Ex-Cop Forces Officers to Give Up and Leave

Second Channel: / @johnlang6593
Patreon: / audittheaudit
Twitter: / audittheaudit
Submit your videos here: [e-mail]
Sponsorship inquiries: [e-mail]
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.
This video is for educational purposes and is in no way intended to provoke, incite, or shock the viewer. This video was created to educate citizens on constitutionally protected activities and emphasize the importance that legal action plays in constitutional activism.
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. My videos should not be construed as legal advice, they are merely a presentation of facts as I understand them.
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: • JSO SHERIFF ILLEGALLY ...
Awakening the Masses’ channel: / @awakeningthemasses
Sources:
Salinas v. Texas- bit.ly/31nyXF9
Berkemer v. McCarty- bit.ly/3gcm7B9
United States v. Arvizu- bit.ly/3yCZL3j
Alabama v. White- bit.ly/3vTiAOX
Fla. Stat. § 784.048- bit.ly/3vPwdPf
Stalking Jury Instructions- bit.ly/3beQsMN
Fla. Stat. § 493.6101- bit.ly/2ZuvCqv

[@AuditTheAudit]

Thank you for taking the time to watch this video. Stick around to the end of the video. It gets more interesting as it goes on!

[@md.m.8372]

Any day!!! Thanks & keep it up!

[@watema3381]

No, thank _you_ for another amazing production. It takes a long time to research the laws involved, and we appreciate your work.

[@revoltpower9124]

Check your email man!! LOL

[@beentheredonethat5908]

Always do brother, I'm a student of law and constitutional rights. I always enjoy the break down here, I don't always agree but your research is on point and we'll spoken, a great learning experience. I've been here from day one as well, ot is so awesome to see the growth over the years!

[@RangerJahu]

I thought this would be a good place to ask a simple question. I have an amazing interaction with a police officer, very brief only a few minutes, but its audio only. Do you have any interest in this? Its Canadian.

[@-JonnyBoy-]

The fact she knew he was there the entire time tells you how good of a private investigator he is lol

[@adcolt54]

that's what I was thinking, no much of a PI if your subject IDs you and then hems you up by calling the cops.

[@robertmoon9756]

This PI sucks at his job

[@YeeZus001]

I seen this video on another channel and apparently this was like the second or third investigator that got caught by her lol.

[@originalhgc]

If he's working for the Church of Scientology, it might be intentional. They sometimes favor what's known as as "noisy investigation," where the subject, and all their neighbors and relatives, know that they are being investigated. It's an intimidation tactic.

[@thesilentninja9255]

I take it none of you has ever had counter surveillance training. The one of the only ways to avoid detection by someone who is paying attention to their surroundings is teams of follow cars that switch off periodically. Otherwise just making a few left or right turns will allow the subject to make a following vehicle.

[@chrism6880]

Why is it that ex-cops seem to know citizens' rights, but active cops rarely do? 🤔

[@vinaypatel8578]

Probably the reason they're ex-cops.

[@johnnycigar2061]

Good point

[@danwhite4086]

Because any decent officer who knows peoples rights abs stands up for them get pushed out of police work because fellow officers don’t like smart, educated and ethical officers in the force with them. Trust me…. I know….

[@ISurfHawaii]

Yeah, most police training in the US consists of learning defensive tactics and firearms training. As a generalization there is no formal training on law or the Constitution. Crazy, right?

[@garretgang8349]

Selection Bias. People don't post videos of cops who treated them with respect.

[@jamesreese1999]

And as a former PI, I would say that "stalking" is a reasonable, articulable suspicion. He could have dispelled the whole situation by producing his PI license. When I did surveillance, I let the local cops know I was in the area. Easy-peasy, and solves a multitude of potential problems.

[@davedavidson4548]

Yeah the guy is lucky he didn't get arrested for failure to ID. He seems to think that the police have to articulate their reasonable suspicion to him, but they don't. They only have to articulate it to the judge.

[@Nalianna]

@@davedavidson4548 I'd be 100% comfortable in dragging the shitty cops in front of a judge to do that.

[@connoc5078]

@@Nalianna The shitty cop is the ex-cop PI in this video.

[@vikingnoise]

I think this is dead on. The suspected crime was stalking, and his vehicle matched the caller's description. That's sufficient grounds for asking him to produce ID and establish that, as a PI, he wasn't stalking.

[@Nalianna]

@@vikingnoise No worries, wake up a judge, OR articulate your suspicion. Neither? No dice.

[@TheBulian1]

“Am I being suspected of a crime?” “Yes. Stalking.” 👀

[@LegDayLas]

surprised it took the cops so long to actually say it, and they even backtrack it multiple times and even said "No, I do not have RAS of a crime" That line alone shoots them in the foot, because by their own admission, they don't, therefore they can not testify they do (even though they 100% do)

[@CommissionerSleer]

@@LegDayLas I'm pretty sure cops are allowed to lie to suspects during investigations and interrogations (undercover cops need to be able to for example). So, how would them telling the supect they did not have RAS prevent them from testifying that they did have RAS (which, as you say, they did)? Witness: "I was lying to the suspect your honour" Judge: "Fair enough"

[@LegDayLas]

@@CommissionerSleer Because that "lie" hurts their chances to get his ID, and forcing him to provide ID after telling him they have no RAS means a reasonable person would assume the cops do not have RAS, and thus ID is not required. Basically, it is coercion to tell him he is not detained, but also make lawful demands (aka under threat of arrest).

[@CommissionerSleer]

@@LegDayLas It's not coercion. It's just stupid. But it doesn't prevent them telling a court that they did have RAS, which is the point.

[@LegDayLas]

@@CommissionerSleer If a cop tells you something is not a crime, you do it, and the cop arrests you that is factually coercion.

[@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts]

At the end of the day though, I cannot be mad that the police took a stalking complaint seriously. Imagine if they didn't look into and something happened. They have to do their job here, whether or not they made it difficult.

[@lilyeetmeister6422]

Absolutely, and the initial officer even said if you're an investigator just tell me and keep on going. Sure there's the risk of having the lady find out but had this prick just complied this would've been over in 2 minutes tops.

[@rolandfischer931]

Yeah this guy wasn't really helping anyone here

[@quebecoi1992]

he wanted to make a show and have a video to share on the media...

[@halfassranch8363]

@@rolandfischer931 yeah he was just being a jerk, what a waste of resources and time. If some creep is following my wife I'd sure appreciate it if a cop would pull him over and ask a few questions. Ffs

[@darktheories1758]

@@lilyeetmeister6422 But there in lies the issue. When everyone just goes along with it to make their lives easier it. It can make cops become accustomed to everyone simply cooperating giving them a false sense of entitlement. It also in some cases causes cops to feel they have the right to overreach because no one else challenges them on the legality. So while I don't think you should intentionally start shit I don't think it's right to just go alone to get along if what the officers are actually doing is a violation against your actual rights. The idea that sense most people don't wish to assert their rights that no one else should is a bit strange. It's just a matter of opinion I guess.

[@KJApexxmedia5511]

The PI said exercising his rights doesn't mean he's giving them a hard time but then the officer said it does... Wow that explains a lot.....

[@libmrducks]

They were clearly flustered didn't know how to handle the situation.

[@derpman8494]

Yes the wording was shitty, but he’s being an asshole more than he’s exercising his rights

[@user-cm9ef4fw7m]

@@derpman8494 he deserves an award

[@wrene2UFcFighter]

@@derpman8494 cops got no right to pull you over unless you broken the law. Cop didn’t see anything and the lady’s complaint was hearsay. Id say he has the right to be an asshole

[@307living3]

@@derpman8494 its not against the law to be a asshole he treated them far better then i would've

[@stoatmuldoon3131]

"The fact that I'm exercising my rights does not mean I'm not cooperating, sir" "Yes it does" Well hat pretty much sums up the entire problem doesn't it?

[@AUTgriesbrei]

If he uses his right to not cooperate, he is not cooperating. For his sentence to be right he should have said: "....does in a strictly legal sence and only regarding the required cooperation with a police investigation, not mean I'm not cooperating, sir." or "....does not under all definitions of cooperation mean I'm not cooperating, sir." But in his general use of the english languge his sentence is incorrect.

[@antiform47]

its like if a a bystander sees a man running off in a direction, then the cops ask the bystander "did you see anyone running away?" and the bystander refuses to speak or cooperate becauase hes not "legally required to". Then later we find that the guy who ran off got away with kidnapping. Just because its the guys right not to give information doesnt mean theyre not uncooperative/an asshole

[@r0ky_M]

@@AUTgriesbrei but its not in general use, its applied in the specific context of constitutional law and interaction with LE.

[@jamescollier3]

I'm thinking maybe he wasn't getting paid for this, and to say, "I'm a PI and following her for my job," would have been a lie

[@AUTgriesbrei]

@@r0ky_M It is in general use because there are at least two things going on: An Investigation and a meeting between a citizen and LE. In the former context he is not cooperative because he isn't "someone who is being helpful" because he does not give any information. In the later context he is cooperative because he is "someone who is being helpful" because he is staying where he is. Therefore two contexts exist.

[@ezekielthedragon7558]

The line between legal surveillance and stalking is so fine, it's insane that it is allowed at all.

[@JesusProtects]

At first sounds reasonable. It's a method to investigate someone with reasonable suspicion of being a criminal without them knowing, the surprise factor could be a great tool. BUT, what if the investigator abuses his position and starts legitimately stalking someone for some nefarious reason? Stealing from them, or taking illegal pictures of them, etc.

[@bmo14lax]

​@@JesusProtects I mean that's why you have a camera in your pocket as well, If you notice a stupid investigator like this film everything.

[@TheAutumnWind_RN4L]

I was recently interviewed by a private investigator because my wife was getting a job that required a certain security clearance. During my interview he let me know that he had already interviewed all of my neighbors and watched the house. On one hand, I was OK because we have nothing to hide. On the other hand, I was a little disturbed because he could've had pictures of me in my backyard in my underwear. How is that legal?

[@AnthonyBlamthony]

There’s an explanation for that. It’s because they’re the same thing lol

[@joshb8976]

The difference is that stalkers usually try to make contact and have malicious intent. But if you leave your home a lot of expectations to privacy can be kissed goodbye.

[@YourSavant]

"The fact that I am exercising my rights does not mean I am not cooperating" "Yes it does" This is the problem with modern policing.

[@peoplenewstoday]

Not True.

[@YourSavant]

@@peoplenewstoday How is my statement "not true"?

[@peoplenewstoday]

@@YourSavant your correct, the cops are not. Sorry about that.

[@YourSavant]

@@peoplenewstoday Ah okay, no worries then.

[@peoplenewstoday]

@@YourSavant I don’t erase my mistakes. I just learn. Sorry about that.

[@Ringmaster78320]

The best thing about this channel is the constant reference of legal decisions and actual laws and codes.

[@WorldWalker128]

And it's mostly neutral about it.

[@krbrown948]

Yes. Its absolutely unparalleled as far as Ive found.

