Probable Cause

[@allistairtrent]

Justice Jackson's dissent in Brinegar is some of the best dicta I have ever read and was my motivation to take up law as a profession. "Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government."

[@supremecourt4156]

I just spent the past few hours going through your videos, which has really helped me in making my decision to attend Wake Law. I love your teaching style, hope I have you as professor. Loud, clear, and charismatic.

[@dennisburbank3318]

HELP ME PLEASE !!!!! This all happens after the police came to the apartment 15 X in 9 months . My ex called the first time to get me evicted that day . Police told her she needed to get an eviction. She never did . Eventually it got so bad i called the police because she wouldn't stop harassing me and yelling and slamming doors . After ther police got there i left to a hotel for 2 days . I called the police and told them she was going to change the locks with no eviction and they told me to call back after she changes them. So i did , but within the two days she had moved all my stuff out into her storage unit without my permission. 30 days after that she tries to commit suicide which she blamed me for and them 30 days after that she was back in the ICU for 8 days where she told me it was because of septis from a dentist visit.. I dont believe her story.. I was going back and forth from hotel back to apartment for over a yeer and then in July they pretended to be my customer baited me into Sandy Utah and arrested me. I didnt get a court date for 3 months . Officer sent me a fb pm saying that he thinks im a good guy and i just got caught up in some things.. He also said he wanted to help me find a job.. Thats weird becasue he knew i was self employed.. He also left a voicemail that it was his understanding that i was arrested and booked into jail.. Well hes the one who arrested me and took me there . i didnt know he was officer white the day of . It was only after i was released the next day that i learned that. I called everyday for 2 .5 months before i was given the first court date. In both messages from the officer he wanted me to come down to the [police station and sign a citation... I refused because everybody including a lawyer told me not to sign anything since it was after i was already arrested and booked into jail. Below is an email from officer White supervisor . I dont understand how they can issue a warrant for an arrest that happened 3 months prior ?? Why fill out an affidavit for my arrest if ive already been arrest on probable cause ? Did the magistrate not determine whether or not probable cause existed Or Did the judge not find probable cause and the police tried to trick me into signing a " citation" but really a probable cause statement to substantiate the arrest to cover it up?? Is this a violation of due process , right to a speedy trial and illegal arrest ??? I think the officer and my ex gf were hooking up... I have 60+ vids of my exgf acting like a child screaming slamming doors getting in my face , i reported her assaulting me 4 times scratches and boke a laptop on my arm police never did anything . They arrested me took my truck that had all my tools and all my cloths in it , missed a job that day and the next day when i got out i literally had nothing .. both my ex gf and i lives got worse because they allowed her to illegally kick me out at the same time her mental illness got worse to the point of suicide and that was after i was illegally kick out. __________________________________________________________ Email from officer white supervisor From: Dennis Burbank Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:04 PM To: Heather Blanco Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Sandy Police Case SY2021-***** I am touching base with you to check on the status of that warrantless domestic violence arrest 37 days ago? I left you a voicemail I have talked to you another lawyer out of state everybody has told me not to go sign anyting. If you could please update me I would appreciate it thank you On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 7:56 PM Heather Blanco wrote: Mr. Burbank, Per our conversation, Office White is investigating a domestic violence incident under the case number listed above. In order for us to move this case forward into court, we need to either issue you a citation for the charge of domestic assault, or complete a probable cause statement which will be submitted to a Judge for approval. Upon approval, a warrant for your arrest will be issued by the court. Should you choose to sign a citation, you are not admitting guilt, you are simply promising to appear before a Judge to enter your plea of guilty or not guilty. In order to take this option, you will need to contact dispatch at 801 799 3000 and refer to Sandy Police case SY2021-31333. Let them know you need to meet with an Officer to receive a citation. Once that citation is issued, the case will be referred to the City Prosecutor’s Office and you can contact the court to set up a court date. If you are not comfortable with the citation, Officer White will petition the Judge for an arrest warrant. Once the warrant is issued, you can contact the court and let them know you need to set up a court date. The Judge CAN recall the warrant, but that is up to the Judge. I cannot guarantee you will not be arrested on the warrant, and I can’t tell you how long this process will take, that is up to the courts.

[@rameshnyberg3818]

Very well done. My high school juniors are viewing this as we do class practicums and learn to write arrest and search warrants.

