Search and Seizure: Crash Course Government and Politics #27

[@GlitchyShadow13]

I'm British and I watch these for pleasure, I don't plan on living in the US anytime soon and I just enjoy these videos.

[@Dignity100]

I'm glad you enjoy them. If you ever come to the uS, you'll know your rights!

[@thisguyshere6675]

here it sounds normal if you write for fun. its normal here to write for fun. your comment sounds weird to me. it is weird to me.

[@LightStorm.]

There is one thing you didn't clarify in this video, if you do get pulled over for speeding, they CANT search you or your car unless they see visible evidence of a crime committed or anything illegal in your car. Just because you are pulled over for speeding isn't probable cause to search you or your car.

[@magicdolphin8436]

Unless they use speeding as probable cause (ie speeding away from a crime).

[@Donbd83]

But then they create their own problem, they have to prove that you were speeding away from a crime if they cannot they don't have probable cause, so if they search your car under false premises don't matter if you have 50 kilo's in your car any lawyer will get it thrown out and you should file charges against the officer. The same thing is true with say they find a roach in your car they will get you to plead ot possession charges but don't panic prosecutors, lawyers, cops and judges are taught to lie so expect everything they say is as such. Now they have to test that roach, just like they have to test cocaine, heroin, meth etc, they have to prove the substance is what they claim it is, now in the cases of small amounts of a substance they need a certain amount to even test, in the case of the roach they would need more marijuana to actually test that what is contained in that roach, they have to destroy their evidence just to prove what it is.

[@tankcommander33]

@@Donbd83 you are not even close to knowing what you're talking about.

[@Dignity100]

True, What you describe are exceptions to the warrant requirement: the automobile exception: An officer may search a vehicle if they have a reasonable belief that contraband is contained inside the vehicle; and the plain view exception: Able to be seen without conducting a search. This includes partially hidden items that can be easily identified.

[@KidEatingClown]

Craig is definitely one of my favorite CrashCourse teachers, if not my favorite.

[@OperatorDirge]

2:56 Law enforcement *cannot* search your vehicle for speeding, if they have no reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime. Speeding is a moving violation. Violations do not give law enforcement probable cause to search you, the vehicle, or any other occupants, because violations in of themselves are not crimes. Now, if you were speeding and the officer uses roadside tests to determine that you are under the influence of a drug, or if you or someone else in the car were doing something obviously illegal, *then* the police would have probable cause to conduct a search.

[@brandoncyoung]

Operator FLS i agree, but they can do whatever they want, and with usually minimal backlash or punishment. Let me just say with traffic spot more than not.

[@OperatorDirge]

Brandon Young That's why it's important to know your rights and how to interact with the police, and to be familiar with the law. In a world where there's corruption and ignorance of the law within law enforcement itself, every bit of knowledge could potentially protect you.

[@RebNudnik]

This needs to be the top comment. Police cannot search your car without probable cause or a warrant.

[@thelordofswag6618]

Operator FLS Police can search your car if you are under suspicion(which is really vague on purpose) of a crime, but no cop will spend the time to search a car if there is no reason to.

[@brandoncyoung]

If they pull you over they can search your car. The laws are so vague that they can simply say make up a reason.

[@emreosmanoglu1228]

I am watching these series outside of the US but the given informations are nearly universal. Thank you CrashCourse for enlightening us.

[@cj-seejay-cj-seejay]

In cop situations: 1. Always film or record the audio of the interaction if at all possible. It's always legal to do so, but the police may claim otherwise. 2. Never consent to a search unless you are 100% sure the police won't find anything. Police will ask you casually, "Hey, mind if we check in here?" or something, and your natural inclination will be to say "Ok" because you want to seem agreeable and not suspicious. But don't do that. State in a clear voice, "No, I do not consent to this search." 3. Ask, "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to leave?" If they say you're free to leave, LEAVE. 4. If the police say you're not free to leave, then stay there, remain calm, do whatever they say, and DON'T SPEAK. If the police start asking you questions (anything beyond your name and address), you don't have to answer. And you probably shouldn't. Just say, "I'm invoking my right to remain silent." 5. In such situations, where the police have you in custody and are questioning you, they really should read you your Miranda rights. That's the whole "You have the right to remain silent..." spiel. Once they say this to you, DEFINITELY shut up. Don't really say anything other than "I'm invoking my right to remain silent" and "I'd like a lawyer." 6. Cop interactions can be extremely high-stress situations, but try to remain calm. Move slowly. Don't make any threatening motions, like quickly reaching into your pocket. Speak calmly, slowly, and clearly. 7. If a cop seems to be ignoring your rights and threatening you, don't try to fight. *Just do what you need to do to survive.* Most cops do their best to follow proper procedure, but there are enough "bad eggs" on the police force that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise bigoted that police brutality and murder is a serious concern for some people. For example, I told you in step 1 to film the police -- but your primary goal is to get out of the situation alive, so if filming the police is going to escalate a dangerous situation, it's very valid to choose not to do so. Please be safe. Bonus tip: If you are a bystander and you see an escalating police situation, FILM FILM FILM it! And then upload it to social media ASAP.