[@ShmuckCanuck]

I mean it’s not that good at it tho Kinda overlooks a main central thing that this dude ; who is driving a vehicle; on a road refuses to identity himself And you have to do that everything else aside lol But responding to a public complaint is also a valid reason to approach someone on the street lol They also told him what they thought he was doing Him disagreeing that following a lady isn’t suspicious doesn’t like him as a citizen tell them cop thrrr suspicion isn’t valid That’s what judges are for and who he gets to; as a citizen; argue it with them lmao And he’s being super uncorperstivr lmao

[@Sotryn_Fox]

@@ShmuckCanuck ATA has gone over identification laws in other videos. In this situation, he did not have to identify himself legally And invoking his 5th amendment right is not being uncooperative. It's being knowledgeable of his rights as a citizen.

[@ShmuckCanuck]

@@Sotryn_Fox I didn’t talk about the fifth amendment at all I talked about the fact that while you don’t have to identity yourself randomly when walking Or driving on private property You can be asked to and do have to produce your drivers licence and Insurance if asked if driving on a public road They can literally just ask to check that I didn’t say anything about the fifth amendment or him being cooperative or not Now obviously if he’d wanted the legal leeway a private investigator gets it would’ve presumably behooved him too cooperate and identity himself as such to the police who had no reason to think he was since he wouldn’t even tell them him name let alone that And additionally; if someone calls you saying they feel unsafe cause someone has been following them That’s a valid reason for police to be like hey why are you following that person That’s honestly; kind of one of the major purposes of having police

[@jlspracher]

Hearing an ex cop argue with cops using a lot of the same phrasing made my day. Had to stop myself from laughing at work

[@dtz1000]

What a surprise. The ex policeman is also a dickhead.

[@diesellove]

🤣🤣

[@ABCeasyas-yj2ot]

This guy ruined his own case

[@crisdeluna9069]

@@ABCeasyas-yj2ot how so 🤔

[@ABCeasyas-yj2ot]

@@crisdeluna9069 claims theres no pc for the stop yet none is needed. RS is absolutely accomplished here for the stop and there is absolutely a need/requirement to ID. He should have 100% been arrested here, the alleged victim pointed out his car and its even covered here. Just because he filmed, named dropped, and yes as mentioned deliberately withheld info that would dispel all the officers fears doesn’t mean they should have tucked tail and ran. Hypothetically with the same info provided in this video with some google search for clarification that’s 100% a justifiable arrest. All that I may further request if I was those cops, is the lady who called to drive past and confirm again. This same point is actually covered in this video. The cops had RS The driver did refuse to ID when required The driver was further combative regarding continued refusals Due to purposely withholding the info that would quickly quell this situation what case would he have. I admittedly don’t know Florida law, but I believe in this the states are the same. Stop for RS, arrest for refusal to ID when required.

[@johnavernia1026]

I mean, to be fair, this is the kind of report they should follow up. If that happen to my sister, my mom, or any of my love ones, I want them to do this. It's really hard to sympathize with the PI if what he did could even cause, law enforcement started to ignore these kind of reports.

[@ilkyway5854]

Exactly!

[@slow2.0turbo]

@@ilkyway5854 idk if you both heard the “Private Investigator” part which it clearly states he could’ve been charged for stalking if he wasn’t a private investigator. He even brings up the code where it allows PI’s to basically stalk they’re subjects.

[@vivianking4563]

He just knew his rights, and stuck to them. Is that a first amendment audit now?

[@rigdigwus]

@@slow2.0turbo but he never said to the police that he is a PI. that’s the fucking point. police doesn’t know if he is a pi or a fucking stalker

[@carlr458]

​@@rigdigwus agreed. The officer even said he'd be understanding if he was a PI, but the man refused to state as such.

[@moneybutter]

Imagine hiring a private investigator to spy on your cheating wife and finding out he’s a first amendment auditor on the side😂😢.

[@rickwells9929]

Officers get an A+ and the driver gets an F

[@chrism1420]

And she saw him right away.

[@ryans3757]

@@chrism1420 That's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes investigators intentionally make their presence known, either to intimidate the subject of the investigation, or to "fool" the subject; investigators sometimes work in teams. In this case, if he had a partner, he makes himself very obvious, and when she busts him, she thinks she's in the clear, and that's when the other guy gets the dirt on her. In this case, he wasn't the first PI hired to investigate her, so she was probably already highly vigilant. I'm betting that's why she waited and let him follow her for 2 days; she wasn't concerned for her safety, she knew what was going on, and let him tail her to confirm her suspicions.

[@johnpopoff7950]

He may have been a cop at one time.

[@johnpopoff7950]

@@rickwells9929 Wrong way. Turn it around. The cops get an F driver gets an A+

[@maxd234]

Clearly Hoffmann doesn’t know the old stay two cars back when tailing rule. He needs the spook-o-meter from GTA SA

[@eyeamstrongest]

just me or did tailing missions make you drive even more erratically

[@jaimeozoria89]

I’m here lmao 🤣🤣🤣🤣 ooo man I needed this laugh 😆😆😆

[@_meangreenjersey973]

😂😂😂

[@maddog7999]

i know him. i worked with him. he’s one of the best. and he needs ZERO input from you🤣

[@maddog7999]

@@eyeamstrongest you wldnt believe the damage we cause to our vehicles!

[@Slipnslide19]

Guy: "The fact that I'm exercising my rights does not mean I'm not cooperating, sir" Cop: "Yes it does" 🤦‍♂️

[@yunofun]

I mean technically he is right, it does. Just that you do have a right to not cooperate in certain ways.

[@I_Am_Warden]

@@yunofun in any way, shape or form you don't have to answer not a question from law enforcement. Cooperation when it's very not needed towards the oppressors that want to incarcerate you, is not under any circumstance an option. Cops lie and lie alot, that is their job to lie to everyone to gain a conviction.

[@KrillixKai]

@@I_Am_Warden So anyone can stalk anyone and claim they are a PI? Or do PI's need to prove they are a PI? How far is a PI allowed to stalk me before I'm allowed to shoot him?

[@TubeWatcher]

@@KrillixKai You have to prove stalking. It doesnt matter how many times you use the word, it has to be proven. One person's word against another is not proof of anything.

[@jacksparrow3490]

@@KrillixKai following someone isnt breaking the law though. Unless they did something directly to you..

[@rodakitheka662]

I nearly cried when he said “you don’t answer questions, you just stalk young ladies.”

[@freshswagga100]

Cop was petty

[@sinisterthoughts2896]

​@@freshswagga100and correct in this case. Just because the guy knows his rights doesn't mean he isn't human garbage.

[@KingStr0ng]

​@@sinisterthoughts2896Is it innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent? You have no proof that the man did anything. Just because she *SAID* that he did something doesn't mean that he did something. She's not automatically right just because she said so.

[@xxx_epic_sniper_xxx2.021]

@@KingStr0ng so if your daughter was being followed by a middle aged man you would prefer the cops just let him go about his business he could have easily ended this by providing his card but he would rather make things much more difficult

[@KingStr0ng]

@@xxx_epic_sniper_xxx2.021 Do you know what innocent until proven guilty means? Just because someone *says* a guy is stalking that does not mean that he's actually stalking. People lie. Would you like to be thrown in jail for theft or murder just because someone *said* you did it? If your answer is no, then you have no reason to argue further.

[@taylorlibby7642]

He didn't want to admit that he was a P.I. because the deputies would have told the subject of his investigation. I would have definitely called the cops about some shmuck following me around for three days.

[@JoeA-j8i]

Yes, im on the fence about this one I’m 100% with people invoking their rights but i feel bad for the lady who is scared even though the PI is within his rights.

[@taylorlibby7642]

@@JoeA-j8i Agreed. Same here.

[@nacoran]

In a stand your ground state following someone around for 3 days...

[@taylorlibby7642]

@@JoeA-j8i What people may not understand is that P.I.'s following people around and constantly taking photos is quite frequently used as an intimidation tactic by a third party. The "Church" of Scientology is infamous for using this to intimidate anyone who questions their practices.

[@richardflorence3927]

The investigator was ticked off because because he lost his tail on her.... Now this investigation is holding him up and he doesn't want to give up the info in the case that they would inform her. He's stalling but they won't take a hint and let him go so he can catch back up so he got angry.

[@oswaldogarza01]

Police: "back to my original question" Guy; "yes sir?" Police: "are you following someone? " Guy: "I don't answer questions" That was gold! 🤣🤣🤣

[@Bradzilla88]

I haven't laughed that hard in a long time 🤣🤣🤣. I was not expecting that. I really thought he was just going to say "NO".

[@chasinggreatness42]

Mr. Hoffman has been a cop for over 30+ yrs he knows a lot and seen a lot so he's well aware of all the different games and tactics officers try to play. I'm sure sometime during his leo career he's done it and probably learned from it.

[@slikxs808]

When one is caught slipping, dodge the question. Among Us 101

[@Rome__king]

buddy gave a whole speech and went full circle and instantly back in character with zero hesitation "thought ya had me" lmao i was rolling on the floor

[@jtjones4081]

"So you're a stalker? Got it." Book em Dano

[@flapjackson6077]

I gotta give the cop the benefit of the doubt. He was trying to protect a citizen from what he believed to be a stalker. The PI was in a difficult situation. He has an obligation to his client, and identifying himself could jeopardize his investigation. This is a case where there’s no bad guy. The cops were reasonable in their attempt to protect the public, and the PI was reasonable in his refusal to cooperate. However, the PI didn’t do himself any favors by challenging the notion of following somebody. While he may be entitled to follow people, failing to ID himself gave the officers every reason to be suspicious.

[@theradioweyr]

This.

[@idrissboulie]

Agreed

[@paulcooper8818]

If the followed person is involved with a LEO in some way, in that circumstance, the PI may not want to divulge his profession.

[@bikejunkie9738]

I’m completely agree

[@steverogers3931]

As the target of the investigation is known to police, admitting to being on an investigation could well violate attorney / client privilege, and I could face civil or criminal penalties for doing so if I were in his place. I will alert LE of an area I am in prior to staking out a location, and if asked what I am doing where the subject of my investigation cannot be determined by LE I will provide credentials. In this case it would very likely be an ethical violation to do so, and most commenters don't do this work and don't grasp this point.

[@preachcaleb]

I love how ridiculous it is that remaining silent isn't enough to invoke my right to remain silent.

[@AnHebrewChild]

Agreed. It's absurd. "but ya see, here's the logic..." No, it's absurd.

[@MaydayAggro]

The specific holding of the case was that a subject who begins answering questions and then inexplicably remains silent for other questions cannot claim 5th amendment protection. The holding was NOT that 5th amendment protection must be invoked in ALL situations.

[@SocietyIsCollapsing]

Yeah, you need to not be silent in order for them to know you're being silent.

[@peterfrontera1102]

@2:15 narrator states "5th amendment privileges." Privileges and rights have different meanings, for different classes of men. Privileges are provided for the citizens while rights are exclusively reserved for the people. Know thyself.

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@peterfrontera1102 right on. It's not exactly the same but it also ties into the difference between the wording of the US Bill of Rights and the UN's... Recognizing vs "granting"

[@davich_]

Imagine having to "invoke" your rights, like it's some kind of activated skill and not a passive one.