[@dragonf1092]

Your car is your effects,the things in your pockets are your effects your body is your person, your ID, driver's license, insurance, registration are your papers,all protected under the 4th amendment warrant clause there is no probable cause to search anyone or anything without a legal lawful search warrant.

[@seanmcmillan3455]

Right. Someone runs a red light in front of a cop. The cop should be required to get an arrest warrant for the driver before initiating a traffic stop. Cop comes upon a homeless person stabbing another homeless person. Cop should get an arrest warrant first instead of stopping the threat or detaining the suspect. Cop responds to a domestic disturbance and hears a female screaming for her life. Cop should turn around, leave, and go get a search warrant and arrest warrant first before entering. All of those warrant affidavits would be thrown out based on particularity because you don’t know who anyone is because you didn’t identify any of them. In your fairy tale world the cop would never be able to compel identification because he could never detain any of the suspects under reasonable suspicion.

[@dragonf1092]

@@seanmcmillan3455 there is no such thing as reasonable suspicion under the 4th amendment warrant clause, probable cause is only to get a legal lawful warrant. Therefore yes they by law should have to get a legal lawful warrant to arrest anyone. They can detain the person hold them there until they get said warrant from a judge if the judge decides it is legal. They have cell phones and fax machines/printers they can easily call a judge and give the details and name of the person that judge can issue said warrant to them to arrest (seize) or search said person or search and seize their property (effects), there is no excuse for any officer not to get one.

[@seanmcmillan3455]

So you completely ignore the fact (or don’t realize) that a detention is a seizure. Your example would have a cop, under your definition/understanding, illegally seize a person without a warrant so he could get a warrant to legally seize him. And not every jurisdiction in the US has the capacity or even allows for telephonic or electronic warrants. There are a lot of areas that still wake up a judge in the middle of the night if necessary. So now you would require that for EVERY SINGLE arrest. I also don’t know where in the 4th Amendment it says a warrant is required for an arrest. Oh yes I do. It doesn’t. It says probable cause is required for a warrant. It doesn’t talk about arrests. You’re adding things that aren’t there. You also ignored my point about traffic stops.

[@bornfree3124]

If all jury members do not know what probable cause is, they should be dismissed, the police, judges and prosecutors all get paid for violating the people, public servants are criminals working for a criminal enterprise.

[@thothheartmaat2833]

They don't know what they're doing and the Supreme Court says it's fine and that's reasonable and the constitution is void if these people think they know what they're doing...

[@bolivershagnasty3851]

this happens in coucil meetings alot for city ordnances violations.

[@wisandjesus]

As an online student I love this video, perfect explanation

[@danstewart2770]

What do they say about police lying about the reasons for a stop?

[@dragonf1092]

The courts and law enforcement are also in violation of the 14th amendment section 1 if they illegally search any American citizen, their house, papers or effects (personal property) without a legal lawful search warrant signed by a judge under oath and affirmation. 14th amendment section 1 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states

[@BrainFood9999]

This means law enforcement can do whatever they want

[@thothheartmaat2833]

They can cite a false reason for stopping you then be wrong and the court says it's reasonable if they were wrong so the constitution is void if the officer made a mistake.. the rights don't exist now..

[@Harlem55]

The question with Brinegar v. United States, is that the PC would seem moot, given that the states at that point lacked the constitutional authority to prohibit alcohol outright under the 21st amendment to the United States Constitution which was ratified in 1933. Thus, it would have seemed that the PC issue in Brinegar should have been ruled as moot.

[@richardgreen1050]

The common law method was said to be the standard yet it appears that the method you initially suggested is used. But the standard is the common law method. So it is viable and reference to that superior standard was left unaddressed, as to understanding or requirements required to meet understanding. So what are the reasons and methods of an important due process facit of the law that must be satisfied to obtain jurisdiction? Am I missing something or is this unaddressed? Just though i missed the meaning of probable cause according to the maxims or principles of the law. So if a student wants to abide in law correctly and it's written down and precedent to us how is it found to be enough proof to meet this (unwritten?) standard ? It must be repeatable and the same everywhere because it is governing the Land. It was used for centuries so it cannot be something that changes with the vote. And the thought that a change to understanding is expanded does not negate the original requirement but the change or additional understanding is acceptable as falling within that original meaning of that requirement. So what is the baseline minimum requirement of probable cause? What maxim/principles apply? What reports are made and who decides a violation exists before an arrest? Is there a check on the executive and legislative power by the judge before incarceration or arrest? Is incarceration before a warrant is issued allowed? Does the court have a duty to protect the citizen from unlawful incarceration? Our system was made to protect the people from government I would think that the right must first exist before the execution restraining ones liberty is allowed. Duties and responsibilities are governments rights. Do sheriff's have the duty to obtain a warrant upon incarceration?