[@IMatchoNation]

+Paul Koss Cops aren't your neighbours, they're government employees on duty and their word against yours is a situation you don't want to be in. Filming cops protects you against malpractice and the advice spawned from strings of cases of police abuse. You're living in a fantasy.

[@greenredblue]

Paul Koss Ad hominems, hand waving, advocating physical assault against officers of the law, AND the temerity to accuse the person who actually seems to know what they're talking about of superlative ignorance. Creatures like you are beautiful. Please never change.

[@cj-seejay-cj-seejay]

Paul Koss "Grow up"? Excuse me? Filming police brutality is somehow a sign of immaturity? Please elaborate.

[@Green815]

1. It's a bit unnecessary, but not illegal, so go ahead. 2. That's dependant on the situation. In some situations, the police have every right to search your car, whether you consent to the search or not. For example: If you are suspected of harbouring a criminal or holding illegal substances. 3. This doesn't always work, because in some cases, you can be stopped, but not detained, and still not be free to go. An example of this would be a roadside safety check where you are required to provide your license and registration, after which you are free to go. 4. Usually, your name, address and license information is enough and the officer will let you go. However, if you refuse to answer other questions like "Do you have any drugs in the car?", that could be construed as you trying to hide the fact that you do. In that situation, saying 'No' would be the safer option, since police officers really don't want to be searching every person they see. 5. This is correct. However, your Miranda Rights don't apply to anything you say to them without being questioned. Also, police don't have to read you your Miranda Rights until they formally question you after you've been arrested. They usually read them immediately after arresting you to get around that. 6. Having lists like this don't help. They start an antagonistic relationship between the civilian and the police officer, which escalates these situations to a point where they really don't need to be at. But yes, threatening the police and reaching into your pocket quickly (especially in the US where they have lots of guns) is generally a bad move, as it would be with anybody. 7. I wouldn't have put it like this at all. The police aren't out to get you, but if you absolutely find the need to fight the police on every single matter, don't do it on the street. Take it to the courts, where problems can actually be solved by somebody with the power to do so. Bonus tip: Feel free to record, but note that it must be in a public place and not on private property without the owner's consent. Also, do not get in the way of the police or try to confront them, since that will just get you in trouble for obstruction of justice. Say nothing and just film it if you really must. All in all, it's good to know your rights, but it's very bad to have this entirely antagonistic approach to the police. If you really want to know what it's like to be a police officer, have a word with your local police and try to organise a ride-along, where you get to see what they do on a daily basis. They may not let you record it for privacy reasons (for the people they're arresting, not the officers), but usually they will let you come along.

[@draconianking]

slut4berniesanders 100% of people who hate police are criminals. Source: literally everyone who hates police commits misdemeanors or felonies on a daily.

[@Netbug009]

Heh. "Deep in the weeds." Nice transition.

[@littlewitchyfox]

"...even when I take the whisk out." Thanks, Craig.

[@mizukimuuu450]

Oh my gosh, it's not as rare that I meet someone with the same name as me, but it's a first to find someone else not famous who also spells it the same. So, I really wanted to say, "hi".

[@hsavietto]

In Brazil the breathalyzer test is considered a right to the driver to prove he/she is not drunk. If the police officer has enough reason to consider you are drunk (by the smell or the way you are talking) you are going to be charged for DUI, unless you use your right to take a breathalyzer test to prove you are not drunk.