[@benninger123]

If your wife was being followed would you not want the cops to check the person out. You can't always go against the police , there definitely are times when police are right.

[@politicjunkee]

@@benninger123 giving up your civil liberties “for sometimes they’re right” is what is wrong with the system.

[@TheAwesomes2104]

@@benninger123 and if it was you going about your daily job, you'd also not want to be stopped, harassed, and denied your rights by police every day. We can't say screw everybody's rights just because my wife feels uncomfortable.

[@r2Kd0ugernaut]

@@benninger123 if my wife was being followed by an investigator then it means she probably did something wrong, invalid arguement.

[@user-nr2kb3mw8i]

Yeah its crazy how we have the 5th amendment right to remain silent but if we dont verbally say we invoke or plead the 5th it doesnt apply and that silence can be used against us

[@jayteefishing1543]

The P.I. Said- “Just because I’m exercising my rights doesn’t mean I’m being difficult” Cop- “yes it does” That’s the problem guys. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@KrillixKai]

I agree, they should have arrested him.

[@jayteefishing1543]

Yeah you’re right. We should all just lay down and take the abuse and unconstitutional demands and harassment from police. This is America. Not China. I’ve got some of my best friends who lost their lives fighting for that constitution and the rights of which we have so that we can keep them. It’s not about being difficult or disrespectful to police. It’s about not allowing the government to begin and successfully walk over us when we have rights that were fought for and that people paid the ultimate price for. I’m not into the guys that do this stuff just to antagonize police and the get views. I don’t respect it when it’s not done in the right way. I hate that kinda stuff. But this was done correctly and legally. They couldn’t arrest him. They couldn’t do a damn thing. Which is why they abandoned the stop. If they would have, they would have been fired and costed their department and city a lot of time and money. There’s a fine line that can’t be crossed when doing things like this. I don’t like when that line is crossed or even flirted with. He wasn’t looking for trouble. He wasn’t trying to create contact between the police and himself. He wasn’t doing anything. Just his job. Would it of been easier for him to just say “hey guys I’m a P.I. and that’s why I’m following this car.” Yeah. A lot easier but that’s not the point. He doesn’t have to say anything. That’s his right. He’s probably embarrassed because a good P.I. wouldn’t of been made in the first place lol but that’s besides the point. It’s about rights and being an American and living in America. Too many people give up and lay down. This is how we get the bad cops off the roads. Weed them out. They started this whole “us against them” kinda mentality. Not the people. But besides all that, it all boils down to this….they didn’t arrest him because they couldn’t and they knew it. Not without a lawsuit anyway.

[@chrisbudesa]

@@KrillixKai. Waste of time. Case would have been thrown out.

[@gammoregan]

You're misquoting there. It was "...doesn't mean I'm not cooperating," not "...doesn't mean I'm being difficult." And he's wrong. He's within his legal rights to not be cooperative, while he's saying that any form of exercising his rights is being cooperative. It's not, because cooperating means taking action and assisting the police. Instead he is being passive by being silent and not taking positive or negative action. It's not cooperation, it's not obstructing, it's just exercising his rights in a neutral manner.

[@donaldmack2307]

Use em or lose em.

[@SenzaTempoCaneCorso]

I am torn on this one... what if he was a stalker? If I was the cop I just would have followed him around as he followed the woman. That way she is safe. He may not like it, but if he isn't going to say anything than I have to be sure he isn't a threat to her.

[@inimical_deity]

if i were her I'd be scared too

[@albertrodriguez4190]

I thought the same thing. Photo of him and run the plate then stake him out.

[@pvrplrain]

They also could have looked up the license plate and I’m sure for a fact a name would have came up and said “private investigator”. So...

[@castleclimber]

Yeah if this guy is persistently following a woman around, I think that’s a justifiable reason to detain him.

[@erics8018]

@@castleclimber but ya can't

[@xJayhawkFANx]

I actually commend the officers. Taking a stalking threat seriously and, for the most part, act reasonable during the stop. If my wife thought she was being followed I would want the cop to be as thorough as these cops.

[@Radionut]

I’m sure there’s plenty of police around your area and that will let you lick their boots

[@xJayhawkFANx]

@@Radionut mad lol

[@pastorofmuppets8834]

Yes, but they needed to let it go when they needed to let it go - or to tell him that he is suspected of stalking which is a crime

[@pugachevskobra5636]

That's bullshit lmfao; they left without determining whether the guy was a stalker or not. If he actually was she would've been shit outta luck dealing with these incompetents cause he was completely free at the end of the encounter. "Ma'am I have good news and bad news; the good news is I talked to the guy stalking you. The bad news is he is completely free to continue stalking or investigating you; I couldn't determine which. You might want to hire a private investigator to see who he is and what he's up to; I have absolutely nothing for you in that regard."

[@WenSwan]

Admitting that he's stalking her will not help him.

[@RobWill5864]

Shoutout to the lady for even recognizing that someone was following her. Most people are so caught up in their own little world that they wouldn’t even notice someone right behind them, following them everywhere they went.

[@dwaynemclaren7160]

very true! futz i can follow my wife for half a day and she would have no clue lol

[@mybad8805]

@@dwaynemclaren7160 Oh she knows your there, she just doesn't give a, JK. Now try that trick on your soon too be ex wife.

[@dwaynemclaren7160]

@@mybad8805 WHAT?

[@Kyle-qj1zf]

Or she was well aware she was being investigated because she did something wrong and is on the lookout. Most normal cops first question is not “Are u an investigator”?

[@ffwr-109]

According to this video nothing can be done about it in reality.

[@RangerJahu]

God that makes me laugh "Let me go back to the initial question. Were you following her?" Driver - "I don't answer questions" Deputy - "FUCK THIS SHIT IM OUTTY"

[@DarwinLovesRedHeads]

Kmjmmmmmmjmjmjmj

[@cwgmusicvideos]

Why wouldn’t he just explain why he is creeping around following a woman on her own in a car? It IS suspicious. If it was my daughter I’d boot fuck out of him

[@wasterangler]

@@cwgmusicvideos uh huh

[@madman10340]

@@cwgmusicvideos that’s what I’m saying like the law doesn’t seem right in this video… probable cause should be a women calling the cops telling them your exact vehicle and saying you have been following her for 3 days. You should at least have to prove you’re a PI or at least ID yourself.

[@cooldaddyslick6869]

@@madman10340 How is giving up his drivers license gonna answer the question about why he's following her though?

[@nealewatson5284]

As a former private detective and having been in a similar situation, the PI could have simply identified himself as a private investigator and dissolved the situation. I was approached by a county officer on a particularly difficult surveillance and I immediately identified myself and he left right away. The PI asked for professional courtesy but showed non on his end.

[@MC-hs4mf]

Maybe he was following a cop and didn’t want to let her know for sure a pi was following her.

[@undignified2843]

Gonna disagree with you there Neale. This culture needs more men like this PI in the video. Not limp wristed fellas like yourself.

[@dtester]

@@undignified2843 Was it necessary to insult the other guy? It was a pretty good and civil response up to that point.

[@michaelhuguley1316]

Here’s the thing though. If these officers demonstrated the ability to understand and apply policy sure. But time and time again these videos show that they don’t this making responses like this necessary

[@realitycheck439]

Couldn't have said it better.

[@Zerospacedude]

“You don’t answer questions; you just stalk young ladies” lmao 😂

[@JJ-jt4ji]

He's not much of a PI if his subject knows she's being stalked.

[@uhhidk8093]

Nah, there’s a lot of people that know they’re being followed or watched if they’ve done some shady stuff. Their paranoia actually helps them out in these situations

[@punktalley]

Sometimes a pi wants their subject to know that they are on to them so another investor can slide in unnoticed when the primary pi isn't seen. They think they are in the clear because they don't see the main pi.

[@nordicdodson2556]

@@uhhidk8093 it's called situational awareness...

[@nofapwizard6011]

My conclusion is this bittch be DONE cheating!!!

[@uhhidk8093]

@@nordicdodson2556 yes, I know what situational awareness is. I was breaking it down

[@steevehoyoufat9155]

The sheriff literally said "asserting your rights is suspicious."

[@r0ky_M]

You can blame the general public for that, coz too many bend over for LE giving them the sense of entitlement they have.

[@jamesradcliffe3985]

police do not believe that common citizens should have civil rights. They are smart enough to realize they should not admit that on camera. However they firmly believe in their right to invoke THEIR civil rights.

[@adimisadimis8621]

LMFAO

[@iEssense]

In this particular case, it is though, right or not, it comes off as suspicious. If someone was following me around, i stopped him to ask why, and he refuses to answer, i immediately assume he is following me, but why? Am i in danger? is my family in danger? What is he planning? You do have your rights, but seeing this in another scenario, that is fully possible to be happening, if they let this man go without verifying who he is, or if he is following this woman or not, and the next night that woman ends up murdered, because this man was stalking her. So while yes, you do have your rights, being of assistance to remove suspicion should be done regardless. Like in the video, if he had simply said "i am a PI, heres proof", the police says "great! youre not doing anything wrong, and that woman isnt in danger, have a nice day." (They even asked him that) By refusing to give any information, even though it is "asserting your rights", while it does not mean you are guilty, most definitely makes you come across as suspicious to everyone else, police officer or not. So yes, you do not have to say anything, but if you can make everything settle down and go away with basically half a sentence, why wouldnt you? What he did effectively makes everyones job harder and puts people at risk. Taking what that sheriff said out of context to apply elsewhere doesnt help anyone, because that sentence was entirely correct in this case, and valid at that, since this person was indeed following her. But as a PI he had reasons to do so, which he refused to tell the police, of course he didnt have to do so, but why wouldnt you? There is a time and place for exercising your rights, and a time and place to be of assistance. If the matter is you, by all means do whatever you want. But if the matter is someone else (like in this case, the woman) you help, to let people know there is no danger. Its that easy.

[@thesuperb66]

Well I think the other reason he may not tell the cops What he's doing because (they don't need to know). he could be investigating one of them for all you know . guy seems good at his job .

[@jamesbagnall1]

Remember kids, in order for you to exercise your right to remain silent, you can NOT remain silent. You MUST say you are remaining silent because silence isn't implied as remaining silent. Blows my fucking mind.

[@thepopeofkeke]

A right has to be invoked or laches incurs.

[@sobrina7754]

Isn’t that weird? Being silent doesn’t mean you’re invoking your right to be silent.

[@jamesbagnall1]

@@thepopeofkeke Which is a bullshit legality. All rights should automatically be presumed to be invoked at all times regardless of any circumstance. If not, are they really rights at all, or just special legal privileges, subject to the whims of whatever corruptions a judiciary or legislative mechanism could dream up?

[@jamesbagnall1]

@@ramblinwreck384 Devils are bad, m'kay.

[@Tmanaz480]

You have the right to remain silent, however you can't just remain silent.

[@Ms.Delphine1204]

He was incredibly hostile and incredulous considering he was actually following this woman.

[@Chubbybear21]

He’s a PI. They have every right too.

