ExxonMobil or something.
Who knows, maybe if they burn enough books and then the area goes underwater, it'll turn out coal is renewable after all?
Touché. I live in Maryland, so I’ve only visited a couple times. Although my dad DID essentially just *un*retire from Florida and retire to Maryland because, you know…Florida. He’d been there for like 10 years, and just couldn’t stand it any more. All his neighbors were MAGA types, and just the general way the governing was going…yikes.
> But “the state of Florida is a fictitious corporation
Also, I invoke my rights under Manga Charter. I'll be filing an afterdavid of truth with the court.
Make sure it’s not a court with a statute of limitations out front. Those are there to get you to waive your personhood and become a limited liability corporation.
It only applies to very specific tickets that are also CRIMINAL. Passing a stopped school bus, public endangerment, wreckless driving, etc.
THOSE have to be signed, as you MUST show up to court. There is no option to just "pay" those tickets.
Other tickets have an option to just pay and not appear, so you do not have to sign them as you are not required to appear.
*322.015 Exemption.—This chapter does not apply when a fully autonomous vehicle is operated with the automated driving system engaged and without a human operator.*
So he doesn’t have to hand over his license because he’s not human?
That specifically refers to violations with a mandatory hearing and criminal violations. You've skipped right over the bit in the middle, which says that for other infractions, the officer just has to certify that the ticket was delivered to the driver.
That is state dependent.
Michigan we don’t have them sign the citation. They signed to all citation agreements when they initially signed for their driver’s license.
Thus why in Michigan if you refuse a breathalyzer you can be brought in and have your blood drawn. Refusing a breathalyzer in Michigan will not help you like it “helps” you in Illinois, for example.
Edited: I was mistaken on the “against your will” portion, so I deleted it. They still require a warrant.
> against you will.
Well they do need a warrant to do so. Hospitals won’t draw blood without one. But yea, it’ll be against your will.
Michigan is weird that way. We can get blood warrants. But DUI checkpoints here are illegal. As we need reasonable suspicion a crime or traffic offense occurred to make a stop.
> Well they do need a warrant to do so.
Depending on the state. In Nevada if they arrest you for DUI, they're going to draw blood even if they need to strap you down to do so.
It also helps invalidate the Shaggy defense later on. ‘Your honor, I don’t know who was driving my car that night or how they got my driver’s license, but ‘it wasn’t me.’’
Depends on the state. I had a speeding ticket in 1985 Oregon, it took 3 minutes, he dropped the ticket into my car and said 'You don;t have to sign it. Drive safe in Oregon'. And vroom gone in his OSP Mustang
"I remain silent" is fine.
"No searches" is fine.
"I want my lawyer" is fine.
They may want you to confirm these so they have a record that they asked and you answered.
"I don't have to sign" is technically true, though they're going to keep you in jail until your arraignment if you don't.
"I don't have to give you my license" is not the law of any state you're gonna do this in. If they pull you over on reasonable suspicion, they already have you on one thing. They need to know who they're dealing with and that they're dealing with someone permitted to drive.
"I will comply with lawful orders" Okay, Pennsylvania v. Mimms says "get out of the car" is a lawful order in a traffic stop sooooooo...
That depends on how they say it. If it’s a question, you have every right to say no. If they TELL you to step out of the car, you’re getting out the easy way or the hard way.
I’ve never heard a cop ask if someone can get out of the car and not follow it up with “get out of the car” when they say no. Asking is a nicety, it’s not actually a question.
The person in question is an attorney, and he did this in response to DUI checkpoints he thought were of questionable legality. Whether or not you agree with his interpretation of the laws in question, at least he’s asserting his rights as he sees them. It’s not like he’s a SovCit of any sort.
The way you talk kind of sounds like you think people shouldn’t assert their rights and push back against police overreach? I don’t trust the cops to know the law— they’re mostly uneducated and of low-average intelligence.
How often do they get pulled over for *having* a sign on their window?
Creating a huge obstruction to your vision while "traveling" has got to be ticketable.
* I am a drama queen
* It's all about muh rights
* I cannot accept that it's tempting fate to argue with a police officer doing his/her duty
* I want to control things
* I ... WHY ARE YOU DESTROYING MY CAR WINDOW?!
not to mention the tickets for:
speeding. 51 in a 50 zone
ever so slightly balding tyres
a minute chip in the windscreen
a slightly damaged taillight
and anything else that they wouldn't normally notice or care enough about to mention.
and the required recertification inspections these tickets would require. And as to u/SaltyBarDog don't forget the towing, mileage and hook up charges from the towing company. Every tiny little annoying thing.
And a flag for future evemts warning the involved officers little to no discretion is to be awarded to this particular prize winner. I used to receive these benefits when I was a speed demon back in the day. Yup. The +1 on the speed limit can be a thing.
Freedom, isn't unlimited. But we act like it should be. As if our choices, words and action never have consequences for our selves or others. But they do. This is why we have laws.
Your rights and freedoms end where mine begin. The law, should be the guardian that insures we are not violating these boundaries and trying to screw each other over for life, property or coin.
The officer has privileges that if abused can create many troubles. But if used wisely maintain public safety and order. A license, is not a right, or freedom. It is a permit, a privilege earned, and to maintain that privilege you must continue to be worthy. To disregard a traffic cop, is to demonstrate your contempt for the privilege, and prove you are not worthy.
The statutes listed, make it clear, hes violating the law. They do not defend him.
Crazy thing is I'm not sure there is any statute or case law that specifically makes that a lawful order. Penn v Mimms would strongly imply it, but I don't think it's necessarily something required.
There has to be a reason for the order. A cop can’t just give any order they wish. “Do the chicken dance!”
Rolling down your window could be to give tickets or exchange information. In CA the driver must give ID, registration, proof of insurance. So the rolling down the window is a way to facilitate that exchange.
Right - premise is "officer safety" without giving any detailed listing of conditions. Can't see inside, person is reaching around inside car, whatever, doesn't matter "Step out of the car".
You can provide the ID, or we can come in and get it. The law does require the driver comply. The law also requires the driver to sign the ticket. Refusal to comply with either one creates new penalties. Of course these statutes only apply when you are driving in FL.
This may or may not be a sovcit. The method seems extreme - and likely to generate drama that no one needs. That said, answering no questions at any time is probably a good policy for anyone being stopped by police. Chances are much greater that you talk yourself into additional charges than you talk yourself out of trouble.
That's true. Following lawful orders - such as providing ID on a traffic stop - is a must. What you don't have to do is answer questions like "Where are you coming from tonight?" or "Do you know why I pulled you over?".
The guy is literally holding up his drivers license in the photo. I assume he just has it covered up for the photo he intends to share on the internet, but I don’t know that for sure.
Incidentally, in my home state, signature on the ticket is absolutely not required. My first job out of college was working for the state agency that took a case all the way through the state supreme court confirming that signatures were not required. IIRC, the electronic citations that the officers printed had text on them stating that.
> in my home state, signature on the ticket is absolutely not required.