[@jeromegarcia5396]

So I have a question for anyone here to answer please... So if a state executive branch actor using state laws bringing a citizen to a quasi jurisdiction court of the executive branch, tho probable cause of a state crime without a victim of damages can be used against the citizens, would subject matter jurisdiction come into play to nullify the state law that conflicts with PREVIOUSLY PROTECTED RIGHTS? Because the 7th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial, the state violates this right of due process the moment the cop acts outside of law and jurisdiction... I ask because let's use medical cannabis card holder from a legal state visiting a non legal state, should have the right to interstate travel within their own state laws in the new state, if cops claim it's against the law, where's the damaged party? Because it's one thing to not use or understand medical cannabis, but it's another to understand rights yet willingness to violate that Right without authority to do so... So this is a confusing topic JURISDICTION, state laws vs rights, rights being superior to the state article 6 clause 2, but education, attorneys and status quo will laugh at my very question claiming I'm a sovereign citizen, yet without a clear answer of the clear valid question at hand... I don't claim to be right, I'm claiming I'm trying to understand the law, how does cannabis damage anyone, when cigarettes and alcohol are legal yet kill everyday??? Tho most people look down on cannabis, I'm a person who is of native Aboriginal black Spanish race, the trifecta of what no one wants to be, at two yrs old I've witnessed my mother murdered, I was kidnapped and abused until I was physically able to stop it myself, As an adult today suffering from PTSD I'm 44 a long jagged road, I use cannabis because it actually helps me, counselor's have never been able to help me, it's a crazy thing to tell a professional about your life, and they can only sit there mouth open like oh my God... Umm, well, the good thing is that you are alive, that's good right? Do you want medication??? That never helped me... Cannabis seriously helps me not completely loose my mind on a trigger, like George Floyd, it's been weeks and I have fell off the wagon from not drinking because in this state I don't have medical cannabis, after 5 months of sobriety of anything, that 8:46 of a knee to a human has affected me immensely, I cry randomly as a grown man, and dealing with all my pain, I'm a criminal because I don't want to feel pain? Poor, people of color, don't have a right to pursue happiness? I'm lost for a lawful answer, everyone who does basically says I'm wrong... But without the why... Any answers I greatly appreciate it, thank you for your time and help...

[@BrainFood9999]

I started learning how this court system works cause I can feel it in my bones that it's a great deception and I made it my mission to walk in that court room and just post up in the gallery and watch them like a hawk on how they fooling everybody and I've learned quite a bit from just watching them like a detective would watch me and you. One example is I watched a defendant plead guilty one time and the judge ask the (female prosecutor) what sentence he would like the defendant to receive and the prosecutor gave the judge his recommendations and judge quickly replied "as well as court cost"? And the prosecutor said " no this case has no affidavit report". The following day I enter the court room and it was a male prosecutor and everyone received court cost I even brought a notepad to take down all the name that were called and look up their cases and 3 out of 5 that I pulled up had no affidavit reports so if you really want to learn thier deception I recommend watching them in the courtroom it's the best way and you'll learn something new every time.

[@jeromegarcia5396]

@@BrainFood9999 🤭 you sneaky Wow I wouldn't of thought to do that, but I'm also not a subtle person, I'm 6'1 around 250 muscular with tattoos and very intimidating especially around cops, Lol if I tried they would definitely ask me why I'm there with at least two lol. But I absolutely dig what you are saying, I'm currently in every court there is as a pro se from 4th circuit appeals, federal district, state appeals, state circuit, traffic, Traffic court I don't go into, I handle them with written motions and challenge jurisdiction and just recently started removing cases on constitution questions or 14th 6th amendment substantive due process infringements. One of those challenges to traffic Quasi administrative jurisdiction courts is the AFFIDAVIT, or lack thereof from an actual damaged party... It's an abuse of process and malicious prosecution, and their stupid Quasi administrative jurisdiction doesn't recognize civil or criminal rules of procedures and constitution and rights and all that junk 🤭🤭🤭 But you are correct, the affidavit is fundamental in both civil and criminal cases, without them there's absolutely nothing that could rebut your affidavit... Plus attorneys or bar members cannot testify they are not witnesses or have affidavits on the record, Trinsey vs pagliero... Court cost don't get me started, I motion for in forma pauperis and have gotten it all but the state court of appeals, I've made objections and motions on my right to access the court but I had to pay the filing fee... Funny how much effort you see go into claiming immunity and just doing a job when you hold accountability, but constitution and rights they seem oblivious... It's the new good ol boy system and I promise you if you look at every major political seat in every state and even federal government you will find a Bar Association member either ex attorney turned senator governor blah blah blah... Like seriously if bar cards could be lit up on a map it would look like Cancer...