[@AnthonyBlamthony]

@@Chubbybear21 No duh, you’re missing the point. She’s saying he’s acting as if the cop should’ve magically known he was a PI. He could’ve just told him that and the interaction could’ve gone from 20 minutes to 2. But instead he went the route bad cops do and made it harder than it has to be solely to defend an ego.

[@AnthonyBlamthony]

@@Chubbybear21 I mean come on, you wouldn’t raise an eyebrow a guy who (as far as you know) is following some woman around Great distances and is visually trying to stay hidden in the night’s darkness? You wouldn’t think anything of that?😂

[@Ms.Delphine1204]

@@AnthonyBlamthony thank you! That’s exactly the point I was making!

[@jlo7770]

@@AnthonyBlamthony visually trying to stay hidden in the nights darkness lol lmao

[@FinnaBusanut]

If someone is clearly being followed, I want the cops to investigate.

[@wolfkin73]

It's not against the law to be somewhere.

[@Shane-un8pe]

@@wolfkin73 stalking is illegal. You don't want potential stalking to be investigated? If I followed your mom or your wife around all day, you would be pretty pissed if I just said, "it's not illegal to be somewhere". The policeman has reasonable suspicion to believe the man is a stalker.

[@wolfkin73]

@@Shane-un8pe I want the cops to follow the law. Have you ever had anyone lie about you? Have you ever had anyone acuse you of something your not doing. Cops investigate lots of things that aren't crimes that's why it's an investigation. My wife and mother can take care of themselves perfectly well.

[@Shane-un8pe]

@@wolfkin73 and they were following the law by investigating a stalking complaint.

[@WellnessWizdom]

"It's not against the law to be somewhere." Apparently it is in Florida.

[@MeGustaR00sta]

Okay this is legitimately a situation that should have just been dissolved from the very beginning. It's completely reasonable for an officer to investigate a potential stalker, ESPECIALLY when he acknowledges that he's fine if the guy is just a private investigator.

[@zatoth13]

He eventually tossed out that he was an ex cop and used that status to gain some sort of privilege from the cops. So, I really am not as sorry for him on this.

[@troychampion]

@@zatoth13 he also told the cops that he had 4 cameras on them, that seemed to change their tune rather quickly as well.

[@arctic_haze]

I like how educated them but I do not think that was necessary. Why didn't he admit he was investigating her which was the first thing he was asked about.

[@jefferyfitzwater1981]

He wants a fight, for his ego or views. Could of told them what he was doing and been done with it. Should of been cited for fallowing then he would of had to tell them. Total tool

[@scottchampion]

I agree. This guy escalated when the first cop was straight with him.

[@electric8668]

Him stating he was ex law enforcement was key in them leaving him alone.

[@xdragon2k]

So, if I'm caught stalking someone, I can just claim that and I should be on my way? Sweet.

[@xdragon2k]

@Ms. Kitty Katt Apparently I'm doing a bad job at making a snide remark if that was your conclusion of what I'm trying to say.

[@maveric619]

Invoking the privilege of the thin blue line

[@TheDeviIDogg]

Unless you're in Florida you have to prove it. Put yourself in the ladies shoes, a random stranger following you so you go to the police for help like any sane person who is scared. Now put yourself in the cop's shoes, lady says a man is stalking her and she's scared so you do your job in protecting her. Now the man claims to be ex law enforcement, you want to make sure he actually is and he's not lying because if he is and you let him go and that scared lady becomes a missing lady you made a huge mistake. This is more about figuring out the situation to ensure the safety of someone, not someone's rights

[@electric8668]

@@TheDeviIDogg And why are they taking the woman's word when she could be a lying Karen?

[@richardwoods9102]

If he had admitted that he was a private investigator they would have asked for his credentials, and the vicious circle continues...

[@szymonrozanski6938]

I love the Ex-Cop acting annoyed at everything the other Cop says. Gold. Just shows how much cops are disconnected to normal people after getting the badge and a gun for free use.

[@madman10340]

Disconnected? Seems like they just wanted to protect a lil lady who was being legally stalked. They at least gave her some space to drive off and not be followed by this dbag.

[@skyers1987]

@@madman10340 how is he a dbag if he’s doing his job 🤔

[@6StimuL84]

@@madman10340 Yeah and they committed several felonies doling it, while he committed no crime.....

[@DapperSapper515]

@@madman10340 he's a dbag for legally doing his job? You clearly didn't watch the video nor do even attempt to do the slightest inkling of your own research, huh? He was legally doing his job and within his rights. But that makes him a dbag? Just another CoP hAtEr... 🤡

[@DapperSapper515]

@@6StimuL84 literally

[@fuferito]

This is one heck of a way to show off your low key, private investigative skills that aren't supposed to get you noticed by your subject.

[@worshippers3590]

I think that depends on the objective(s) of the investigation. There are times the PI may actually want to be noticed. Because we don't know the objectives, it is hard for us to conclude with absolute certainty

[@MrOgstyler]

You better go watch some Rockford Files. Sometimes they want you to know that they are watching you.

[@johnwilson6707]

covert or overt LOL

[@Nathanation88]

@@worshippers3590 exactly! For some reason the majority of people seem to think it’s essential for a “good” PI to maintain stealth. Several circumstances exist where it simply isn’t required, so why bother.

[@alexmayer8943]

Won't get away with that in most Democrat states. They'll jump your a$$ so fast you go back in time!!! Pheweeeeeeee !!!

[@elithegreat6463]

I’m an insurance fraud investigator here In NJ, and a retired Municipal Police Officer. I have encountered such contacts with LE. Before a case, I usually check into the local PD to state that I’m in the area, but I never let the PD know “Who” I’m surveying, because it’s against the claimants right to privacy. Also, the PD may know them , and “Drop a Dime” and possibly, hinder the integrity of the investigation. In this case, if the investigator told the PD that he was actually following the female, the PD would have most likely told her she was being followed by a private investigator, and that as well, will effect the integrity of his investigation. The best course of action to be take should have been to check in with any local PD jurisdiction you happen to be working before you begin the case.

[@resipsaloquitur5545]

He's the THIRD PI that she spotted so it sounds like an ex worthless pig being bad at his job AGAIN.

[@lealta1481]

Thanks for the info

[@comedyzone]

Agree.

[@crisrodriguez4676]

I respectfully disagree. It's none of their business what you or I are doing in their jurisdiction unless we're breaking the law.

[@elithegreat6463]

@@crisrodriguez4676 You need to get off your constitutional high horse. If you’re a PI doing an investigation and you don’t check in with the PD , they will show up, and just draw attention to you, and there goes your case. Check in, then once concerned citizens call a “Suspicious Vehicle” they know it’s a PI and they won’t go out and bother you. So get you head out of your Ass , and think multi dimensional.

[@hugostiglitz5713]

" those badges and those guns don't give you the right to violate other peoples rights"...best line

[@gabrielgonzalez6456]

As a private investigator in the state of Florida, one has to show identification. It’s part of his license. Whether the officers continue afterwards to investigate, the doesn’t have go further in cooperating. With a simple PI badge flick of the wrist, he just wasted 15 min probably more not doing his PI work.

[@joshuahpowers3110]

Exactly. Same in VA

[@LynxStarAuto]

It depends on state. Regardless, this guy was an asshole and escalated for no reason other than KZbin views I guess.

[@slowsubaruBL]

@@LynxStarAuto Standing by your constitutional right doesnt = esculation

[@z1107eod]

@@slowsubaruBL what constitutional right. He did not declare he was a PI as he was required to by law. Until he does, he was stalking. Stalking is PC to pull him over and conduct an investigation. As a former LEO I would have arrested him for stalking and obstruction as soon as he started his “constitutional right”. His rights end when they infringe on someone else’s I.E. the lady he was stalking. Again it was stalking until he provided proof he was a licensed PI doing an investigation.

[@steverogers3931]

I would like to see the statute, as there may be exceptions. In this case as a Private Detective, disclosing that I was working on an investigation would give them the subject of my investigation which is information often protected by attorney / client privilege. I am ethically prohibited in almost all cases to provide such specific information, and could easily lose my license and face criminal and civil penalties. If I am staking someone or some place and they cannot determine the specifics then I would identify myself.

[@dennisd1906]

I'm genuinely curious, if someone calls the police and suspects they're being followed or whatever......does no one want police to follow up on that and just wish the caller the best of luck? Truly, no sarcasm. Are they not supposed to see if the dude is in fact stalking, following, or whatever?

[@TheNativeTwo]

Yeah guy was kinda dumb… maybe he was trying to exercise some rights, but geez just tell the officer you are a PI, and that’s gonna be the end of it.

[@teebteeb1268]

No they shouldn't show up... following someone and/or driving on public roads isn't a crime.

[@dennisd1906]

@@teebteeb1268 I didn't say that was a crime, and you didn't answer the question & you're only trying to use a non-answer to prevent that. But by that line it means unless someone is caught mid-decapitation they cannot be stopped and questioned about it because walking, driving, sitting on the couch, is perfectly legal.

[@gregkasza1925]

No, they are habitual liars. What if it’s not true? They already told multiple lies to him. Now you think he should cooperate? Come on.

[@gregkasza1925]

@@TheNativeTwo that wouldn’t be the end of it. That lady would now have his information.

[@apfelbasket]

Someone's choice to not participate in an investigation does NOT make them uncooperative! In fact an Officer can become uncooperative by choosing not to cooperate with a person's rights!

[@michaelweston2285]

actually, noncooperative is defined as failure or refusal to cooperate. so not cooperating DOES mean you're noncooperative. you just happen to have the right to be noncooperative if you choose.

[@SuperYxskaft]

@@michaelweston2285 Yeah, he is uncooperative, which is the point I guess, right, that according to law he does not have to cooperate. The caps statement isnt wrong at all, but if the police said that not cooperating was a crime, that would be a different matter. Dont know why so many people react so strong to this comment from the cop, the man was clearly not cooperative, and thats completely fine.

[@maveric619]

You don't *have* to cooperate with any law enforcement Especially to incriminate yourself

[@SuperYxskaft]

@@maveric619 Were not saying he has to cooperate, im even saying in almost all cases you should not, im saying that it still means he not cooperating as in being uncooperative, and thats what the word means.

[@srcastic8764]

Don’t forget though, I’m this case he should have been require to show his ID due to reasonable suspicion. That’s why both parties got a B, because neither of them seemed to understand that he could’ve been arrested for failing to do so. But he did have the right not to answer any other questions and be uncooperative in that regard.

[@vf2268]

A "B" for the officers??!! Seriously??!! This statement alone is enough to warrant an "F". Guy: "The fact that I'm exercising my rights does not mean I'm not cooperating, sir" Cop: "Yes it does"

[@craigandnem4597]

Yeah, ATA is known to boot-lick from time to time.