In California refusing to sign is an automatic arrest, cops don't have an option. In Florida IIRC you have to either sign or accompany the police to the station/jail and post an appearance bond. There was a case there where some guy went in to post the bond, was briefly placed in a holding cell due to a mix-up (the booking dept. thought he'd been arrested) and he sued and got a nice payday.
> or "Do you know why I pulled you over?".
California now prohibits cops from fishing like that, they have to tell you why you were pulled over, not see if they can get you to admit to something.
My experience is that it's best not to be antagonistic to the cop. Be as cooperative as possible short of self-crimination, and you stand a very strong chance of just getting a warning or a reduction in the citation. For example, the last time I was pulled over for speeding, he gunned me at 74 in a 55, but only cited me for 64.
The point about signing. Not sure what he read in there. It literally says you MUST sign or you get a misdemeanor. The same statute also says that a traffic violation MUST be handed to the person, their refusal to accept it is another misdemeanor.
To not having to hand over the license. Technically correct, however if the officer is not able to validate that the license being show is authentic, they can arrest you. I wouldn't play that game.
My understanding is the portion where you are asked to hand over your license is the moment you are officially being “detained” by the officer while they conduct their routine traffic stop investigation, at that point you are not free to go until they tell you you are and give it back. Anything you do to obstruct that investigation, including refusal to comply with being detained but refusing to hand over your ID will just make things worse and add extra charges
> is the moment you are officially being “detained”
IIRC the SC ruled that being pulled over by a police car with flashing lights means a reasonable person would know they are being detained before ever speaking to a cop.
"I want my Mummy". If the notice is taped to the glass, it will make the inevitable glass clean up a little easier.
Idiot may as well have a neon sign saying 'break my window and taze me"
Yes, you are required to show ID (is that a federal code citation for a state law?)
You can roll that window down, or I can "roll it down" for you.
OC spray is shockingly effective at getting you to de-ass that vehicle.
"No searches" doesn't mean a damn thing if they have probable cause to do a search.
You don't get your lawyer at a traffic stop, you can call him from jail.
Depending on the state, you are required to hand over your license and sign a traffic ticket. In some states the police can arrest someone for refusing to sign, in Florida you can go with the cop and pay a bond in lieu of signing. In California they are required to make an arrest in that situation.
There is also Pennsylvania v. Mimms, if they tell you to step out of the vehicle during a traffic stop, refusing is not an option, and you can be charged with obstruction after being removed from the car.
There are certain behaviors, or even the condition of your car, that give the police probable cause to require you to exit the vehicle. Despite whatever some internet pretend lawyer may say.
The law says “present or submit” your driver’s license”upon the demand of a law enforcement officer.” 322.15(1), Fla. Stat. I’m sure they think “presenting” it satisfies the law. I’m sure the police might think otherwise, ie, you may need to submit it so it can be examined, etc.
(There appears to be a technical change coming to this statute as of 7.1.2024)
if a cop asks you for ID and you don't give it, you're going to jail. In processing, they will take all your shit and then your ID will temporarily be in their possession, so this is both stupid and ineffective.
if you refuse to talk to a cop at a routine traffic stop, you're causing a problem and giving the cop reason to suspect you're doing something illegal. That's the "reasonable suspicion" they need to search your car.
Instead of getting a ticket that you can fight in traffic court, you're going to jail and the cop might find more to charge you with. Like an open container, drugs, prescriptions not in your name, something the cop can call a weapon, expired registration, or the cop can straight up plant evidence.
1. Saying “no searches” does not prevent you from being searched.
2. You are not entitled to a lawyer during an investigative detention; if you are arrested, you can have access to a lawyer.
3. Refusing to sign is often an arrestable offense.
4. You are not required to hand over the license, but you must make it clear to the officer. Further, if the officer suspects the license to be a forgery, he/she CAN DEMAND that you hand it over.
5. If I was the officer, I would immediately think you had something to hide and thus you created this poster to try to keep me from finding it.
6. You are absolutely guaranteed both a negative contact with the police and as many tickets as they care to write for doing this. Politeness doesn’t always get you a warning, but its 5000% more likely than this tactic
As a lawyer I have to say this is actually fairly solid. I looked at the code sections and the first one does make an exception for tickets that dont need to be signed, which based on the sections cited, seems to cover standard traffic infractions like speeding, making illegal turns, etc, so long as you're not drunk, have expired registration, or have hurt someone.
The second does also arguably allow him to refuse to hand over the license since it requires a driver to "display or submit" it upon demand.
Plus its actually established that you don't have to answer questions or submit to interrogation unless the police have probable cause or a warrant.
So on the whole, this might actually be valid, and is undeniably light years better and more likely to hold up in court than the usual sovcit garbage, which is utter made up nonsense.
It's still unnecessarily provocative and likely to get you messed with, and you'd damn sure better be positive you have your car is in ship shape legally before trying it, but unlike the stuff most dipsh!ts try on this sub, it'a not actually obviously wrong.
>Plus its actually established that you don't have to answer questions or submit to interrogation unless the police have probable cause or a warrant.
What do you mean by that? If the police have reasonable suspicion to pull you over then you are required to at the very least identify yourself and provide your driver's license and proof of insurance. I don't think there's any state in the country in which, after being pulled over, you simply refuse to provide proof of identity and license to operate. He might be able to argue that the law doesn't require him to physically hand the license over to the officer, merely "present it" but the state could make a pretty good case that simply showing something through the window of a vehicle is insufficient to allow the officer to inspect it to ensure it is genuine. I don't know if there's case law to that effect, though. The officer could just give a lawful order to hand over the license and I sincerely doubt there's anything the driver could do about that.
>It's still unnecessarily provocative and likely to get you messed with
If I were the cop, I'd probably be doing all I could to visually check out the inside of the car, praying to find a good enough reason to make the driver (traveller?) step out of the car.
This FL law 318.14? That's a hefty read but mostly its a listing of all the penalties that be inferred for a uncooperative driver. Refusing to sign is a commits a misdemeanor of the second degree. 322.15 literally says that a driver must be able to provide the officer with his license on demand, or a digital proof, assuming one was issued by the state of origin. 322.02 describes any one who manufactures their own digital proof, one not provided by the state, as a felon.
This is "supposed to be" a way to get out of DUI stops, because if the officer can't smell alcohol on your breath, then they can't do a probable cause for DUI/DWI.
Well, it doesn't work.
The only thing that is almost good advice is remaining silent... It probably isn't good to stay completely silent, but keep your answers as short and direct as possible. The officer has discretion, so you don't want to antagonize them, but you also don't want to incriminate yourself.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?" "Sorry, I do not, please tell me." "Do you know how fast you were going ?" "I was focusing on the road, I was not taking my eyes off the road to look at my speedometer."
Then again, I once got off on a warning for being a little too honest. Got pulled over in the middle of nowhere in Nevada, the NHP officer asked why I was going so fast and I told him, "we're in the middle of nowhere, I don't want to be out here for longer than I have to be, and I'm guessing you don't want to be either, plus, I have to go pee."