[@hafsalinda]

Anonymous informant, would that be Florida vs JL?

[@danstewart2770]

Are you going to discuss the leading arbiters of probable cause under the 4th Amendment - drug detection dogs?

[@fishermanfinder7198]

Second troubles all authority is defined by constitution The constitution give the people full authority completely The color of law is not law but acts of force

[@notebene9791]

To the interested public: I went to law school in California, took the MPRE (Multistate Professional Ethics Examination; need to pass prior to Bar Exam), I had to go through the Character and Fitnees review which requires a lengthy questionnaire which is sent in to the FBI and California state criminal database with fingerprints to find out if you had any bankruptcies, wrote bad checks, or any other crime of moral turpitude which then would bar you from being an attorney. I passed the three day bar examination (now two day) and then took my oath to become and attorney at law. what I see here resembles nothing like a real law school. You do not go to class and take notes and listen to a lecture. You are taught by the Socratic method. This entails that you have to read all the assigned cases prior to class and then the professor picks a student to brief the case and then is grilled by the professor as to what is the courts reasoning why did it differ in this case versus another case, of course you have to know the other case, and if you falter in your reasoning the professors would usually have you stand and brief the next case and then the next case after that and ask questions to humiliate you if you weren’t prepared. Fortunately, I was prepared. What I’m seeing here is a total joke. My professors never explained anything about a case never gave a lecture on a subject regarding a case or the subject matter in fact if you asked the professor a question you would be rebuffed and told “you want to be a lawyer go look it up”. To my knowledge my experience was not unique when speaking with other lawyers in California.

[@Zestypanda]

Or, it could be that these mock lectures are to present the information in a palatable format for those that want to distance-learn and become interested in law practice. Now, while his teaching methods may not be “traditional”, his explanation and grasp of the cases he presents is exceptional.

[@BrainFood9999]

Did you say you took an oath to the bar association could you perhaps share the oath with me word for word I had no idea lawyers too an oath to be a member of the bar. I would greatly appreciate it. And thank you for sharing your experience in dealing with your law professors. If it was me I would have got his phone number and made a post on OfferUp and craigslist for a free car right before class and watch his phone blow up 🤣

[@dragonf1092]

Commiefornia wouldn't know legal law if it bit them in the but😂🤣😂.

[@fishermanfinder7198]

For sale is the key for federal laws enforcement agencies not cops

[@fishermanfinder7198]

Judge are prohibited from making laws that's why corporation have the authority to violate rights by courts for policy enforcement or cops

[@thothheartmaat2833]

They make law when they decide the case. It's how the common law works. I was called for jury duty in a federal case and the judge asked us all if we were comfortable with him being the only source of the law. Meaning during the case we couldn't research law but he would tell us what the law is. I assume that means they were hiding law and manufacturing it..

[@hyojinlee]

This is great, thank you so much! :)

[@wmccourtney2814]

The Supremacy clause. The Washington State constitution Article 1 § 2 mandates the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Police do not possess authority to execute traffic stops: 18 U.S.C. § 31-MOTOR VEHICLE is strictly commercial-transporting goods, commodities and people for hire see SMC Case 516517. Any summons the gov. executes, the defendant name is in ALL CAPITALS= NO STANDING. this is not an individuals name. One capital and small font following only is one's name. See 28 U.S.C. § 3002 15 a.b.c./See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,3,241,242,880,1621,2381,82...ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

[@thothheartmaat2833]

I notice on the notice of motion form the defendant is listed in all caps and the state attorney is listed as first letter capitalized and the rest lower case.

[@Otis-Tank]

did taft take a role in an office with a title of nobility? or was that after...food for thought

[@fishermanfinder7198]

First fact all government may control corporate taxes how much can a person own

[@SuddenExistentialDismissal]

Isn't a home more protected than anything else under the fourth amendment?