[@beckyshell4649]

On the flip side, There was a story about a recently divorced woman who had gone out with friends. A man asked to buy her a drink she declined. The man followed her to see where she lived. She saw the man parked by her house multiple times the police said they couldn't do anything because he had not committed a crime. She told her neighbor what was going on and asked him to keep an eye out and see if he could get a plate number or a good car description. The man's whining dog awakened him at 2am he went to let it out. He noticed the neighbor's kitchen light was on and a man was attacking her. He and the man fought but the man got away. The lady went to stay with her parents and traded cars with her sister who lived in a neighboring town and would drive around different streets to be sure she was not followed. A few nights later the neighbor heard his dogs barking, shouting, and screaming downstairs he recognized the intruder's voice. He waited till the screams stopped, his dogs had shredded the man's legs he died shortly later. The neighbor and his dogs didn't get in trouble and he gave the neighbor lady one of their puppies.

[@dismalthoughts]

Freedom isn't free. And not just for the oft implied reason of men in uniform dying to defend those freedoms. We all necessarily sacrifice some level of security to retain those freedoms.

[@jacobsmith4457]

Good doggos, did their jobs like some Champs and I hope they were totally unharmed in the process 🙏

[@virginiaanndavidson178]

Omgosh! If this is true (and I don’t mean to challenge your integrity) then what a win in the end! Justice being served. That guy might have “won a few battles” being a dangerous creep, but he lost the war….and every war has its casualties, and that ended up being him. By no means am I cheering about death, but in this scenario, if someone had so lose their life, I’m very grateful it was him and not her or the neighbour or the dogs!!! PS - Dogs are just the best. I have a big one who looks like a muppet and a panda bear mixed together 😊 and he is the sweetest most bouncy angel ever, but his protective instincts over me are on point. Makes me feel so safe.

[@1malikalik]

I call B.S. I Copied and Pasted the aforementioned comment on Google and nothing came up. Bro, stop the White Knight FEAR mongering intended to cast men as predacious.

[@jamedraa8472]

This makes me want a herd of dogs.

[@ShamelessFNGRL]

NGL, kinda stupid to be following someone in a bright red vehicle. There's a reason Feds prefer black or gray cars that blend into the environment...

[@anthonyoer4778]

There are tactics private investigators use. Sometimes they want to be known. To possibly track drop spots, phone calls, if someone violates a restraining order...

[@TimnParks]

For a long time red cars were the most likely to be in an accident simply because they were the most commonly colored car. Don't think it's true anymore, white or black is probably your best bet now.

[@---cr8nw]

No doubt. He needs a gold Pontiac Firebird Esprit.

[@sergioherrera5140]

This could have been avoided if he had answered two questions they asked at the beginning: are you following her? Are you a PI? There was no reason for him, especially being an ex-cop, to extend the detention.

[@WenSwan]

Answering their questions could have extended the detention and given cause for incarceration.

[@jameshollister8294]

But cops don't understand that we have rights.they don't understand they have to leave stand back

[@scaredofghosts6813]

11:59 Hoffman: "Exercising my rights does not mean im not cooperating" Officer: "Yes it does" Thats deep on alot of levels and is really sad actually

[@TTM77]

But than it's also legal for cop to lie but not legal for us to lie. That officer said "Yes it does" could be exercising his legal right to lie. LOL Sadly our right is to stay silence and get harass.

[@leokr4877]

Well, not being cooperative does not mean to do less than you’re required to. You can be not cooperative in the sense of not giving information you’re not required to give

[@tommyttravelchannel6002]

Cops are hypocrites. They lie all the time. They never answer questions when charged with a crime. Stop the BS double standards.

[@stevenbaker436]

Rights don't corporate with cops.

[@adman424]

Hoffman is an awful investigator if his target had him pinged from the get go. Lol.

[@jessecota6639]

He certainly did a great job of knowing and asserting his rights, if only he was as good at surveillance, then encounter would have never happened.

[@LegDayLas]

He didn't know them though, the cops were in the right to get his ID. This was RAS of Stalking all day. Are the statements from the female alone enough to arrest him for Stalking? No, but this is irrelevant. Cops don't need PC (what is required to arrest) to demand ID, they need RAS which is a VERY low standard. Cop's didn't know his rights either, so they didn't actually go far enough.

[@anyadatzaklatszjutub]

haha

[@prismpyre7653]

wow you think THATS the problem with what he's doing?

[@Vykcin]

It’s so funny, but you’re 100% right I could be wrong, because there’s no way to know completely, but I think his behavior stemmed from his ego and the fact he got made by a onlooking civilian The other thing, though is he might’ve not been investigating and being one of those rights activist so he use the Maroge of a PI following someone to trap them. Regardless, this video is extremely unique because it displays the cops backing down and being OK with the civilian controlling the situation,

[@wesleystafford8521]

BINGO! LOL

[@Fister_of_Muppets]

I can't help but notice two things: 1. He is taking his PI job so seriously, he doesn't want to risk/trust the officers by telling them that, so he doesn't. 2. He's not the stealthiest guy by allowing himself to not only be noticed by the subject for them to call on him in the first place, but also keep the stop going which potentially allows the subject to identify him further and avoid him and his vehicle after that. Nobody really won here.

[@wsvitak]

Yeah, couldnt agree with you more.

[@wattienewton5447]

They were following a stalking report your right. It was all about his rights, not trying too quickly Get on with The job clearing him keeping The citizens safe.

[@jameshuhn6924]

PIs don't confirm whether they are conducting an investigation in case the officer knows the person they are investigating because the officer could confirm to that person that they are being investigated.

[@stingray4920]

@@jameshuhn6924 My thoughts exactly. We all know they would run over there and tell her what he was doing. I commend him for protecting his client.

[@refillz5281]

@@jameshuhn6924 Didn't matter, she knew he was following her for 2 days. Apparently she caught 2 other PIs as well. So I'm pretty sure she knew exactly what was going on. She wanted to shake him, she wasn't "scared"

[@jeremeyrogers9088]

This is one of the few Audit the Audit vids where I think the policemen are absolutely correct to detain and question this man, and the man is being evasive and defensive.

[@Solomon_Ak]

Using my God given rights to remain silent isn’t evasive nor is it defensive. If the officers had better training and grasp of the law then the stop would’ve gone on without an issue.

[@Frivia]

@@Solomon_Akok so what if this what your faughter and then this man killed her because he excercised his rivhts. also the audit literally pointed out how they COULD detain him bevause he WAS suspicious for a possible crime. They clearly did have probable cause from a courts pount of view

[@amyelizabeth9886]

yea imagine this dude just got away and then went on to kill someone u know its creepy

[@WenSwan]

If he's an ex-cop he knows answering the questions will be used against him.

[@mikebrokeoff8552]

Citizen- “Me expressing my rights cannot be deemed uncooperative.” Officer- “yes it does.” This goes to show you that most officers don’t give a damn about your rights!

[@michaelweston2285]

the active duty cop is correct. noncooperative is defined as failure or refusal to cooperate. so not cooperating DOES mean you're noncooperative. you just happen to have the right to be noncooperative if you choose.

[@mikebrokeoff8552]

@@michaelweston2285 asserting your rights is not uncooperative ...it can’t be deemed as such. I say he was cooperating within the laws. He gave them what he was legally suppose to which is nothing. Unless RAS and PC are present which they weren’t. No crime no ID

[@michaelweston2285]

@@mikebrokeoff8552 Merriam-Webster disagrees with you

[@zorkman111]

@@michaelweston2285 so you're arguing then that we don't have to cooperate with police? Which is it then?

[@SuperYxskaft]

But it is uncooperative, thats just a fact, like the definition of the word really. But, the law says he doesnt have to cooperate, so he is doing nothing wrong (and most likely everything correct). But that still doesnt take away that he is not cooperate.

[@Colechamdiceman]

Evidently cops don't know what peoples' rights are until after they've already left their badge behind...

[@stefanfrankel8157]

Maybe he left because he figured out that they expected him to violate people's rights.

[@commietube4273]

😂

[@jamescash887]

I get wanting to exercise one’s right but the lady doesn’t know he is a PI. All she knows is someone is following her and that scared the hell out of her. All the guy has to say is I am a PI and the cops leave .

[@worshippers3590]

I think they know people's rights. But because there is often little to no personal liability, they may disregard those rights. A police friend will likely tell you not to talk to the police.

[@TheForeignNationalBornNatural]

How about that

[@kaindabadguy]

The cops already knew who he was. They checked his plates and were trying to get him to admit he was working.

[@jamescollier3]

maybe a ticket for stalking, to show the judge the retainer and contract?

[@AwesomesMan]

Why would they do that? Would it be a crime if he was working?

[@kaindabadguy]

@@AwesomesMan He’s following someone, so from a fear perspective it is understandable why the police would want to resolve the situation. But both sides are in a standoff. He isn’t stalking the person, so they can’t legally stop him. They want to prevent a possible stalking but he’s under no obligation to admit he’s following the person. Odds are though the cops told the individual who he was and what was going on.

[@kaindabadguy]

@@jamescollier3 Not legal. He would have grounds for a lawsuit.

[@jamescollier3]

@@kaindabadguy so, a PI can stalk anyone? I think you are wrong

[@mitchscoggins3393]

He deserved an A, divulging that he is an investigator would have made its way back to the woman.

[@jtgreen1976]

Finally someone understands that if he divulges he is investigating the woman, it would have effected her behavior and jeopardized his investigation. Under normal circumstances, he should have identified to dispell any fear.

[@hwp69]

One of the first statements out of the officer's mouth early in the video was "if you're investigating that's different," this would lead me to think he already ran the plate and knew who owned the vehicle and that he was liscensed as an investigator.

[@sharijones7779]

The problem with telling them He is investigating licensed professional is that they will in turn tell the complainant and his cover is blown.

[@StreetDrivenDaily]

Correct.

[@drdripps6627]

@@sharijones7779 his cover is already blown she knew he was following her for a whole day this stop was inevitable

[@e-curb]

It might be a rental car.

[@roberthall3458]

Or maybe it’s that he looks like a cop

[@johnsmitley6496]

This is the one video where i cant even be mad with the officers. They took a stalking complaint seriously, and tried to obtain information. The guy refused to answer questions and could have easily avoided everything if he would have just said hes a private investigator from the start.

[@CodeeXD]

Hes a pi telling them could potentially tip her off that she's being investigated. Also it's none of their business

[@teebteeb1268]

"Comply and you'll be fine." Ok, guy...

[@VigorousDomination]

Sure let me just give up all my rights as a us citizen and give you all the info you may need to arrest me hmmm

[@fanbat]

@VigorousDomination does saying "I'm a private investigator amd was hired to investigate her" and getting back to doing your job right away really truly feel like you're giving up all of your rights? I'm all for not answering questions but if it's a situation where I'm pulled over and labeled as a potential creepy stalker, I would rather just tell the cop I'm working and be able to go about my day

[@gregkasza1925]

No, you’re assuming there would be no more questions. They would have many, including his ID. The woman would then have access to it.

[@glennallen496]

12:20 "You don't get to search and search until I say something, or you twist something I say to use it against me!" Definitely an ex-cop. He's hyper-aware of the common dirty tricks cops play.

[@abgcacy5332]

Facts

[@jeremyblaylock5487]

Yep, and he has the right to not incriminate himself. Talking to the police doesn’t help you at all. All it can do is hurt you so your best bet is to not answer any of their questions.

[@ricoswartz345]

It was amazing watching the same tone and language police use on citizens be turned around on the deputies. They got owned hard...