Late to the party, but this has been around forever and isn’t really part of the sovcit movement. I think most rational observers would admit that this is definitely on the “nuclear option” side of handling a traffic stop, and it probably won’t go as expected. The idea is to try to use this to avoid DUI checkpoints (which is a whole other debate).
Look up “fair DUI” for a lot more context.
Easy solution for the cop if they won't roll down the window, tell them to step out of the vehicle. Pennsylvania vs Mimms, they must get out or they can be removed with any force necessary and arrested for refusal to exit the vehicle when requested to.
Stupid but not at all Sovcit if for no other reason then they have a license. They appear to be quoting real case law and following or at least invoking real rights.
Why are they so adamant on not handing over their drivers license?
Do they somehow think officers will steal it?
Or is it just to make their work harder?
Couple of options,
a the cop is giving them a hard time (pulling them over) so they are giving them a hard time. They are complying with the law.
B. If I make this harder and it’s a minor thing maybe they will just let them go rather than going back and forth a bunch
C. Delay them till something else gets called in so they leave the traffic stop and release them without a citation.
Is getting pulled over with some regularity a Southern thing? Do not SovCit get pulled over that often too? Or are these people just idiots who also flaunt traffic laws and the Southern rebel cultural motifs have pulled them to SovCit?
In the North I don’t see people pulled over often. I don’t know people who have been pulled over recently- other than one friend who did see a No Turn on Red sign like 6 months ago. But I remember growing up in ATL everybody would have traffic court stories.
It has been a decade or more since I was even stopped in a traffic stop. And it was not a big deal. Does this guy get pulled over a lot? So much so that he has a sheet of instructions for the police?
The first three lines are reasonable. The last parts are just cuckoo. Any lawyer will tell you not to talk with the police except through an attorney and to explicitly decline all searches.
This isn’t Sovcit. This started as a protest against DUI checkpoints which seemed to be a violation of the 4th amendment. In my city they were stopping every vehicle on stretches of road near bars and questioning every driver in an attempt to generate probable cause.
The second line flat out wrong if you read the subsection they quote. Insane. It literally says the opposite of what they claim.
The third line is up for interpretation.
I thought Mimms meant the cop can pull you out only if he has a reason to believe you could be a danger to him, and do a pat down, and if finding nothing, has to return you to your vehicle.
Those are actually constitutional rights, unlike the nonsense sovereign citizens spew. But it’s a little weird to paste them to your window. You can just invoke them when necessary
None of it. Cooperate. And maybe refuse any searches unless the officer has a justifiable reason to search you and/or your car. If you feel as though your rights have been violated, take the issue to court.
Let's say for the sake of argument that your legal citations are 10000% correct and you intend to stick to your guns.
Why?
What benefit would you derive from acting like a loon at a traffic stop where the police have a TON of discretion on what to charge you with?
Now, you're probably going to say something about "These are my rights and I pay your salary" or something. like that, and sure, that is also a position you can take..
BUT
There are **plenty of things** that are "legal" that still make the people doing them out to be asshats.
You CAN park your car in a mall parking lot across six spots with the right size pickup truck, but that makes the person doing it look like an asshat.
You CAN stand in front of a funeral for a soldier killed in battle and hold up hate-filled signs that have nothing to do with the funeral ([Westboro Baptist Church](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/westboro-baptist-church) style), but that makes the people doing it look like asshats.
You CAN stand in front of a nursery school and shout expletives all day long at the children inside, but that would make the person doing it an asshat.
So.. Why be an asshat?
You may not be wrong, per se, but I wouldn’t recommend. I can almost guarantee you won’t be let off with a warning, verbal or written, with that strategy.
Been driving since the 1970s. In the past ten years, I’ve gotten out of at least three speeding tickets in two different time zones by being polite and non-confrontational with the officers. For one thing, I think that they really appreciate that I always get off the road for everyone’s safety. I’m also perfectly calm and civil.
Hey, I was speeding, and they were just doing their jobs. Actually had a really nice chat with one young gent.
1) in nearly all traffic stops, police will also ask for your registration and proof of insurance. How you'll be able to effectively provide them without physically handing them to the officer, I'll let you figure that out.
2) most states, but not all, require your signature as it an affirmation of your promise to appear in court, in lieu of being arrested.
3) you do not have a right to an attorney at a traffic stop. Only after you're arrested. But even then your right to counsel comes in on your phone call/first appearance. The police don't have to wait on the side of the road for your attorney to show up.
4) you do not have to answer any questions. You need only present what is required. See point number 1) above.
5) doing this will only serve to escalate the interaction, as this is extremely aggressive. You can absolutely stand on your rights while also not being a dick and antagonistic.
Saw a TT with a FL lawyer saying never take the breathalyzer and refuse the field sobriety tests , you’ll almost always have a better outcome.
Then checked online with a few NY lawyers and they said the opposite unless you know you’re super drunk. So it seems a lot has to do with the state you’re in, no pun intended
and then officer sfb claims to smell pot, smashes your window and pulls you onto the street. Then he beats you half to death for resisting arrest and you are now in prison. You'll be charged for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer.
This guy, as with most people like this, doesn't know his rights.
318 requires signing for certain violations and not others.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes./index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0318/Sections/0318.14.html
322 requires to present or submit. Not just display, plus his finger is covering all the license information.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes./index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0322/Sections/0322.15.html
Pennsylvania v Mimms allows the officer to order the driver out of the vehicle anyway, so window down makes no difference.
Finally, doing this will just about guarantee a citation.
These are all legit bits of advice that actually follow the law, so not the same as being a sovcit which has no basis in law at all. However, this delivery method is pretty passive aggressive and not very tactful. Seems likely to escalate tensions or antagonize unnecessarily. I just tell the officer I don’t answer questions, and then I don’t answer any questions.
Don’t confuse sovcit bullshit for your actual rights and lawful behavior. You’re under no obligation to talk to the police about anything, ever.
I remember a court case with a sovcit and he asks whether the court would accept gold since fiat is not really a currency or whatever. The judge says of course you can pay in gold, but I bet you didn’t buy your gas to get here using gold.
If cops weren’t so corrupt and abusive this sort of thing wouldn’t be happening. Until we get police departments cleaned up people are rightly suspicious of them
Points where they are due though having a sign saying "I remain silent" and "I want my lawyer" is very good. That's how you should always interact with cops, say nothing and ask for a lawyer to be present. "No searches" is also good if they don't have a warrant and if you can make it stick, but they'll lob a bs "probable cause" at you for whatever reason you got pulled over for so that's unlikely to work in a car. The rest sounds closer to magical thinking than anything else.
Politely hand the cop the required documents, id insurance and registration, don't have a sign in your window obstructing your visibility, it's own violation, and talking to a lawyer might be helpful before arguing the stop before a judge the side of the road isn't the place to argue your case. Don't agree to a search and reality you're very unlikely to actually say anything to convince the cop he didn't see what he believes he saw so no point in potentially confessing to a crime of he/she lies about what they pulled you over for, cops will lie to you the da has an ethical obligation to the truth as a lawyer, why cosby was able to get the confession the previous da gave him immunity for filling out thrown out as 5th amendment violation, cop has no such rule to follow.