[@JimSpencer-1945]

good video

[@andrewtoombs3867]

What the officer should have done, it like you said, ... so similar to follow and watch for the physical carrying of the liquior. I don't know if radio communication existed back then, but if they could, they should have had a different set of officers follow, then disappear, and another team observe when he arrived at location, and pull up to chit chat, see "What's up Doc?" and when the liqiour was seen physically removed from the car, then the case would have been solid. Just pulling someone over because their driving long distance .. well, there is a thing called driver fatigue. The problem we have with the excessive allowence in Search "Nowadays" is the current smuggling crisis for more dangerous materials. I honestly think the Police stop is legit. I would have nothing against being pulled over, but I do have concerns of excessive speculation. Just because in the past, does always mean today.

[@edenadam872]

How clearly to argue and differentiate between= Suspicions and Probable Cause and Reasonable Doubts??? How?? Can you give concise clear short DEFINITIVE (EXAMPLES)???????? = PLEASE AGAIN:> DON'T GO RANTING!! THANKS

[@paulkalaj3500]

Violation of the 7 Amendment happens for many reasons one is the Judicial System does not want to spend the money to allow what Democracy needs. The cost is overinflated, once a 100 cases are tried then people stop breaking that rule.

[@Mr.greenthumb]

No... use the definition at the time it was written. By 1940 it has been changed

[@jonnybravo432]

I’m pretty sure that probable cause is highly probable, it’s being manipulated by the source of it’s directive and agenda. Cops are interpreting constitutional law and making determinations in the field. Probable cause for what? A victimless crime, no loss or damage, who is the plaintiff? The state? Who does the judge represent, the state, and the prosecution, yes the state, the cop, the same thing, explain how anyone could possibly receive a fair and impartial trail, where your plaintiff, accuser, prosecution and ruling judge play on the same team, and always on their kangaroo court. Courts today are frauds and criminals, the court system has been corrupted, used as a source of revenue, America is a corporation, and the courts are conducting buisness. This rabbit hole is deep, law and order has been compromised, lady justice has been un-blindfolded for decades. The constitution should be all that matters, everything revolves around it, not the other way around. You never put the cart before the horse, do you? Rhetorical.

[@TheCorrectionist1984]

Most of what you just said is either ridiculous or nonsensical. Are you one of those folks that thinks the right to travel means you can drive with a suspended license?

[@6StimuL84]

@@TheCorrectionist1984 Have not had a license in 16 years and use my roads all the time, because I am NOT a US slave/ subject...YOU are just ignorant and he was 100% correct.....

[@TheCorrectionist1984]

@@6StimuL84 , we'll as i have stated to other sovereign citizen types, please show me one time these legal arguments have worked in court. Cuz i can show you a fuck ton where they don't.

[@joeyketch17]

@@TheCorrectionist1984 Mike you're proving everyone's point by saying that any arguement against a cop will be thrown out because citizens are not seen as equally truthful as police. Police are regarded as expert witnesses and can manipulate police reports and fuck people over whenever they want to.

[@dragonf1092]

The fourth amendment text explicitly states unreasonable searches and seizures "SHALL NOT BE violated " therefore the only reasonable search and seizure is only with a legal lawful search warrant.

[@panama2468]

Where does it say in the 4th amendment that reasonable automatically equals a warrant? Or that unreasonable automatically means without a warrant?

[@dragonf1092]

@@panama2468 the right of the people to be secure in their persons (that means their bodies), houses,papers (that means every document they own, possess), effects (everything a citizen owns, their vehicle is their effects) against unreasonable searches and seizures ""SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED "". The fourth amendment explicitly states NO WARRANT SHALL BE ISSUED BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE Therefore the only reasonable search or seizure is only done so with a legal lawful valid warrant, and probable cause is only to get said warrant.

[@dragonf1092]

@@panama2468 4th amendment explicitly mandates a warrant is necessary to search anyone or anything.

[@dragonf1092]

@@panama2468 legally under the fourth amendment all officers/officials should have a legal lawful warrant before they even ask for any form of ID, driver's license, insurance, registration, title, deed, contract they are all papers(documents) and therefore protected under the warrant clause. The fact that they do so without a legal lawful warrant is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

[@dragonf1092]

@@panama2468 a tery search without a legal lawful warrant is unconstitutional therefore illegal in violation of the 4th amendment warrant clause. As well as the 14th amendment section 1.