[@00mazone]

Helder Savietto They do a sobriety test here first and if you fail you can take the breathalyzer. You do have a right to refuse but they will take you to jail and do a blood test. I have heard people who may be border line drunk should take this option since it will take more time to get a blood test done. I was a passenger in a car once and the guy driving got tested. He passed the breathalyzer so we got to go home.

[@aidanjt]

+Random “Internet” Person why bother with the sobriety test at all? the breathalyzer is faster and more accurate.

[@00mazone]

Not totally sure. Maybe to gather as much evidence as possible or maybe to test for other drugs besides alcohol.

[@jdw5956]

So you're considered guilty until proven innocent?

[@hsavietto]

JD Whitworth Yeah, it boils down to that. What happens is if it's you say against what the police officer says, the police officer will be right, because they have "public faith" (I don't know if this is the correct translation to english), so in some situations, a police officer testimony is enough to prove you guilty. In this case the breathalizer is your chance to prove you are not guilty.

[@josephgreer8819]

Can you do a segment on the 2nd Amendment? Specifically how case law has changed from the time of U.S. v. Miller (1939) to DC v. Heller? And an analysis of the text of the amendment?

[@mischacrossing]

I've never heard that speeding (or other minor traffic law violations) constitutes probable cause to search a car.. unless they reasonably suspect you're fleeing the scene of a crime, which isn't the case with most speeding situations. All the cops I've ever worked with have to get consent to search when there is no obvious probable cause, like a weed smell or a weapon/ drug just lying in the passenger seat. I live in Tennessee, so maybe other states have different definitions of probably cause?

[@sweetcindy4564]

mischa crossing you are correct. running late to work is not probable cause to search the trunk

[@NedWasHere94]

It would depend on the severity and nature of the speeding. For example if they caught you doing 90 in a 55 or you were super jumpy when you were pulled over. They could make the case that they had reason to probable cause to believe that you were trying to evade someone or had something in your system that made it dangerous for you to operate a vehicle. Another example would be a situation where the police could demonstrate that they had reason to feel threatened, like if you were aggressive and refused to comply with lawful instructions (such as keeping your hands on a steering wheel). But in that situation they would be limited in what they could search without your consent, so unless they open the door and a bunch of illegal drugs fell out, there wouldn't be much they can do. Good insight though.

[@spthibault]

Nah... officer discretion or how you look can come into play here. 🤔... speeding can be probable cause. I also live in TN, and worked in Law Enforcement. Same definition but the officer has to articulate why he/she did what they did in their report. Often pull someone, they act in a suspicious manner, pull from vehicle, talk to them and weigh the story, if the story is fishy start asking questions and doing a plain view search... if they act aggressively or defiant or the officer is working alone... cuff them and place in rear of cruiser while waiting for an assisting officer then do the plain view search. Maybe call for a drug dog to walk the vehicle if the totality of circumstances warrant it. If those things don't find anything, undetain the person and wave good bye. Lol

[@stellahoang6609]

@@spthibault in this case the officer can only do plain view? How about within arm's distance reach of where the driver originally was?

[@spthibault]

It depends on the totality of circumstances no matter how you slice it. People forget that speeding tickets arent receipts for bad driving they are in lieu of incarceration. Speeding is -at least in Tennessee- an arrest able offense. Things within arms reach while more likely to cause a problem for an officer but in reality everything in the vehicle is under the control of the captain of the vehicle. This logic is why even though someone else tossed a Mickey De's bag in the back of your truck at Walmart when you legally do the speed limit and it flies out you get a ticket for littering. Arms reach of the driver is usually a matter of open container or other activity along those lines. But all of that is really splitting hairs, the driver has ultimate responsibility for the operation of the vehicle no matter what they can/could have refused to drive or other tactic if they didnt want this responsibility.

[@Dignity100]

Thank you for sharing this important information. So many people don't know their rights and you are making a difference by educating them.

[@Corland44]

tbh, I'm in law school in a Civ Pro class, and while this won't help me with all of the specific exceptions that make the 4th amendment protections look like Swiss cheese, it's a great overview and very helpful as a refresher before my exam. thanks Crash Course!

[@CorneliusSneedley]

This episode is my favorite of the series.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Nice video. Thanks.

[@Dignity100]

Yes, it is; an important one, too!

