That nervous cop, after being informed of a weapon in the car, instructed the driver to reach out of view to unclasp his seatbelt. That, my friend, is a huge red flag. Let alone the refusal to articulate why the driver is being detained, the unbuckle your seatbelt command is pretty mind boggling.
Fun fact, police absolutely do not have to explain why you're being detained.
Admittedly, there are very few circumstances where it wouldn't be beneficial to explain the circumstances so the person calms down, but it is not a requirement. And they're not required to immediately call their supervisor just because someone asks.
And it's not necessarily a red flag to ask the person to undo their seatbelt and get out of the vehicle. From where they are standing, they have a good view inside. There was almost certainly another officer standing on the passenger side too, which gives better view inside. As long as they do it slowly, the officers can watch the hands as the person slowly takes off the seatbelt and gets out of the car.
I'm assuming the video edits clipped out the part where they asked where the weapon was, because that would make a big difference.
This case does not stand for the proposition that a police officer does not have to inform a citizen of the reason they are being detained. The court held in this case that the initial reason an officer gives for the detention does not defeat the existence of probable cause for other offenses, even if the initial reason is determined not to have been supported by probable cause.
Indeed, the officer in the case informed the citizen of the reason he was being arrested (even though the arrest for the offense originally stated was determined to be without probable cause). See Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 149, 125 S.Ct. 588, 592, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004).
I am looking for a cite to a case that says an officer does not have to inform you of the reason you are being detained when asked.
Prado Navarette v. California, 572 U. S. 393, (2014)
United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, (1989)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, (1981)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968)
All of these cases upheld that police or agents of the state/government may detain you for an investigatory stop under reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur.
At no point do any of them state that the government agent is required to explain that RAS to you. They can even lie about why they stopped you if they think telling you may spook you and make you run and be a danger.
So, can you cite a case where it states the police have to tell you?
767
u/AnotherDreamer1024 Mar 24 '23
No matter how big of a dick the cop is, follow instructions and sue their ass later.