Apparently They’re Enforcing DRESS CODES In Public Again! [The Return of “John”]

Apparently They’re Enforcing DRESS CODES In Public Again! [The Return of “John”]

Biggest discount of the year in the Plaud links below—save on your BFCM shopping now!

– Plaud Website: https://bit.ly/4osbM59 (NOTE)https://bit.ly/4nTNgco (NotePin)- Code“AUDIT” 20%off

– Plaud Amazon: https://amzn.to/4owDVIv (NOTE)https://amzn.to/3JqATX5 (NotePin)-Code“AUDITYTB” 20%off

#blackFriday #BFCM #Plaud

Get The Civilian Rights Handguide here: https://a.co/d/aDvE0xL

Submit your video here: https://forms.gle/FyrRquHvYtgjUDAw7

Second Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClTjur-9cx8Bb4MW8r0K6xw

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/audittheaudit

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuditTheAudit

Sponsorship inquiries: au***@****fy.com

Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. Help us grow and educate more citizens and officers on the proper officer interaction conduct by liking this video and/or subscribing.

DISCLAIMER
This video is for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing in this video should be construed as legal advice. I am not an attorney, and the content of this video does not create an attorney-client relationship. All legal commentary is based on publicly available information and is presented for general analysis, not personal guidance. Viewers should consult a licensed attorney for advice specific to their legal situation. The views expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any individuals or institutions shown. This video is not intended to provoke, incite, or shock the viewer, and does not promote unlawful behavior. It is created solely to inform the public about constitutional rights, law enforcement practices, and police accountability.

Bear in mind that the facts presented in my videos are not indicative of my personal opinion, and I do not always agree with the outcome, people, or judgements of any interaction.

FAIR USE
This video falls under fair use protection as it has been manipulated for educational purposes with the addition of commentary. This video is complementary to illustrate the educational value of the information being delivered through the commentary and has inherently changed the value, audience and intention of the original video.

Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7D_jPBHOxs

Original video (second angle): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUAj4FWsS5s

911 call: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M81h6umTOmE

Blue Steel’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/@bluesteel7199

Sources:

Fla. Stat. § 843.02- https://bit.ly/4lbP8vQ

Moore v. Pederson- https://bit.ly/4oHALBA

Fla. Stat. § 790.01- https://bit.ly/3Xbg6d5

Sheppard v. State- https://bit.ly/3WI2dD7

Florida v. J. L.- https://bit.ly/4nyYNxp

Fla. Stat. § 856.021- https://bit.ly/49DvAhr

Ecker v. State- https://bit.ly/4oN31CG

source

Share this post

41 thoughts on “Apparently They’re Enforcing DRESS CODES In Public Again! [The Return of “John”]

  1. The police violated John's 4th amendment rights by detaining him, but they ALSO violated the 4th Amendment by demanding his ID under threat of arrest with ZERO RAS. If the lawsuit settlement payments came out of the pockets of the officers, they'd be less inclined to make such violations of the Constitution and their OATH to protect such rights.

  2. Infinite money making glitch:
    1. Go outside with a ski mask, and a sign saying god bless the homeless vets.
    2. Ask two of your friends to call the police about suspiciously free individual.
    3. Profit.

  3. Omgoodness. Why can't we just have a conversation? Number one, u don't listen anyway and #2-nobody wants to talk to u clowns. Get over urselves. U think u r so great that ppl r excited to talk to ur royal highness? STFU. Go AWAY!! 🤢

  4. The number of times he asked if he could leave and they didn’t answer his question… at that point it’s an illegal detainment because they aren’t making it clear if he’s free to go or not.

  5. One of the funny things that the female officer said as people calling on when it actually was only one person called it because they had a feeling I don’t know why officers wanna say multiple people because I’m gonna guess it sounds more threatening than a person calling in

  6. If you don't have any idea if he's filled another lawsuit or not. Then STOP lying in your title saying they have him another lawsuit. I really like your channel but if you're going to tell lies in your title then it's hard to defend anything else you say. Just saying. Keep up the good work otherwise.

  7. You can't convince me that law enforcement officer don't know they need RAS to detain and identify people in 2025. More and more cops are gonna lose their qualified immunity over it. Good luck convincing a judge that the mans detainment was justified after they watch that bodycam footage. 🙄

  8. I do not understand why the dispatcher does simply tell the caller that wearing a ski mask and a backpack is not illegal? She DID NOT WANT TO SAY that he had a rocket launcher in his bag either. Then, why do they send the cops? and then, when the cops arrive, why do they not just sit back and observe for a few minutes to see if something is afoot?

  9. A whole lot of copsplaining their perceived ability to violate the Constitution. Cops are far too used to dealing with people who don't know their rights.

  10. Just more ignorant, lying, tyrant, psychopath, blue line gang thug cops who don’t care about the law abusing citizens and their rights. Won’t change until we abolish qualified immunity, abolish internal investigations, take their pensions, and CRIMINALLY prosecute them for their crimes. Earning the hate. A “call” is not reasonable suspicion.

Comments are closed.