Police warrantless raid force everyone to provide ID Tyrant corrupt

FB: https://www.facebook.com/MCPD46360/

Police in Michigan City Indiana Police raid a bar claiming checking for over 21. They provide no probable cause of a crime to check identification and force everyone to comply or be arrested.

Even their name is shady, they try to be michigan, they try to be indiana they’re just corrupt.

** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **

Author: rafael.nieves

ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2020 | HOSTING BY PHILLYFINEST369 SERVER STATS| & THE IDIOTS ROBOT AND CONTROL INC. |(RSS FEED MODULE)| ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS (phillyfinest369.com)

37 thoughts on “Police warrantless raid force everyone to provide ID Tyrant corrupt

  1. SO…. the STINKING pigs can empty a business and ask everyone for ID JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT TO?????? WTF is that??? i WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS THAT ALLOWS THE POLICE TO CHECK YOU ID AND YOUR HISTORY FOR NO REASON!!! PLEASE GIVE ME THE LAW THAT ALLOWS THIS… I NEED TO RESEARCH THIS.

  2. INVOKING ONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "BEING UNCOOPERATIVE" NOR DO THOSE RIGHTS EVER LAPSE, IRRESPECTIVE OF TIME OF DAY, BUT THEY REMAIN IN EFFECT 24/7/365. A CLAIM BY POLICE THAT YOU ARE BEING STOPPED BECAUSE "SOMEBODY CALLED" IS GROUNDS FOR DETAINMENT OR ARREST IS TOTALLY BOGUS AS THAT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE "RAS", NOR IS REFUSING TO "ASSIST" IN AN "INVESTIGATION" BY NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS GROUNDS FOR A CHARGE OF "OBSTRUCTION" BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO SAY NOTHING AT ALL TO POLICE. AS DECLINING TO "ASSIST" IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IT CAN NEVER BE CRIMINALIZED AS "OBSTRUCTION".

    As a sworn law enforcement officer, you are bound by the Oath you took as required by Article VI, Paragraph 3, Clause 1 of the 1789 Constitution of the United States to "support" and protect the "Constitution" and its 27 Amendments. In four U.S. Supreme Court cases decided in 1973, 1975 and 1979, (“Almeida-Sanchez vs United States” (413 U.S. 266), “United States vs Brignoni-Ponce” (422 U. S. 873), “Zackary Brown vs State of Texas” (443 U.S. 47) and “State of Delaware vs William Prouse” (440 U.S. 648)), the Court held that both the demanding of, and warrantless searches for, a person's ID absent reasonable articulable suspicion ("RAS") sufficient to constitute grounds for a lawful, non pretextual arrest — especially when that person is engaged in any Constitutionally protected activity such as those covered by (but not limited to) the Free Speech and Free Press Clauses of the First Amendment — at a minimum violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. (Delaware v. Prouse specifically protects the right to privacy of passengers in automobiles during traffic or check point stops.)

    The Supreme Court also held in 1971 in “James Palmer v. City of Euclid" (402 U.S. 547) that without RAS, government “does not have Constitutional power” to make “suspicious” circumstances “a criminal offense”, and in 1983 the Supreme Court held as well in the "State of Florida v. Royer" (460 U.S. 491) that under the rights and protections of the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments a person approached by a LEO "need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 32 -33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. "United States v. Mendenhall", at 556 (opinion of Stewart, J.)."

    In "Ernest Ramsey v. The United States", D. C. Court of Appeals. No. 11–CF–1485 (2013) the Court held that: "Any restraint of a person amounting to a seizure is invalid unless justified by probable cause. Detaining an individual, even for a few minutes, for a warrant check constitutes a seizure that is unlawful in the absence of probable cause or a reasonable, articulable basis to suspect the individual of a criminal offense."

    Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) makes all Federal laws and all rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States superior to any and all State or local codes or laws — real or imagined — that may conflict with them and reads as follows: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    Therefore a demand for ID and/or searching a person for it, or even demanding the acknowledgement of an LEO at all absent legitimate RAS is not only prohibited by the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, but also constitutes a Federal crime under 18 USC §§241-242 (“Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”) which is an imprisonable Federal felony for which under settled case law you would also NOT be eligible or entitled to claim “qualified immunity” as a defense. Invoking one's Constitutional rights, especially a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, is NOT "hindering" or "obstructing" an investigation as nobody has an obligation to assist in the investigation. Any law enforcement officer who attempts to coerce one to answer questions under threat of harassment or detention is in fact violating 18 USC §§241-242.

    As soon as an LEO comes up with the canard "Here's the deal…", "You have to understand…, and/or "You people…", an auditor or anyone else this is said to needs to IMMEDIATELY interrupt and stop him/her and forcefully inform the LEO that "There is no 'deal' here that you are permitted to impose", that you don't "have to understand" anything, and that you are not "You people". The individuals that the public commissions to be "law enforcement officers" are NOT "deal enforcement officers" (or "policy enforcement officers") because as Article VI public officials the ONLY thing they are permitted to enforce is actual codified law and nothing else. So what you need to say in this circumstance is "Show me the written code or statute you are actually authorized and intending to enforce. There are no "deals" in law enforcement, only law that conforms to the provisions of the seven Articles of the 1789 Constitution, the ten articles of the 1791 Bill of Rights, and the other 17 Amendments thereto subsequently ratified by the several states."

    It is therefore LEOs who "have to understand" that NOTHING "trumps" a citizen's right to engage in any activity that is Constitutionally protected irrespective of how "suspicious" or "objectionable" it may be to law enforcement or anyone else. LEO's are Article VI public officials who have sworn an oath (or affirmation) to protect the Constitution and the exercise of all of its rights by anyone with whom they come in contact.

  3. People need to know their rights AND how to use them.
    I hope somebody has enough sense to take the evidence of the planned and targeted unlawful search, harassment and abuse of authority and sues the police senseless.

  4. With such blatant abuse of power going on here I think if anybody tried to exert their rights these coproaches would have simply arrested everyone and dragged them off to the clinker. Really! Like any true group of fascists, their abuse of power is swift and thorough – demanding everyone’s ID And then running the IDs on their cute little computers to check for warrants and anything else that they might possibly be able to charge patrons with Violating every patrons fourth amendment right. I truly believe that any dissension at all to this Gestapo – like warrantless raid would’ve led to the arrest of everyone. Admittedly, none of the patrons were brave enough to push it that far but one has to keep in mind the surprise element creating confusion that would overwhelm any patrons‘ ideas or will to challenge the actions of the officers. The person recording the event kept saying “I’ve never experienced anything like this in my life“ and I’m pretty sure that everyone else was feeling the same. I would assume that no one was prepared or willing to be arrested and charged with whatever and then sue the fuck out of police department via class-action. Bottom line is that the bar can still sue and I hope that the bar owner does. Thankfully the bar owners daughter captured it all.

Leave a Reply