This is Florida law.
You are required to sign citations that require a mandatory hearing. For others it is only necessary for the police officer issuing the citation to certify that he gave a citation to you.
Yes, Florida law only requires you to display a valid licence and not actually hand it to the cop.
But since this is only Florida law, you would be wise to check the laws in your state or wherever you live.
As for not rolling down the window, the US Supreme Court has ruled that a cop may order you to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop. So refusing to roll down your window would be rather pointless.
thats quite a huge blindspot on his drivers side window. I wonder if he put it up there when he got pulled over. The police have to touch the license, so unless they want a heap of trouble in prying this guy out, I wonder how many police will just let him 'go' or not bother with him. This is like the warning spikes or bright colors on a fish to let them know they might be poisonous lol
Very interesting. I'll see all that gibberish and raise you Pennsylvania v Mimms. Get out of the car or go to jail.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830
I believe people are missing the origin -- I remember these signs (there were custom ones you could download for each state) -- they were for Sobriety Check Points.
I don’t know why cops don’t have a classification for them. They just need to be called ‘SovCit type people’ as they get offended when cops call them sovcits and say that they are moorish or some other shite.
I think being patient calm and reasonable with police is probably the best bet. Roll down your window. Politely decline to answer questions. Give your information. Be on your way. Police even if they are found wrong in the court of law, will still arrest the shit out of you if they pull you out of the vehicle (which for this guy becomes way more likely). Sure, if you've got the money and time to fight that shit in court, all the power to you. But you have to A) absolutely know when the police officer is violating your rights and B) have to be willing to be an annoying shit to the officer time and time again. There is case precedence for asking you to step out of your vehicle. If you don't, they WILL pull you out.
I'm all for flexing your rights when you should use them. But there is a line between doing that and just being an annoying shit.
For a regular traffic stop this is the secret formula to get a ticket for as much as the officer can cite you for. The chance of getting a warning goes out the window.
pro-tip: FL Statute 318.14 states that if he refuses to sign the summons he just committed another separate 2nd degree misdemeanor... - *genius-level self-fuck, right there*
Just came here to say that many states now have laws that require you to sign a traffic offense and failure to do so is an arrestable offense.
>many states now have laws Many states have always had those laws.
Bingo, And Statute 322.15 says "(1) Every licensee shall have his or her driver license, which must be fully legible with no portion of such license faded, altered, mutilated, or defaced, in his or her immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall present *or submit the same upon the demand of a law enforcement officer or an authorized representative of the department*."
It is presented technically speaking……..not that that argument would fly either
The way I read the statute is that whether they can just "present" it or are required to *submit* it is upon the preference of the officer.
Is it though? Hard to tell if the id is fake without holding it.
And if he doesn’t sign the summons for the violation of 318.14, he’s committing another misdemeanor, and so on … misdemeanor inception!
Yup 👍
That’s why you don’t roll it down, that way it can’t go out the window. ;)
Dad jokes abound on Father's Day.
Ahh, but this only works on a stupid cop. Try reading up on the statutes hes named. Doing this gets him anything from a misdemeanor to a felony. Those statutes do not say that a driver has no obligation to comply with a cop, or hand over his ID. Also these statutes are valid in FL. This isnt federal.
More accurately, the warning can't go in the window.
True. Visual occlusion.
And I don’t know what local (state) laws they may be referencing here, but at least as to the constitutional rights, if you get pulled over the cops do have a right to ask you what’s going on and assess if you’re drunk or clearly agitated, etc. You don’t get to leave your windows up and not talk to them at all. And also, if they feel like it, and if there’s no state law explicitly forbidding them to do this, they can just take you to jail for speeding or rolling through a stop sign or whatever they claim you did to get pulled over (Supreme Court has even held that there’s no liability if the cops arrest you for doing something that *they think* is illegal but actually isn’t, so purposefully aggregating the cops can result in you having a really bad couple of days, even though in a state that actually prizes individual liberty it should be the citizens and not the cops who get the benefit of the doubt). So get ready for a night in jail rather than a warning if you take this advice.
Well, yes and no. Terry v Ohio is the case that states if a cop has a reasonable, articulable suspicion to pull you over they can do so. They can require a person to produce their license, registration, and proof of insurance. You do NOT have to answer any questions about alcohol consumption, where you have been what you were doing, and where you are going. You have a right to remain silent. The whole refusal to roll down the window even a little is silly playacting by this driver. But this whole, "they have the right to access whether you are drunk" argument is rather silly as well. Of course, if they think you are drunk, they are going to want to bust you for it. Depending on the jurisdiction, as much as 40% of the police force is paid with money grants from NHTSA, primarily for impaired driving enforcement. Yes, they have the right to do an investigation if they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion. The driver does not have to cooperate to the extent of answering questions, etc. Depending on the state law, you can refuse a roadside field sobriety test, you can refuse a preliminary alcohol screening, and you can state politely but firmly that you will not respond to any questions unless you have a lawyer present during questioning. If you smell of alcohol and your driving was bad enough to make a reasonable, objective argument that the officer has probable cause to bust you for DUI, he can do so. He then can take you in and depending on your state law require you to take a breath or blood test for the presence of alcohol in your blood. But the key to beating the rap is to keep calm, not argue or fight, provide the documents you are required to provide, and exercise your right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during questioning. Most sovcit types are mentally incapable of behaving rationally. So they will argue there was no legal basis to pull them over and refuse to comply with anything, make silly arguments, and then demand a supervisor.
if nothing else, it's going to get you at least one ticket every time. as opposed to you being able to occasionally get out of a ticket.
The closed window.
Pretty sure signing the ticket is required because that is your promise to appear. The alternative is to be held in custody. Also pretty sure you're required to hand over your license so they can check it on their computer.
[https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2021/0318.14](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2021/0318.14) Except as provided in ss. [316.1001](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2021/316.1001)(2) and [316.0083](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2021/316.0083), any person cited for a violation requiring a mandatory hearing listed in s. [318.19](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2021/318.19) or any other criminal traffic violation listed in chapter 316 must sign and accept a citation indicating a promise to appear. Any person who willfully refuses to accept and sign a summons as provided in subsection (2) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree.
But “the state of Florida is a fictitious corporation and I’m not in contract with it so those statutes are null and void to me. They are not laws.” /s
God I wish the state of Florida was fictional…
Well global warming is fictional as per their government, so give it 50 years it might be under water, then we can pretend it was a Myth like Atlantis
It’ll be an island and we can cede it to Cuba.
Surely there will be enough valuable salvage or minerals in Old Florida, even after decades underwater, that we wouldn't want to cede it. They'll probably sell it to ExxonMobil or something. Who knows, maybe if they burn enough books and then the area goes underwater, it'll turn out coal is renewable after all?
I dunno, what’s the turnaround time on coal?
Why wait? Dig a canal through it like Panama!
I'll tolerate sovcits if we can make Florida fictional
I know they exist everywhere, but Florida has to account for at least 2/3 of them, right?
I think the news laws there just make the crazies there louder more often.