[@juliewoods6534]

Yeah, right. Look at the 9th Circuit (circus) vs the 5th Circuit's Court of appeals. Who is your audience? I figure they are law students, but are they defense wannabes or prosecutor wannabes? Bothe will see things differently.

[@timsteinkamp2245]

I would like to have a reasonably prudent citizen like a juror decide about probable cause. It is interesting, as a victim of the law profession, to read the Bar Bylaws for collecting membership and the process of reprimanding their fellow Bar Members. Which of course is all paid by the citizens in the fees we are charged. I have not read a mission statement yet that says it wants to provide cost effective justice for the citizens. They all say their mission is to provide for its members well being.

[@nomercymironenko]

Thats what a Grand Jury is-citizens who decide probable cause!

[@Cognitoman]

I’m a Brinegar .... weird

[@fishermanfinder7198]

He is not telling the full facts the local states can make a court of law but it requires your consent see ohio constitution prohibited laws and Florida constitution prohibited laws

[@MisterMikeTexas]

His car must not have been a Ford V8, and neither the Mopar Hemi nor Olds Rocket V8's existed yet.😆😆😆

[@Mr.greenthumb]

Probable cause. = damages every one knows that.

[@latonyadarlene4244]

wave

[@joeyketch17]

Hopefully one day all controlled substances will be decriminalized and probable cause with four legs will be a practice of the past. So that you can drive without police violating your 4th amendment on the daily.

[@johndoeu.d-207withoutpreju2]

Prove able injury c.r.i.m.e . Your welcome

[@mynamesmitch9470]

#OverturnTerryvOhio , Delete Lawz

[@6StimuL84]

Funny...I thought the maxim of law was...."Equality before the law is mandatory and paramount." How can one state make alcohol unlawful, when on another it is not? That makes no sense at all and is in no way equality before the law. There is no such thing as old law, only good law and bad law...... Sorry don't "represent" "persons" Persons are classed and have no rights, man has rights. No constitutional amendment to prohibit, then there can be no authority to prohibit under the supremacy clause......on these united states of America.

[@lcf02139]

This is a classic case of Federalism. Each state has the right to legalize marijuana or restrict speed limits and a variety of other rules, policies and regulations. . Equal protection under the law means that pot can't be legal only for a person of a certain race, or only older drivers have to drive 55 MPH.

[@timsteinkamp2245]

As the professor said, The attorneys and judges or The American Bar Association along with the 50 State Bars makes the rules.

[@6StimuL84]

You think sworn servants make the rules? You and the traitors of the BAR, are the real problem with America.

[@timsteinkamp2245]

James Barnes: Are you accusing me of being the real problem? Because I commented that we are living under case law? I find it is best to check my post before I accuse people of things. To be clear, I believe the problem with America is the American People and to some extent the Constitution. It takes a lot of effort to change the Constitution but only 50% plus one to ignore it. I propose we do as the Constitution allows and increase the House Of Representatives to 10,000 members (no more than one per 30,000) and see if we can get a true idea of what the American people want. Get them out of Washington with all the lobbyists and into their communities. I would then like to see the census changed from dividing us up by our differences into a straight counting (not accounting) of heads.

[@6StimuL84]

@@timsteinkamp2245 They have no authority without our permission and no "cause of action" that has "standing" no "case."

[@YouTube-Nsw-Australia]

🇦🇺🚔😉

[@BACKALLI]

PROBABLE CAUSE THATS A CRIME IS OR ABOUT TO BE AFOOT ! THATS HOW SIMPLE,,,IF THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY THERE IS NO CRIME !

[@SHAULYISRAEL]

This is called CHECKING THE POPO and SHERPOPO.

[@edenadam872]

You talk too much Abstracts & Ranting !!! You are very confusing !!! Please be clear & Concise and make it short and to the Point!!>>>>>>=You may be competent in this subject; But you need intensive Training in =(TEACHING SKILLS)!! U R VERY CONFUSING AND NOT SPECIFIC===== (YOU CANNOT TEACH)==== May be better to GO AND JUST WORK IN THE COURT=!!! ffffffffffff= I am so confused!!! So in few clear specific words>=( With Examples): =(What is the Probable Cause") = and the difference from = Reasonable Doubt= and suspicion?? Again Please := Don't go Ranting!!!

[@holdencaulfield8239]

He’s not that bad, simmer down and work on yourself. Lol.

[@Zestypanda]

What the fuck are you saying? Stop skill-fucking your keyboard grandpa.

[@missymew83]

😂😅​@@holdencaulfield8239