[@TheDeviIDogg]

The dude should have realized the situation, the lady went to the police for help because she felt unsafe, very reasonable. The cop then does his job to help ensure the lady doesn't end up on some missing persons list, reasonable. So why not just say who you are and what you're doing in a reasonable situation like a reasonable human being?

[@joshuahoward4556]

I agree. I assume it might affect his work as a PI while investigating her if he did explain why. My main thought is that, if the cops think he may be stalking her, then I think the cops have a legitimate reason to detain him until they get his information. If I watched the video right then I think that's where the cops messed up because they could have kept him there until he provided information or would be arrested. Because it was reasonable to assume he was stalking the lady at that time. It honestly scares me more that an actual stalker could argue with cops like this and get them to go away. Although I suppose a second cop call on that supposed stalker would yield more results since the cops would have even more reasonable suspicion.

[@BlackFaithProduction]

Yeah but she called the cops which makes her a snitch. That’s not okay. She’s the new Tekashi 6ixNine. We should be bashing her, not him.

[@Snookchaser007]

He has a responsibility to his client to not inform the officer he is a PI as the officer would then go tell the woman he is a PI.

[@deangelo398]

I sort of agree and I say that because no matter what the lady assumed, we can't just assume he's guilty until proven innocent based off her suspicion without probable cause.

[@jmoon6909]

There is nothing unreasonable about protecting your identity.

[@Finkelfunk]

"The fact I am exercising my rights does not mean I am not cooperating." "Yes it does." This line of thinking is beyond scary.

[@illtoxic6]

I don't think the officer had ill intention when he said that at all. I think he was merely just saying the guy isn't cooperating because he wouldn't speak. This one looks pretty hard to judge. They're trying to see if he's stalking someone and he wouldn't just simply say no and go on his way. Instead he was being a dick and luring them into an argument to inflate his ego. He should've simply stated he wasn't following the person.

[@Finkelfunk]

@@illtoxic6 He *could have stated that, but exercising your rights doesn't mean that he was inflating his ego. He has every right to remain silent and as said, if ge said he was a PI then he'd jeopardize what he was set out to do.

[@ohokcool]

Being within your rights doesn't necessarily mean you are cooperating. In this case, the officer is referring to the guy not helping his investigation, but the officer doesn't realize that PI helping their investigation could compromise his own investigation and PI can't tell him that because the officers or their department may report it back to the complainant. Things like this are why these rights exist. So technically he wasn't cooperating with their investigation, despite being within his rights. He was however cooperative in stopping his vehicle and engaging in civil discourse with them and that may be the way he meant it when he disagrees with the officer's assessment of his cooperation.

[@xuto2693]

@@illtoxic6 It means exactly what he said. Exercising your rights makes you uncooperative. That is NOT tolerable. Not unless you're pro-police state.

[@truthiswhat1]

@@xuto2693 I have no love for cops in general but things are very rarely this black and white. this guy was preventing the cops from following up a stalking complaint. remaining silent is his right but you can't pretend that remaining silent didn't directly prevented the cops from finding out if there was a stalker or not. I saw someone else here use this example... If you see a guy running away from the cops and they ask you where the dude went and you legally claim your right to silence you are within your rights.. yet if that guy was running from a murder/kidnaping/ anything bad, your silence would have directly caused the cops to fail because of your refusal to cooperate, even if it was your right to do so. This hypothetical situation is a good example of how remaining silent can be un-cooperative.

[@TheBoyjah]

Why don't these auditors ask the simple question: how will me giving you my ID in any way determine if I am or am not guilty of what you are investigating?

[@brendancramphorn44]

No one in throw is an auditor

[@thesadtitan4241]

Well, in a case specifically like this, since the officer was responding to a possible stalking call, it would confirm if this guy has warrants or a criminal record that may be worrisome considering what they were called for.

[@TheBoyjah]

@@brendancramphorn44 ? I don't understand...

[@theadventuresofsteve-marco6837]

Because if its a stalker then they might have a restraining order.

[@vangler6492]

that way if a crime is committed towards the victim a suspect would be able to be properly identified . especially if the victim doesn't have a single clue of whos doing the stalking .

[@dmendez4741]

If he'd told the cops he was a PI, they for sure would've given that info to the lady he was investigating

[@junivanofdragonia]

12:04 the Driver is right. Just cause he doesn’t answer questions and invokes his 5th doesn’t mean he isn’t cooperating under the law.

[@KrillixKai]

Except that he's blatantly breaking the law by not identifying himself as a PI, right?

[@absentstars474]

@@KrillixKai which florida law is that?

[@1SCme]

*Even better, he asked for an attorney* - same protection as right to remain silent, except you can continue to ask questions and make statements. Officers ask stupid questions like _"Why are you so hostile?"_ after invoking your right to remain silent because if you make any statement, you waive the right.

[@justinmathis4276]

@@KrillixKai no answer😂

[@Yummiergravy]

@@KrillixKai no, he doesn't have to identify himself as a PI. Though, if he did, the stop would have (probably) been much simpler. But, any citizen, PI or not, didn't have to present any information to the police without reasonable suspicion of committing a crime. This was an audit on what "reasonable suspicion" truly entails; can the word of one person generate reasonable suspicion if they know the color of the car? Wish there was a more defined precedent for these fringe/ gray cases

[@bsgordon11]

I love that this channel cites case law and educates the public o, their rights. Keep up the great work ATA!

[@---cr8nw]

He stayed way longer than I would have. At 8:06 he asks "Am I free to go?" and the officer responds "At this time." That's where I would have asked them to step back from my car so that I could leave without risking them injury.

[@cesar2146]

Life isn’t a movie where you can act out these dumbass scenerios 😂😂 they’ll prolly just start a chase and end up shooting lmao

[@---cr8nw]

@@cesar2146, nonsense. If they say you're free to go, you don't just drive off. You ask them to step back so that you can leave. It's a way to make absolutely certain that you're all on the same page that you're free to go. If they argue the point, you stay put and keep asking "am I free to go".

[@rassawyer]

It is NOT a "5th amendment privilege". It is the 5th amendment RIGHT!!!

[@grantharriman284]

Cop doing his job. PI doing his job. Reasonable suspicion: she called 911 because she saw him following her. That's a pretty reasonable suspicion of an articulable crime. Demands professional courtesy while being an ass. All he had to do was tell them he is a PI, and this whole thing ends immediately. The cop directly says that at the start of the video. He didn't identify, so the cop had to investigate.

[@joshuarichard2509]

"If he just sacrificed his rights to not answer, and complied with their authritah...." Instead he exercised his rights, and was still able to leave without having to give up his rights. So, same exact outcome. But one bows to authority and the other exercises rights. He chose wisely. Found the beta boot licker that doesn't care about his rights. There is always one.

[@odomn]

Gotta agree with you man. Stalking is a crime, they had a complaint by a citizen that he was stalking, therefore they had reasonable suspicion. Since he had a legitimate reason, he was not stalking, but they did not know that, and had a duty to investigate. I feel he had a duty to identify, and if he had this stop would have been resolved quicker and without as much drama. I hate cops who are bullies, which is most of them, from my experience, but these guys seemed to be doing what we pay them to do, and I do not feel they abused him.

[@c.fyffe0]

@@odomn just because someone made a statement doesn't make it true and they didn't catch him in the act so he literally didn't do anything wrong get over it

[@ert-wert]

@@joshuarichard2509 what if its not "sacrificing his rights". Why does one occurrence have to dictate the whole embodiment of having rights.

[@FaceRollinOvO]

Absolutely not. You couldnt be more incorrect.

[@MichaelClark-uw7ex]

Him: "My exercising my rights does not mean that I'm not cooperating" Cop: "Yes it does" And there is the problem.

[@miikavuorio9190]

To be fair it does though. Not saying it's wrong but it is true that remaining silent or being combattive does not fit the term cooperating

[@Nostradevus1]

@@miikavuorio9190 Well he is well within his rights to be uncooperative to the infringement of his rights.

[@miikavuorio9190]

@@Nostradevus1 I agree, he was rightfully uncooperative lol

[@JRyan-lu5im]

@@Nostradevus1 You have the right to be uncooperative which means a right to refuse communication, but if you are innocent of commiting a crime - the goal should be in communicating your lawful and sanctioned activities, not being a slimy dickhead as an exersize of what you can do, and trying to bait an officer into causing a lawsuit. Glad that guy is an ex-cop, because he's toxic af.

[@jaseallenson316]

Another problem lies with all the auditor comment sections i ever seen basically think the officer has to personally witness someone firing off a gun(just as an example) in order to detain someone. Im glad this narrator clarified that.

[@RangerJahu]

"Using my rights doesn't mean im not co-operating" Tyrant - "Yes it does" this is the fuckin problem.

[@Plague_Doc22]

I cant believe i had no idea cops did this as a kid. I was kind of naive as i'm nto american and just thought they did everything by the book. Shit like this really makes you realize how bad cops are.

[@krane15]

They would have you believe otherwise. Never compromise

[@duncandmcgrath6290]

@@Plague_Doc22 it’s definitely an eye opener, I would have asserted my rights better when I was younger in these situations

[@KrillixKai]

I agree, it's a problem that they let him go. He should have been arrested.

[@corsairsofnarshaddaa]

Actually they were right. He _was_ failing to cooperate. But it was their premise that was wrong. We have no _obligation_ to cooperate. What he should have said is that exercising rights _cannot_ become the PC for continued detainment.

[@m0gAdi5h]

Just watched both videos of the investigator's videos on this channel. What I really love - despite him sometimes being a bit pissed (for good reason) - is that he tries to explain step-by-step the different proceedings to make police review their own steps on how to work through the stop. Also, great to see that the channel itself reviewed both sides from a fair side and explained the details. Super informative!

[@erfrette]

I’d guess the lady is either a cop, related to a cop, or an attorney. I can’t think of a case when someone’s first question is, “are you an investigator?” That lady knew she was being investigated for something, and her buddies at the PD were there to help.

[@ashtonm5494]

speculation, not facts.

[@mervfer1162]

I think that's a good speculation. It would explain why the guy didn't want to just identify himself as a PI. He was afraid that it would get reported back to the woman.

[@realkiller0]

@@ashtonm5494 not really

[@breezy6912]

@@mervfer1162 exactly

[@Shepardotv]

Maybe he's got a buttl load of equipment that's not on camera but is visible to the deputies.

[@1d1hamby]

It may have been a friend of the police that he was investigating. That's why he didn't identify himself.

[@Rick_Sanchez_C137_]

PIs following women are checking fidelity for the husband (usually to set up for a favorable judgement from a divorce court), odds are she was either married to a cop or screwing around with a cop; hence why PI wasn’t gonna say what he was doing (especially if cop pulling him over is cop she is banging on the side)….

[@SKYSOLDIER173rd]

I love how the officer who initially stoped the PI just leaves and they bring three new officers to intimidate him.

[@colinglen4505]

What if he wasn't a P.I but actually a stalker, how would you feel then?