[@Lildrummerboy714]

4:32 Thumbs up if you are an old school CC fan and miss this lmfao. Still never gets old

[@kubricklynch]

Great series, can't wait for the next one!

[@Dignity100]

Yes, very informaitve.

[@patrickhillery4922]

I'm pretty sure unless a police officer has some other reasonable suspicion (such as seeing drug paraphernalia in your car or smelling marijuana), a traffic violation isn't enough to allow a search of your vehicle. Although, if an officer asks if you mind them taking a look, and you don't assert your 4th amendment protected right, you're consenting "voluntarily" to a search, so anything they find is allowed to be used in court.

[@rrteppo]

They can look inside the vehicle and they can open doors if they think they see/smell something. What they can not do is open the glove compartment or the trunk without your express voluntary permission (in most states). The inside of the car is considered a public space because there are windows in all directions, but the compartments are considered private property because you need a key to gain any form of access (this is the legal reasoning that 90% of states go by).

[@raheelshaik2512]

@@rrteppo The inside of your car is not public. What is this, Communism? The police are enforcing the law, not visiting your 'public car".

[@rrteppo]

@@raheelshaik2512 by public they mean, if they can see a pile of cocaine sitting in shotgun while talking to you that counts as public because it can be seen by the public. anything found inside of a Trunk or anything that could require a key to access is private, and can't be searched for any reason without a warrant.

[@joshbobst1629]

I also drive a Prius, Craig! Isn't it great? My favorite thing about the Prius is not that it's saving the environment - a dubious claim, I think - and not that it gets great fuel economy - it does, but diesels do better and are more fun, with their gigantic low speed torque - but that its electric everything make it so cool. Everything in my car except the smog pump is electric, including the engine's water pump and the air conditioner compressor. This means my car can be "on" with the air running, for up to a half hour, without the engine ever coming online!

[@toddhall4309]

Well...there's a great deal of space between 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause'. Probable cause means that police have a very high degree of belief that a crime has been committed...and this usually facilitates an arrest on the spot. Reasonable suspicion means that police have reason to believe that a crime may have been committed (in the past) or that a crime will be committed (in the immediate future). These are quite different...and it's a very important distinction.

[@toddhall4309]

Probable cause isn't really the problem with civil rights. It's reasonable suspicion that is ambiguous from an enforcement standpoint.

[@guyshepard9658]

Comments here actually seem less ignorant than other channels. Could Crash Course hold the cure for the epidemic of stupid KZbin comments within their videos?

[@guyshepard9658]

***** It's always great to have a positive expectation of the comment section. Something that can't always be said for other channels where trolls seem to be getting the most attention.

[@Jazzshadow2]

***** At first I was going to let the comment slide in order to uphold the peace but that wouldn't be right so: What Creationism MYTH? I would like some clarification please Because according whatever dictionary Google pull it's definitions from you could be technically correct but by the same token you might be sadly mistaken.

[@DanteKael]

Guy Shepard Sorry buddy you just found a video that everyone can agree on.... Fuck tha police lol

[@brandtlucasbrandt]

Guy Shepard We are not at that stage yet.

[@guyshepard9658]

DanteKael Maybe if we did fuck em they'd chill out. Then we'd see videos on the internet of cops caught bumpin uglies in the backseat of their cruisers.

[@peterjohns7494]

Patriot act anyone?

[@ME-ng7rb]

Patriot act is an invasion of privacy

[@skylervanderpool3522]

Peter Johns patriot act supposedly is only to be use on foreign nationals that are suspected of terrorism. But i agree, there is a very slippery slope there. it could easily be interpreted in a way that could harm yours or my rights.

[@thelordofswag6618]

***** It was replaced with a less potent version which is less likely to interfere with privacy. The problem is that it intercepts all communications that go in or out of the US, which wouldn't be a problem except in our modern era, companies like google may send your email to the person sitting next to you through a foreign city, with the NSA picking it up. The law was well intentioned but far to vague for the age of information.

[@skylervanderpool3522]

totes agree man.

[@MartinBenek198]

Peter Johns Oh yea...

[@bryonwatkins1432]

Great video! People ALWAYS forget to include the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The courts, thought not often, use the Ninth Amendment to cover PRIVACY. When one is being unlawfully searched (occurs often), their PRIVACY is being invaded when we all are born with the EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Lastly, the Tenth Amendment, per its context, further strengthens that!