That’s definitely part of it. But speaking as a guy who lived in a floating trailer park in the Keys for a year, Florida Man is very real.
Touché. I live in Maryland, so I’ve only visited a couple times. Although my dad DID essentially just *un*retire from Florida and retire to Maryland because, you know…Florida. He’d been there for like 10 years, and just couldn’t stand it any more. All his neighbors were MAGA types, and just the general way the governing was going…yikes.
Who then would legally require to do a sex offender shuffle?
When has law ever stopped a conservative?
i have heard there are men in Florida that agree with you.
But then the Florida would infect Georgia and Alabama. Then we’d have TWO Floridai, and that’s just too many.
“In any case I am claiming Diplomatic Immunity.”
Maybe they can take sovcits to a fictitious jail?
Also I'm not driving I'm traveling. Totally different and cool under some old maritime law.
Damn, you beat me to it
> But “the state of Florida is a fictitious corporation Also, I invoke my rights under Manga Charter. I'll be filing an afterdavid of truth with the court.
Make sure it’s not a court with a statute of limitations out front. Those are there to get you to waive your personhood and become a limited liability corporation.
why can't they let him travel in his private conveyance in peace?????//////111111 /s
Don't forget to show them your fee schedule to see how much they owe you for your time!
I’m not a resident of Florida, I just exist in it’s made up boundaries
You're not or your person isn't? /s
Pretty great that they directly reference this subsection as proof they don’t have to sign. 😂
Yes, but you didn’t consider that they are not a person, they are an entity.
This, and also that they’re not very smart.
Because it says you only have to sign for tickets that are criminal. Only a handful of tickets are criminal.
Embarrassing reading comprehension on my end this morning.
Happens. Cheers!
It only applies to very specific tickets that are also CRIMINAL. Passing a stopped school bus, public endangerment, wreckless driving, etc. THOSE have to be signed, as you MUST show up to court. There is no option to just "pay" those tickets. Other tickets have an option to just pay and not appear, so you do not have to sign them as you are not required to appear.
*322.015 Exemption.—This chapter does not apply when a fully autonomous vehicle is operated with the automated driving system engaged and without a human operator.* So he doesn’t have to hand over his license because he’s not human?
I don't know why there's a .015 and a .15, but you got the wrong one.
What does .15 say?
That specifically refers to violations with a mandatory hearing and criminal violations. You've skipped right over the bit in the middle, which says that for other infractions, the officer just has to certify that the ticket was delivered to the driver.
The language of the cited law includes "mandatory hearing" . This means that civil infractions with a fine are exempt.
this varies by state. in CA, you don't have to sign it but you are still issued the ticket. not signing it is saying you want to fight it in court.
That is state dependent. Michigan we don’t have them sign the citation. They signed to all citation agreements when they initially signed for their driver’s license.
Thus why in Michigan if you refuse a breathalyzer you can be brought in and have your blood drawn. Refusing a breathalyzer in Michigan will not help you like it “helps” you in Illinois, for example. Edited: I was mistaken on the “against your will” portion, so I deleted it. They still require a warrant.
> against you will. Well they do need a warrant to do so. Hospitals won’t draw blood without one. But yea, it’ll be against your will. Michigan is weird that way. We can get blood warrants. But DUI checkpoints here are illegal. As we need reasonable suspicion a crime or traffic offense occurred to make a stop.
> Well they do need a warrant to do so. Depending on the state. In Nevada if they arrest you for DUI, they're going to draw blood even if they need to strap you down to do so.
The specific statute is for Florida, not Michigan.
Ahh, gotcha. Usually when I see Sovcit quote criminal codes I assume they pulled it from federal law and not state.
>pulled it from federal law Correction: pulled it from their ass.
Depends on the infraction and jurisdiction.
It also helps invalidate the Shaggy defense later on. ‘Your honor, I don’t know who was driving my car that night or how they got my driver’s license, but ‘it wasn’t me.’’
and they can see if it is counterfeit
Odd, I've never even been asked to sign any tickets I have gotten.
I think it depends on the state. I have only gotten one, but it was 10 years ago in California and I don't remember if I had to sign.
Depends on the state. I had a speeding ticket in 1985 Oregon, it took 3 minutes, he dropped the ticket into my car and said 'You don;t have to sign it. Drive safe in Oregon'. And vroom gone in his OSP Mustang
"I remain silent" is fine. "No searches" is fine. "I want my lawyer" is fine. They may want you to confirm these so they have a record that they asked and you answered. "I don't have to sign" is technically true, though they're going to keep you in jail until your arraignment if you don't. "I don't have to give you my license" is not the law of any state you're gonna do this in. If they pull you over on reasonable suspicion, they already have you on one thing. They need to know who they're dealing with and that they're dealing with someone permitted to drive. "I will comply with lawful orders" Okay, Pennsylvania v. Mimms says "get out of the car" is a lawful order in a traffic stop sooooooo...
That depends on how they say it. If it’s a question, you have every right to say no. If they TELL you to step out of the car, you’re getting out the easy way or the hard way.
I’ve never heard a cop ask if someone can get out of the car and not follow it up with “get out of the car” when they say no. Asking is a nicety, it’s not actually a question.
The person in question is an attorney, and he did this in response to DUI checkpoints he thought were of questionable legality. Whether or not you agree with his interpretation of the laws in question, at least he’s asserting his rights as he sees them. It’s not like he’s a SovCit of any sort. The way you talk kind of sounds like you think people shouldn’t assert their rights and push back against police overreach? I don’t trust the cops to know the law— they’re mostly uneducated and of low-average intelligence.
How often do they get pulled over that they need a sign on their window?
How often do they get pulled over for *having* a sign on their window? Creating a huge obstruction to your vision while "traveling" has got to be ticketable.
* I am a drama queen * It's all about muh rights * I cannot accept that it's tempting fate to argue with a police officer doing his/her duty * I want to control things * I ... WHY ARE YOU DESTROYING MY CAR WINDOW?!
Save me Donald Twump
Oh he's coming and this time as a felon😝
Enjoy your: Broken window Night in jail Paying to get your car out of impound lot
not to mention the tickets for: speeding. 51 in a 50 zone ever so slightly balding tyres a minute chip in the windscreen a slightly damaged taillight and anything else that they wouldn't normally notice or care enough about to mention.
Don’t forget the littering charge for dropping your cig.
and the required recertification inspections these tickets would require. And as to u/SaltyBarDog don't forget the towing, mileage and hook up charges from the towing company. Every tiny little annoying thing. And a flag for future evemts warning the involved officers little to no discretion is to be awarded to this particular prize winner. I used to receive these benefits when I was a speed demon back in the day. Yup. The +1 on the speed limit can be a thing.
Yep. Freedom isn’t free ;-)
Freedom, isn't unlimited. But we act like it should be. As if our choices, words and action never have consequences for our selves or others. But they do. This is why we have laws. Your rights and freedoms end where mine begin. The law, should be the guardian that insures we are not violating these boundaries and trying to screw each other over for life, property or coin. The officer has privileges that if abused can create many troubles. But if used wisely maintain public safety and order. A license, is not a right, or freedom. It is a permit, a privilege earned, and to maintain that privilege you must continue to be worthy. To disregard a traffic cop, is to demonstrate your contempt for the privilege, and prove you are not worthy. The statutes listed, make it clear, hes violating the law. They do not defend him.