[@rogerm3708]

In PUA those cops would be called WhiteKnights. They are M'lady Simps

[@cmcrisp42]

@@colinglen4505 what if he wasn't anything? And he gave them his information and now he has a stalking charge on his record? We can play the what if games but honestly what does it matter. He was legally stalking someone, so he was within his right to do so.

[@SKYSOLDIER173rd]

@@colinglen4505 there’s no “what if” just do your job correctly and uphold the constitution you swore to protect!

[@Monorat]

@@cmcrisp42 how the fuck would they know that? It's just stubbornness, many of these videos I agree with but this one was just stupid. He could have told them he was a PI and nothing else.

[@codiesdad717]

The cops should have to go through a yearly “law review” to keep their accreditation.

[@JayB2]

In this particular case I actually back the cops. And that's saying something because 90% of the time I don't. But the cops got a call from a "young lady who thought she was being harassed/stalked by a guy in a vehicle that meets his description" Ok, they HAVE to stop the guy & find out whats going on. And since he won't answer questions that makes it difficult.

[@danielwahl7284]

the PI in the video articulated exactly why that is against his rights, he does not have to comply with anything. Failure to comply with dispelling information does not constitute suspicion. Without them having some sort of proof he was the one that was following prior to the stop, this is an investigative stop and without probably cause against him he cannot be lawfully detained by these officers. I get it, but there's proper steps to take to uphold our own constitution and without that we give way to corruption more and more. "The fact that I'm exercising my rights does not mean I'm not cooperating, sir" "Yes it does" is not correct or lawful by the officers. We also know nothing about this domestic case, it may have very serious implications behind it where this PI would need to not be revealed to the suspect by these police, solely because she "thinks" she is being stalked. That could very well be a ploy to get away from the investigator if she already knew, and now this guy is playing catch up and missing information. In case you didn't know, doing the same thing to an on-duty cop, would get you arrested and thrown in jail.

[@justinecsalengo]

Me too. I think pigs are subhuman filth but they're not doing anything wrong except communicating ineffectively and inaccurately. He was legitimately suspected of a crime and they repeatedly told him he wasn't.

[@syzyphyz]

@@justinecsalengo Doesn't matter if you're suspected of a crime, you have no obligation to admit anything via the 5th amendment, and this PI played it well. Cops will often abuse "suspicion" to their own benefit.

[@noahw4623]

@@syzyphyz You have no obligation, but a licensed P.I. does, that's why they're issued professional licenses, so that the police can ask for their professional license to verify they're engaging in regulated commercial conduct.

[@terryloh8583]

This just feels like a Catch-22 situation to me. In THIS case, he was conducting a legal investigation, but the reason there are anti-stalking laws is because people have been and are stalked, harassed, intimidated, raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Harassment by police needs to stop and police need to be held accountable, but they also need to be able to do their job. And exercising your rights is not the same thing as being uncooperative, but it's also not the same thing as being helpful. While being helpful may not be legally required, it tends to make everyone's day a lot better... but then how can you be helpful without putting yourself in legal jeopardy? I don't know.

[@porkcutlet3920]

Why would he tell them he's an investigator? He needs to protect the interests of his client. Do you think the lady he's following would let her guard down if she knows she's being investigated?

[@terryloh8583]

@@porkcutlet3920 He doesn't have to give the cop the name of his client.... at least they don't on TV. They just say that they're an investigator. And it's not about her guard being up or down. It's about her being followed by a strange man at night (which as someone else pointed out makes him a crap investigator since she spotted him). You are aware that there are stalkers, rapists, muggers, and murderers, right? And they actually follow, rape and murder women? Sometimes at night? Are you saying that the rights of an investigator to say nothing at all are more important than protecting potential victims? Or do cops need to be able to tell the difference just by looking? Or that only good guys would refuse to identify themselves? So all a criminal has to do is keep calm and refuse to answer any questions and lawyer the cops about his rights. Then once the cops bugger off, they can do their thing. Sounds reasonable.

[@ryanoneal8480]

He didn't do anything to break anti-stalking laws though

[@ryanoneal8480]

@MCHAMMER lol no he couldn't have been, or the piggies would've done that. You clearly weren't paying attention to the video.

[@terryloh8583]

​ That is true... but think about it: a stranger DID follow a woman to her home late at night. When the cops tell her they don't know who he is or why he was there and they can't do anything about it and leave, what then? Is she going to assume he's totally innocent? What does she do next? Just play with that thought a bit, put yourself in her shoes. Imagine she's your mom, your sister, a close friend that you care about. Forget for a second you know this guy is an investigator. Here's my scenario. As the cops are leaving, my sister calls my brother-in-law who was career Army. Either he, or some of his buddies show up (if he's not close) and deal with it. I don't know HOW they would deal with it, but I 100% guarantee it would be dealt with. That investigator's evening is over if for no other reason they are parked right in front of him staring back at him. The fact that she lives in an open carry state throws another wrinkle in there. It also has a stand-your-ground law. Maybe she takes care of it herself. His right not to identify himself to police could prove to be very low on his list of concerns if he chose to stay after the cops left. Or say he does leave but shows up the next night. Or the night after that. Then maybe she just skips the part where she calls the cops. Who knows, maybe she brings him tea and cookies because it's cold out. In no situation can I imagine my sister just going about her life as normal until he's gone. So does the investigator have rights? Yes, but he also doesn't have a job any more (or shouldn't), so maybe this whole conversation is irrelevant.

[@andreagabaldon3882]

Mr. Hoffman needs to up his stealth game.

[@juandedioslanderos1353]

He needs to farm XP so he can level up. Smh

[@robertgates5164]

If he'd informed the officers he was a PI, the officers would have told the caller that the person following them was an investigator, thus making his surveillance of the caller even more difficult. Police blab all the time.

[@_imohatsu]

“Hello sir how are you doing?” “Good” “Are you stalking someone?” “I am a private investigator” “Ok have a good day”

[@Aggemannen117]

It would be so easy

[@Faraonqa]

yes exactly , show id, have a nice night

[@_imohatsu]

Guys i am serious that would’ve been 10 times faster idk why Americans love to complicate things and make it harder

[@snappa77]

If he did that then they would reveal that to the woman. That would NOT be good for his client who is more than likely is her husband.

[@josephworthey2012]

He couldnt say because it would blow his cover. The police could contact the woman that called and give her the tip that hes a P.I. not saying hes a good one but hes not at liberty to purposely blow his cover.

[@justaguy6100]

I'm of two minds here. On the one hand sure the cop was going beyond his authority demanding this information, BUT... this was a young lady seeking help with someone following her, perhaps stalking her, so she called her police for the sake of her own protection. I wouldn't want that to be something she couldn't count on the police to do for her.

[@billpetrak]

"A person who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows, harasses or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking" I think the keyword in this case is "repeatedly". If this this woman had reported the private eye's actions on several occasions, I think the police officers would have the legal grounds to investigate further or even make an arrest on spot (provided the offender was not a private eye).

[@justaguy6100]

@@billpetrak Well while it might not satisfy a strict definition of "stalking" (and that will vary by jurisdiction) certainly someone was following her, and the intent of the person was unknown to the lady. I'd like to think she can count on the police to at least ascertain whether this is some weird fascination on the part of some rando OR he had a legitimate purpose being there. Obviously yes he did, and obviously the police were (per usual) jerks about "respectin' their authoriteye" but again if this were my sister or something I'd certainly want her to be able to do the right thing (by most standards) and count on the police to protect her, too.

[@charlesbrockman3299]

I'm gonna say that the police shouldn't be called. If that was my sister, she would call me. I would make contact with the stalker and determine her safety. Woe unto the man making her unsafe at that point. Police exist to clean up the mess. They aren't there to protect anyone.

[@andyrihn1]

She knew he was a PI. That’s why the cop’s first question was “are you an investigator”. She knew she was being investigated and had caught other PIs before

[@justaguy6100]

@@andyrihn1 Mmm... that's conjecture, GOOD conjecture but the police might also have come up with that assumption by running his plates and seeing he had a PI license, too. Still, not a far our assumption either.

[@rainoffire24]

Man: "The fact that I'm exercising my rights does not mean I'm not cooperating." Officer: "Yes it does." I don't think I've ever seen a back and forth that sums up the entire problem (or one of the problems) the way that one does there.

[@chasinggreatness42]

He's not going to help them with incriminating himself and plus he's been a cop too long not to know that.

[@xuto2693]

That statement alone should have ended the cop's career.

[@calopsita4465]

U guys are really defending this dude awesome

[@rainoffire24]

@@chasinggreatness42 It's his constitutional right if he chooses to invoke it. Or do you not support the constitution?

[@dwaynemclaren7160]

Alright a rapist knows his rights and is following your wife! Who would YOU rather be right? The supreme court or that cop?

[@arturoescorcia]

Seems to me they DID have reasonable suspicion to stop him. After all they did mention they were following a report on a person following the young lady and that both the person and vehicle matched his description. And he was indeed following her, there is no way for the officers to know he is a PI because he never disclosed it so there is reasonable suspicion to think he might be actually stalking the woman.

[@supahsheet3874]

Ex Cop:”The fact that I am exercising my rights, does not mean I am not cooperating, sir.” Current Cop:“Yes it does.”

[@jtjones4081]

These cops FAILED by not arresting him on suspicion of stalking. He refused to prove he was a PI. If he was a rapist they just turned him loose. Is that what you want ATA?? Do you have any daughters? Did you check if he's even a licensed PI or did you take his word for it ATA ? The cops get an F for leaving a woman vulnerable because an obstinate loudmouth out talked them with BS. They had a RAS!

[@TheSekCriri]

@@jtjones4081 yea I guess normal human rights don't matter if you're a cop

[@EasyZee69]

The cops did have a reasonable suspicion to suspect him of a crime. The told even told him a number of times, someone called and said he was following her and they suspect him of stalking.

[@MonroesArtStudio]

So simple. Some people just like to make things more difficult.

[@Skellist]

Straight up. A person/car matching the description of a 911 call is almost the textbook definition of RS lol

[@PYMGUS]

Deputy didn’t see it, just hearsay. Now while that was actually the case it was because the PI was conducting an investigation on that woman and he most probably didn’t want to reveal himself because of that(in case that info was relayed to the woman) but I definitely agree that it was the right move by the police but I’m just saying that it was probably more complicated than it needed to be because it was an investigation and the PI didn’t want the woman to know(who knows what she was being investigated for though???)

[@YouLose]

@@PYMGUS Even if it is just hearsay, the officer can use that as probable cause to investigate further, legally.

[@jasonallen3678]

And he gave the cops a B 🤦‍♂️

[@eliakimbenishchayil]

He wanted to prove something, so he deliberately did not mention he is an investigator.

[@stevefitchett6193]

Clearly proved he can't tail someone without being spotted.

[@mlee81]

At least two asked him if he was an investigator from the beginning. They had their suspicions from the start. They wanted him to just say he was and then they move on but he pressed them making a point out of them for all to see. Even the old cop stating about him enjoying this knew. They all knew what was going on from early on it was just a power struggle to the end. That's why the officer in the end gave a direct yes or no question knowing the answer and then leaving

[@LiLBitsDK]

@@stevefitchett6193 sometimes it is a benefit they know they are being spotted... but you should already know that ;-)

[@stevefitchett6193]

@Jesper Andersen why would I know that jesper? He did a bad job if tailing the woman and made her feel threatened. Stop making excuses and get over it.

