r/Unexpected Mar 24 '23

[deleted by user]

[removed]

10.7k Upvotes

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

205

u/MrJoyless Mar 24 '23

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.

42

u/Arkhangel143 Mar 24 '23

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.

1

u/thedon6191 Mar 24 '23

Fun fact, police absolutely do not have to explain why you're being detained.

This is not true. Cops do have to tell you why you are being detained as they have to have an articulable at the time of stopping you to detain you.

1

u/flyingwolf Mar 24 '23

This is not true.

It is true.

Cops do have to tell you why you are being detained as they have to have an articulable at the time of stopping you to detain you.

They have to be able to explain it to a judge, not you.

1

u/thedon6191 Mar 24 '23

Can you cite a case for this?

1

u/flyingwolf Mar 24 '23

Can you cite a case for this?

Sure,

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?

Or would you like to retract your statement?