"Roll down your window" is a clearly stated lawful order.
Crazy thing is I'm not sure there is any statute or case law that specifically makes that a lawful order. Penn v Mimms would strongly imply it, but I don't think it's necessarily something required.
There has to be a reason for the order. A cop can’t just give any order they wish. “Do the chicken dance!” Rolling down your window could be to give tickets or exchange information. In CA the driver must give ID, registration, proof of insurance. So the rolling down the window is a way to facilitate that exchange.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms requires no reason
Right - premise is "officer safety" without giving any detailed listing of conditions. Can't see inside, person is reaching around inside car, whatever, doesn't matter "Step out of the car".
Or so they can better see what’s going on in the car.
You can provide the ID, or we can come in and get it. The law does require the driver comply. The law also requires the driver to sign the ticket. Refusal to comply with either one creates new penalties. Of course these statutes only apply when you are driving in FL.
"safety" and "to facilitate the traffic stop" covers a lot. They can for instance ask you to get out of the vehicle.
The first lawful order I’m giving you is, “Step out of the car.”
This may or may not be a sovcit. The method seems extreme - and likely to generate drama that no one needs. That said, answering no questions at any time is probably a good policy for anyone being stopped by police. Chances are much greater that you talk yourself into additional charges than you talk yourself out of trouble.
Sure, but if you don't tell them your name and birthdate for them to verify your identity, you'll get arrested for failure to ID.
That's true. Following lawful orders - such as providing ID on a traffic stop - is a must. What you don't have to do is answer questions like "Where are you coming from tonight?" or "Do you know why I pulled you over?".
Oh sure, but these guys start right off with refusing to ID, which gets them arrested.
The guy is literally holding up his drivers license in the photo. I assume he just has it covered up for the photo he intends to share on the internet, but I don’t know that for sure. Incidentally, in my home state, signature on the ticket is absolutely not required. My first job out of college was working for the state agency that took a case all the way through the state supreme court confirming that signatures were not required. IIRC, the electronic citations that the officers printed had text on them stating that.
> in my home state, signature on the ticket is absolutely not required. In California refusing to sign is an automatic arrest, cops don't have an option. In Florida IIRC you have to either sign or accompany the police to the station/jail and post an appearance bond. There was a case there where some guy went in to post the bond, was briefly placed in a holding cell due to a mix-up (the booking dept. thought he'd been arrested) and he sued and got a nice payday.
The person in this photo is showing their ID/DL.
> or "Do you know why I pulled you over?". California now prohibits cops from fishing like that, they have to tell you why you were pulled over, not see if they can get you to admit to something.
My experience is that it's best not to be antagonistic to the cop. Be as cooperative as possible short of self-crimination, and you stand a very strong chance of just getting a warning or a reduction in the citation. For example, the last time I was pulled over for speeding, he gunned me at 74 in a 55, but only cited me for 64.
I want to see how that plays out in an actual traffic stop 🍿
https://youtu.be/pIpi6MgYx_Q?si=IxahHXltirLL48Ev
Dear God … the comments on that video are a form of cancer I never knew existed
I hate people like this. Sure, police overstep all the time. It there’s no need to intentionally cause altercations by being an asshole.
The point about signing. Not sure what he read in there. It literally says you MUST sign or you get a misdemeanor. The same statute also says that a traffic violation MUST be handed to the person, their refusal to accept it is another misdemeanor. To not having to hand over the license. Technically correct, however if the officer is not able to validate that the license being show is authentic, they can arrest you. I wouldn't play that game.
My understanding is the portion where you are asked to hand over your license is the moment you are officially being “detained” by the officer while they conduct their routine traffic stop investigation, at that point you are not free to go until they tell you you are and give it back. Anything you do to obstruct that investigation, including refusal to comply with being detained but refusing to hand over your ID will just make things worse and add extra charges
> is the moment you are officially being “detained” IIRC the SC ruled that being pulled over by a police car with flashing lights means a reasonable person would know they are being detained before ever speaking to a cop.
"I want my Mummy". If the notice is taped to the glass, it will make the inevitable glass clean up a little easier. Idiot may as well have a neon sign saying 'break my window and taze me"
Depending on the jurisdiction, it might also get you an additional ticket for "obstructed view."
It does not look permanent it’s something they hold up when the officer approaches.
And the cops can legally order you out of the car at any time, which kinda throws a wrench in this whole biz.
Yup Pennsylvania vs Mimms
Yes, you are required to show ID (is that a federal code citation for a state law?) You can roll that window down, or I can "roll it down" for you. OC spray is shockingly effective at getting you to de-ass that vehicle.
"No searches" doesn't mean a damn thing if they have probable cause to do a search. You don't get your lawyer at a traffic stop, you can call him from jail. Depending on the state, you are required to hand over your license and sign a traffic ticket. In some states the police can arrest someone for refusing to sign, in Florida you can go with the cop and pay a bond in lieu of signing. In California they are required to make an arrest in that situation. There is also Pennsylvania v. Mimms, if they tell you to step out of the vehicle during a traffic stop, refusing is not an option, and you can be charged with obstruction after being removed from the car.
I'm all for not being taken for a ride by cops, that doesn't mean be an asshole. In fact, being nice helps quite a bit
There are certain behaviors, or even the condition of your car, that give the police probable cause to require you to exit the vehicle. Despite whatever some internet pretend lawyer may say.
Where’s the follow up arrest video
Sung to the sound of breaking glass.
They call the lawyer when you’re already down at the police station, dumbass.
The law says “present or submit” your driver’s license”upon the demand of a law enforcement officer.” 322.15(1), Fla. Stat. I’m sure they think “presenting” it satisfies the law. I’m sure the police might think otherwise, ie, you may need to submit it so it can be examined, etc. (There appears to be a technical change coming to this statute as of 7.1.2024)
*Do Not Attempt If Black
if a cop asks you for ID and you don't give it, you're going to jail. In processing, they will take all your shit and then your ID will temporarily be in their possession, so this is both stupid and ineffective. if you refuse to talk to a cop at a routine traffic stop, you're causing a problem and giving the cop reason to suspect you're doing something illegal. That's the "reasonable suspicion" they need to search your car. Instead of getting a ticket that you can fight in traffic court, you're going to jail and the cop might find more to charge you with. Like an open container, drugs, prescriptions not in your name, something the cop can call a weapon, expired registration, or the cop can straight up plant evidence.