[@LiLBitsDK]

@@stevefitchett6193 because people can get preassured when they know someone is "on to them" and do stupid stuff

[@kathleenkrug-byle1199]

A Karen claiming stalking is not probable cause. So if you want to jack someone up for stalking, all you need is a description of their person and vehicle? I disagree with that. A+ to Hoffman and F to the cops.

[@joshuasuggs2379]

Stalking is very serious, this pi should understand that and dissolve the situation

[@jimbob9828]

PI sounds angry that he never made a higher rank, retired and now needs a second job to support his alimony payments.

[@forallthestupidshit3550]

Ya, it really makes you wonder whether his moonlighting as a 1st ammendment auditor is impacting how he handled this. Also, why was she able to spot him over and over again. It's almost like he wanted her to see him. It's not that hard to follow people and not be seen. He has to have been trying to intimidate her.

[@lorraeemory7962]

What if his client was an officer. Think bigger picture

[@christopherclink6931]

i agree. I understand he stands on grounds of our rights but at the same time id like to know a real stalker cant just walk or drive away when called out.

[@regulardadgaming]

I would guess that if he informed them of what he was doing then they could then inform her and that would then cause issues getting the information he was hired to get

[@southernladyish]

“You’re really enjoying this”… PI is probably thinking, you have no idea what I’m doing…

[@GuyFromTheSouth]

Will ya fart in a jar and mail it to me?

[@mellowvalentine9354]

@@GuyFromTheSouth christ all fuckin mighty lmaooo

[@mjg29x]

@@GuyFromTheSouth wtf…

[@thisisntsergio1352]

@@GuyFromTheSouth guys from the south really do be buying gamer girl farts

[@GuyFromTheSouth]

@@thisisntsergio1352 i actually dont but i do like messing with ppl

[@ryurineko]

I'm all for calling out corrupt police... but this investigator is absolutely the worst...

[@kingsquabo]

The exact same position I hold. No clue why he thinks he in the right

[@ilovecannabisalot7324]

@@kingsquabo How was the ex cop wrong? He broke ZERO LAWS... this country is about LAWS NOT YOUR FEELINGS.. read that twice.

[@Dan27894]

Yeah if it’s your job to follow a woman that’s fine, but when the police show up to make sure you’re not a stalker it’s not the time to go all “I don’t have yo answer your questions”

[@ilovecannabisalot7324]

@@Dan27894 Thats a FEELING not a LAW. Thats the problem with todays society.. We dont follow the law no more..

[@dragoon71892]

this is a loophole that is disgraceful and irredeemable.

[@nicolereadstarot]

I get it but also that's scary AF that someone can follow you around and cops can't do anything

[@malachi-]

Your life is tracked and sold for profit your whole life online, with great detail.

[@rhyno9798]

The cops could've done something. But black cops are scared of white people. So they let them get away with 💩 that they shouldn't. He did suspect that guy of committing a crime. The guy was being suspicious. Had he snatched him out of his vehicle, he'd a been within his rights. I've seen waaaay too many videos of "suspicious" activities that were nowhere near as suspicious as this, and they were id'd, detained.... somethin... watever

[@UncomfortableShoes]

Well, in this actual case he had a right to, which he should have explained. In general stalking is a crime, but I’m not sure if it pertains to your home or work. Without a restraining over, just driving on the same public street as someone is hard to enforce. I will say this guy doesn’t seem very good at his job.

[@nt3xplain]

No they can do something except in the case of a private investigator

[@pleasueru]

​@@nt3xplain but what if they don't know they're a private investigator.

[@Theblackblond]

Tell cops you’re an investigator, they go back and tell her. There has to be a better way.

[@breannap8585]

There is a better way: do better at tailing people when tailing people is your job.

[@joshoowa]

Can’t you just tell them not to tell her you’re an investigator…?

[@mikeakridge3190]

@@breannap8585 she was being followed by multiple PIs which is probably why she was on high alert...

[@mikeakridge3190]

@@joshoowa no, they have no duty to conceal anything... from PI or target, which is the same reason he didn’t just assert that he is an investigator. At which time they would have requested he produce paperwork... all these wannabes, say he was being a douche, “just tell them you’re an investigator”, he has no duty to identify if he hasn’t committed a crime, or suspected of about to, it’s simple as First and Fourth amendment protections ...

[@joshoowa]

@@mikeakridge3190 so if he was a stalker he could just keep on stalking?

[@cobbsquaredinc5515]

As a fellow private investigator, you never know what law-enforcement is going to do with the information that the person stalking a subject is a private investigator. They could call the subject back and let them know that for all we know. I’ve been burned by law-enforcement way too many times

[@mehardin]

Tough, you should have been more discreet. If they've made you they shouldn't have to live in fear that you are a crazy stalker who is going to rape and kill them. A woman isn't going to like having a PI following her, but at least she knows it isn't someone who is going to do her violence.

[@diegodlv1001]

You should try not stalking people for peanuts from jealous husbands

[@jwayneair]

@@diegodlv1001 it’s not ‘stalking’, it’s a legal investigation. You could’ve just said that you have zero understanding of the statutes governing private investigators. Sounds like a PI busted you screwing around and you’re still bitter about it.

[@ratlinggunnerforclanskryre1493]

@@jwayneair cheating is not a crime

[@Mrlemar1]

@@ratlinggunnerforclanskryre1493 If you're married, it is in a lot of states. Don't be one of the people to hand out information without doing any research beforehand. Edit: I've found 17 states that see cheating as a crime and will fine you or even arrest you for it. Arizona (up to 30 days in jail), Illinois (up to a year in jail), Kansas (up to 30 days in jail and up to 500$ fine), New York (up to three months in jail), Florida (up to two months in jail and up to 500$ fine), Maryland (10$ fine lmao), Massachusetts (up to three years in jail and up to 500$ fine), Idaho (up to three years in jail and up to 1000$ fine), Oklahoma (up to five years in jail and up to 500$ fine), Michigan (judge can basically decide whatever), Wisconsin (10$ fine), Minnesota (up to a year in jail and up to 3000$ fine), Utah (up to six months in jail and up to 500$ fine), Georgia (up to three years in jail and up to 1000$ fine), Mississippi (up to six months in jail and up to 500$ fine), North Carolina (up to 30 days in jail), South Carolina (up to a year in jail and up to 1000$ fine). I'm not a lawyer and spent about 15 minutes researching this, so take it with a grain of salt and do your own research if needed.

[@Therealrickybobby.]

If my daughter were being stalked by anyone I’d hope/expect the police to investigate it thoroughly. I’m sure we all would!

[@Sharpened_Spoon]

I think he should have got a D.. he’s knowingly operating outside of Florida law as it applies to the general public and knows he could be suspected of stalking, frequently at that. He should have the professionalism and courtesy to tell the officers he’s an investigator and leave it at that. Having rights doesn’t make behaving like a jackass acceptable in society. They should have arrested his ass just for the inconvenience and had a field day in court using his own footage to prove he never produced any documentation to excuse his actions that lead to him being suspected of a crime.

[@cashscience]

@@Sharpened_Spoon Should of arrested him??? That would've been the stupidest move the department could make! Your logic makes you sound like you're still in middle school!

[@bobjohnson7683]

Seeing as it’s Florida, and he looks like a serial killer, if I was an officer, I would reasonably suspect him, based on years of experience, of planning to commit a crime. Rape cases are usually lost based on how the victim looks, why not hold that standard universally if it’s such a great metric to judge by?

[@mavh0116]

@@cashscience not necessarily. Failure to identify and obstructing an investigation could be charges brought up against him and like it was mentioned in the video a court would have upheld at least one of those.

[@cashscience]

@@mavh0116 1. Failure to Identify is in the event of a beach of penal code (otherwise it violates 4th and 5th amendments depending on the method of identification)..... 2. Obstruction has a very particular definition that this guy is in no way guilty of.

[@edwardhickey5185]

That's how to do it. They new he was a a investigator. When they ran his plates

[@jakecollier9691]

“Exercising my rights doesn’t mean I’m being uncooperative.” “Yes it does.” Excuse me

[@Nipponing]

Yes it literally does. But not in law I guess.

[@cyrilmrazek6649]

he wasn't exercising his rights tho...

[@kanoaikawach]

@@cyrilmrazek6649 yes he was

[@Hero4fun77]

@@cyrilmrazek6649 The right to remain silence. You forgot about that? 🤦‍♂️

[@cyrilmrazek6649]

@@Hero4fun77 lol, he wasn't silent for a minute...

[@WaywardSoul85]

ehhhh I'm actually with the cops initially on this one. No, exercising his rights is not a problem. But the stop is certainly valid given the information/call they received and were responding to.

[@DaveStDave]

Right. If this girl turned up dead after this interaction and the cops had done nothing and just let him go like this, what do you think the reactions would be like now?

[@mrspitterofthefire6836]

Cops did their job nothing more nothing less and neither of the officers were acting crazy

[@-108-]

The stop may have been justified for reasons of DETENTION, but their demand to see his DL, reg, & POI was most certainly not. A person is only required to present that information to an officer upon being legally detained for a moving violation.

[@NickSteffen]

@@-108- They did in fact have a reason to get his DL. They suspected him of the crime of stalking which gives them the ability to request his ID, whereabouts during the day and barring that potentially even detain him until he could be identified. The person making the stalking accusation’s life could have been at risk. If they had in fact exercised this ability it’s likely the encounter would have ended faster and more congenially as they would have been able to look up his PI license and they wouldn’t have sat there repeating and talking over themselves in increasing volumes forever. It’s probably of the few times where cops not fully exercising their authority made a situation worse.

[@-108-]

@@NickSteffen REQUIRING the ID was legally questionable; Requiring the reg and POI was absolutely out of bounds.

[@davcar23]

Had this been a real stalker and actually harmed a person everyone would be angry because "the cops didn't do anything to prevent it".

[@alexsherel3344]

Not everyone.

[@Powermad-bu4em]

This cop stopped him for an absolutely legit reason.

[@Commander_ZiN]

​@@alexsherel3344 ok so far it's 52 that agree and 2 that wouldn't be upset with the cops if they failed to protect someone.

[@mralapenosarespicy]

Well said, exactly

[@Commander_ZiN]

@@mralapenosarespicy I suspect the cops had reasonable suspicion he was a PI. They probably ran his plates and sounded like they've had a run in with him before. However they probably should of stuck around and confirmed, but by that time the person was probably long gone and so was any immediate threat. They'd note the description and deal with it in future if he was reported again. Although I'm sure the cops would of liked their concern alliviated better, I think if things went towards confirming their suspicions then he'd be in cuffs.

[@RayBetterThanEvilCanival]

Although the PI is within his legal rights to refuse to comply with the officer, I feel like this is a fair stop. If somebody was following me around for days I’d also feel threatened and call the police. He could have just told the officer he’s a PI, such as the officer inquired about, and this could have ended much quicker.