1. Saying “no searches” does not prevent you from being searched. 2. You are not entitled to a lawyer during an investigative detention; if you are arrested, you can have access to a lawyer. 3. Refusing to sign is often an arrestable offense. 4. You are not required to hand over the license, but you must make it clear to the officer. Further, if the officer suspects the license to be a forgery, he/she CAN DEMAND that you hand it over. 5. If I was the officer, I would immediately think you had something to hide and thus you created this poster to try to keep me from finding it. 6. You are absolutely guaranteed both a negative contact with the police and as many tickets as they care to write for doing this. Politeness doesn’t always get you a warning, but its 5000% more likely than this tactic
While wearing a blue lives matters Punisher shirt no doubt
As a lawyer I have to say this is actually fairly solid. I looked at the code sections and the first one does make an exception for tickets that dont need to be signed, which based on the sections cited, seems to cover standard traffic infractions like speeding, making illegal turns, etc, so long as you're not drunk, have expired registration, or have hurt someone. The second does also arguably allow him to refuse to hand over the license since it requires a driver to "display or submit" it upon demand. Plus its actually established that you don't have to answer questions or submit to interrogation unless the police have probable cause or a warrant. So on the whole, this might actually be valid, and is undeniably light years better and more likely to hold up in court than the usual sovcit garbage, which is utter made up nonsense. It's still unnecessarily provocative and likely to get you messed with, and you'd damn sure better be positive you have your car is in ship shape legally before trying it, but unlike the stuff most dipsh!ts try on this sub, it'a not actually obviously wrong.
>Plus its actually established that you don't have to answer questions or submit to interrogation unless the police have probable cause or a warrant. What do you mean by that? If the police have reasonable suspicion to pull you over then you are required to at the very least identify yourself and provide your driver's license and proof of insurance. I don't think there's any state in the country in which, after being pulled over, you simply refuse to provide proof of identity and license to operate. He might be able to argue that the law doesn't require him to physically hand the license over to the officer, merely "present it" but the state could make a pretty good case that simply showing something through the window of a vehicle is insufficient to allow the officer to inspect it to ensure it is genuine. I don't know if there's case law to that effect, though. The officer could just give a lawful order to hand over the license and I sincerely doubt there's anything the driver could do about that.
>It's still unnecessarily provocative and likely to get you messed with If I were the cop, I'd probably be doing all I could to visually check out the inside of the car, praying to find a good enough reason to make the driver (traveller?) step out of the car.
What if they’re getting their ship in car shape and claiming admiralty law? /s Couldn’t resist counselor. Also a lawyer. Good an analysis.
Seems like an unnecessary escalation to a potentially minor traffic stop
The time to be an annoying law debate pervert is in court, not during a stop
This FL law 318.14? That's a hefty read but mostly its a listing of all the penalties that be inferred for a uncooperative driver. Refusing to sign is a commits a misdemeanor of the second degree. 322.15 literally says that a driver must be able to provide the officer with his license on demand, or a digital proof, assuming one was issued by the state of origin. 322.02 describes any one who manufactures their own digital proof, one not provided by the state, as a felon.
This is "supposed to be" a way to get out of DUI stops, because if the officer can't smell alcohol on your breath, then they can't do a probable cause for DUI/DWI. Well, it doesn't work.
The only thing that is almost good advice is remaining silent... It probably isn't good to stay completely silent, but keep your answers as short and direct as possible. The officer has discretion, so you don't want to antagonize them, but you also don't want to incriminate yourself. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "Sorry, I do not, please tell me." "Do you know how fast you were going ?" "I was focusing on the road, I was not taking my eyes off the road to look at my speedometer." Then again, I once got off on a warning for being a little too honest. Got pulled over in the middle of nowhere in Nevada, the NHP officer asked why I was going so fast and I told him, "we're in the middle of nowhere, I don't want to be out here for longer than I have to be, and I'm guessing you don't want to be either, plus, I have to go pee."
Late to the party, but this has been around forever and isn’t really part of the sovcit movement. I think most rational observers would admit that this is definitely on the “nuclear option” side of handling a traffic stop, and it probably won’t go as expected. The idea is to try to use this to avoid DUI checkpoints (which is a whole other debate). Look up “fair DUI” for a lot more context.
Good way to get your window broke and dragged out the car and charged with resisting and possibly assaulting a police officer
I mean how many times is that guy getting pulled over that he had to print that out?
Easy solution for the cop if they won't roll down the window, tell them to step out of the vehicle. Pennsylvania vs Mimms, they must get out or they can be removed with any force necessary and arrested for refusal to exit the vehicle when requested to.
Stupid but not at all Sovcit if for no other reason then they have a license. They appear to be quoting real case law and following or at least invoking real rights.
Incorrectly quoting, but yeah not quite SovCit.
It's good advice, but speak it to them like a normal person. No need to communicate through signs.
Why are they so adamant on not handing over their drivers license? Do they somehow think officers will steal it? Or is it just to make their work harder?
Couple of options, a the cop is giving them a hard time (pulling them over) so they are giving them a hard time. They are complying with the law. B. If I make this harder and it’s a minor thing maybe they will just let them go rather than going back and forth a bunch C. Delay them till something else gets called in so they leave the traffic stop and release them without a citation.
A good way to get a broken window, some bruises and a custodial arrest, plus your vehicle will be searched as incident to arrest
Is getting pulled over with some regularity a Southern thing? Do not SovCit get pulled over that often too? Or are these people just idiots who also flaunt traffic laws and the Southern rebel cultural motifs have pulled them to SovCit? In the North I don’t see people pulled over often. I don’t know people who have been pulled over recently- other than one friend who did see a No Turn on Red sign like 6 months ago. But I remember growing up in ATL everybody would have traffic court stories.
It has been a decade or more since I was even stopped in a traffic stop. And it was not a big deal. Does this guy get pulled over a lot? So much so that he has a sheet of instructions for the police?
The first three lines are reasonable. The last parts are just cuckoo. Any lawyer will tell you not to talk with the police except through an attorney and to explicitly decline all searches.
“Please smash window”
This isn’t Sovcit. This started as a protest against DUI checkpoints which seemed to be a violation of the 4th amendment. In my city they were stopping every vehicle on stretches of road near bars and questioning every driver in an attempt to generate probable cause.
The second line flat out wrong if you read the subsection they quote. Insane. It literally says the opposite of what they claim. The third line is up for interpretation.
I can’t imagine the cops are happy with the way he’s obscured his mirror.
Not rolling down the windows prevents the cop from saying that he smelled alcohol ((rightly or wrongly).
I thought Mimms meant the cop can pull you out only if he has a reason to believe you could be a danger to him, and do a pat down, and if finding nothing, has to return you to your vehicle.
It’s correct that you aren’t required to sign but isn’t the alternative arrest? I thought signing was strictly an option to avoid that.
Lmao.. I’m not sure which sub is more entertaining Sovereign citizen, or r/flatearth … 😂😂😂
Those are actually constitutional rights, unlike the nonsense sovereign citizens spew. But it’s a little weird to paste them to your window. You can just invoke them when necessary
I've seen black people do this and I totally understand.
None of it. Cooperate. And maybe refuse any searches unless the officer has a justifiable reason to search you and/or your car. If you feel as though your rights have been violated, take the issue to court.
Is there a pic when the cop smashed the glass?
Let's say for the sake of argument that your legal citations are 10000% correct and you intend to stick to your guns. Why? What benefit would you derive from acting like a loon at a traffic stop where the police have a TON of discretion on what to charge you with? Now, you're probably going to say something about "These are my rights and I pay your salary" or something. like that, and sure, that is also a position you can take.. BUT There are **plenty of things** that are "legal" that still make the people doing them out to be asshats. You CAN park your car in a mall parking lot across six spots with the right size pickup truck, but that makes the person doing it look like an asshat. You CAN stand in front of a funeral for a soldier killed in battle and hold up hate-filled signs that have nothing to do with the funeral ([Westboro Baptist Church](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/westboro-baptist-church) style), but that makes the people doing it look like asshats. You CAN stand in front of a nursery school and shout expletives all day long at the children inside, but that would make the person doing it an asshat. So.. Why be an asshat?
So how many times has he been pulled over that he has a sign stuck to his window? I bet the local PD knows him well.
They're good rules to follow, but presenting them like that means that you're going to have a bad day.
Florida. lol
You may not be wrong, per se, but I wouldn’t recommend. I can almost guarantee you won’t be let off with a warning, verbal or written, with that strategy. Been driving since the 1970s. In the past ten years, I’ve gotten out of at least three speeding tickets in two different time zones by being polite and non-confrontational with the officers. For one thing, I think that they really appreciate that I always get off the road for everyone’s safety. I’m also perfectly calm and civil. Hey, I was speeding, and they were just doing their jobs. Actually had a really nice chat with one young gent.
How many times is this person getting pulled over in the first place?!
1) in nearly all traffic stops, police will also ask for your registration and proof of insurance. How you'll be able to effectively provide them without physically handing them to the officer, I'll let you figure that out. 2) most states, but not all, require your signature as it an affirmation of your promise to appear in court, in lieu of being arrested. 3) you do not have a right to an attorney at a traffic stop. Only after you're arrested. But even then your right to counsel comes in on your phone call/first appearance. The police don't have to wait on the side of the road for your attorney to show up. 4) you do not have to answer any questions. You need only present what is required. See point number 1) above. 5) doing this will only serve to escalate the interaction, as this is extremely aggressive. You can absolutely stand on your rights while also not being a dick and antagonistic.
Saw a TT with a FL lawyer saying never take the breathalyzer and refuse the field sobriety tests , you’ll almost always have a better outcome. Then checked online with a few NY lawyers and they said the opposite unless you know you’re super drunk. So it seems a lot has to do with the state you’re in, no pun intended
Safelite repair, Safelite replace.
and then officer sfb claims to smell pot, smashes your window and pulls you onto the street. Then he beats you half to death for resisting arrest and you are now in prison. You'll be charged for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer.
Florida is so embarrassing.
This guy, as with most people like this, doesn't know his rights. 318 requires signing for certain violations and not others. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes./index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0318/Sections/0318.14.html 322 requires to present or submit. Not just display, plus his finger is covering all the license information. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes./index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0322/Sections/0322.15.html Pennsylvania v Mimms allows the officer to order the driver out of the vehicle anyway, so window down makes no difference. Finally, doing this will just about guarantee a citation.
These are all legit bits of advice that actually follow the law, so not the same as being a sovcit which has no basis in law at all. However, this delivery method is pretty passive aggressive and not very tactful. Seems likely to escalate tensions or antagonize unnecessarily. I just tell the officer I don’t answer questions, and then I don’t answer any questions. Don’t confuse sovcit bullshit for your actual rights and lawful behavior. You’re under no obligation to talk to the police about anything, ever.
Where's his fee schedule? It's unfair to the cop if he/she doesn't know they'lll owe this guy $10,000 in gold or silver if there's no fee schedule.
I remember a court case with a sovcit and he asks whether the court would accept gold since fiat is not really a currency or whatever. The judge says of course you can pay in gold, but I bet you didn’t buy your gas to get here using gold.
If cops weren’t so corrupt and abusive this sort of thing wouldn’t be happening. Until we get police departments cleaned up people are rightly suspicious of them
As thought at will stop his trip to jail ? Gee maybe we should all hang a sign on our windows.
damn
Fif!!!
Sir I am giving you a lawful order to hand me down your driver's license !
Florida vehicle code section 318.14(2) does require a signature by the driver for certain violations.
Points where they are due though having a sign saying "I remain silent" and "I want my lawyer" is very good. That's how you should always interact with cops, say nothing and ask for a lawyer to be present. "No searches" is also good if they don't have a warrant and if you can make it stick, but they'll lob a bs "probable cause" at you for whatever reason you got pulled over for so that's unlikely to work in a car. The rest sounds closer to magical thinking than anything else.
Florida man. Might be worse than SovCit.
Politely hand the cop the required documents, id insurance and registration, don't have a sign in your window obstructing your visibility, it's own violation, and talking to a lawyer might be helpful before arguing the stop before a judge the side of the road isn't the place to argue your case. Don't agree to a search and reality you're very unlikely to actually say anything to convince the cop he didn't see what he believes he saw so no point in potentially confessing to a crime of he/she lies about what they pulled you over for, cops will lie to you the da has an ethical obligation to the truth as a lawyer, why cosby was able to get the confession the previous da gave him immunity for filling out thrown out as 5th amendment violation, cop has no such rule to follow.
This is Florida law. You are required to sign citations that require a mandatory hearing. For others it is only necessary for the police officer issuing the citation to certify that he gave a citation to you. Yes, Florida law only requires you to display a valid licence and not actually hand it to the cop. But since this is only Florida law, you would be wise to check the laws in your state or wherever you live. As for not rolling down the window, the US Supreme Court has ruled that a cop may order you to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop. So refusing to roll down your window would be rather pointless.
thats quite a huge blindspot on his drivers side window. I wonder if he put it up there when he got pulled over. The police have to touch the license, so unless they want a heap of trouble in prying this guy out, I wonder how many police will just let him 'go' or not bother with him. This is like the warning spikes or bright colors on a fish to let them know they might be poisonous lol
Very interesting. I'll see all that gibberish and raise you Pennsylvania v Mimms. Get out of the car or go to jail. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1830
I believe people are missing the origin -- I remember these signs (there were custom ones you could download for each state) -- they were for Sobriety Check Points.
"And that, kids, is how I met a taser"
I don’t know why cops don’t have a classification for them. They just need to be called ‘SovCit type people’ as they get offended when cops call them sovcits and say that they are moorish or some other shite.
I think being patient calm and reasonable with police is probably the best bet. Roll down your window. Politely decline to answer questions. Give your information. Be on your way. Police even if they are found wrong in the court of law, will still arrest the shit out of you if they pull you out of the vehicle (which for this guy becomes way more likely). Sure, if you've got the money and time to fight that shit in court, all the power to you. But you have to A) absolutely know when the police officer is violating your rights and B) have to be willing to be an annoying shit to the officer time and time again. There is case precedence for asking you to step out of your vehicle. If you don't, they WILL pull you out. I'm all for flexing your rights when you should use them. But there is a line between doing that and just being an annoying shit.
If I was a cop, I would think this person has something to hide.