[@Dignity100]

I agree

[@seahawk124]

Damn, I've missed the Mongols being around.

[@Spartanz1170]

seahawk124 They wouldn't be the exception wouldn't they?

[@dustinhutchinson7337]

So, found WheezyWaiter a long time ago, an have been following and loving his videos very much, same with Crashcrouse and SciShow. So needless to say, seeing him on here was not only a jaw dropper but a sphincter tightener :D

[@tammysilverwolf1085]

Interesting stuff as always, thanks for putting in the time you do. You guys produce really interesting videos that're very accessible. :) Somewhat off topic, but I'm curious if you plan to touch on the Civil Asset Forfeiture program(s) used by many departments or if that's too specific for this course ( I suspect it is, but I was just curious! )

[@hviw]

Tammy Silverwolf I wish they would but I'm guessing they won't. It's kind of a big deal

[@caseyc408]

Something that should have been brought up is the difference between arrest, and detention. They are two very different things and most people don't know the difference. One requires probably cause and the other only reasonable suspicion of involvement or about to be involved in a potentially illegal activity.

[@pitpir1987]

the motor vehicle exception wasn't accurate. the police can not conduct a search based on a simple moving violation. they still need probable cause that there is something illegal in the vehicle. there just isn't a warrant requirement. other ways searches are conducted are search incident to arrest which generally covers what the person being arrested at the vehicle can reach for and if the car is impounded inventory searches are lawful. but to summarize moving violations that you can't be put in jail for do not reach the level for the police to conduct a search. in general though when a moving violation takes place, police will ask for consent and individuals with nothing or a lot to hide will give it.

[@tankcommander33]

there is no such thing as inventory search in reference to impounded vehicles. an inventory is required but that technically is not a search. I know I know, anything found is subject to prosecution. according to the legal definition it is only a vehicle inventory.

[@PinkChucky15]

I don't know if I would find these videos as fun if Craig wasn't the one hosting :-)

[@pwrserge83]

I like how you're counting to 10 skipping 2 and 3.

[@davidkimlive]

Heien vs North Carolina is a good example of expanding search and seizure that was decided just last year. And, yes, this does deal with discrimination too...

[@frondaro]

Dear crash course, can you do an episode on the indefinite detention clause of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act?in my uneducated opinion it might be the most rewarding subject to shed education on, thanks!

[@NickSheridanVids]

I love Craig and love a Prius, but when he said he had one I found myself yelling "Oh of COURSE he does."

[@MeisterHaar]

i germany police can't search your car easily but they will often ask to see your first aid box and breakdown triangle that everyone is required to have in his car, its usually in your trunk so they have an oportunity to take a look inside.

[@pjrt_tv]

that wasn't an eagle punch! that was a slap!

[@dagamerking]

Pedro Rodriguez I demand a redo!!!

[@jkkolham170]

Pedro Rodriguez Vote pedro!

[@Vhailor_Mithras]

Pedro Rodriguez He should be arrested for Eagle Abuse.

[@brandoncyoung]

very enlightening. thanks.

[@Dignity100]

Yes, it is.

[@kellieb.k.6397]

A friend was arrested at work on an arrest warrant for suspicion of theft. That night when he was being booked was told that he's also charged with poss with intent and para. He wasn't present when they found it and it was in a common area which dozens of people were in and had access to his bag . he hadn't been in that room for several hours. Can this stick?

[@ekezie86]

I wonder how many of y'all caught that jay-z reference

[@Dignity100]

HA!

[@yojohnyyo]

Craig is awesome.

[@thomasgabby6214]

Very enlightening

[@mjpanicali]

Ahhh...the Mongols...how I have missed you. I'm going to ASPCA on the eagle punching. This madness must stop!

[@sterlingarcher3857]

ASPCA? Is that like PETA, cuz just say PETA. It's more recognizable.

[@SigalStein]

The entitled, lower earning spouse asking for a consultation is likely to get silence. Their attorney is likely to sell them out because if statutes were followed everyone would settle out of court and no money for judges and attorneys. If the lower earning spouse feels that they won't hire an attorney unless they communicate clearly - here's what I experienced. Bonnie Shields appeared to be helpful and was working unbundled. She entered general representation without my knowledge. I read the Introduction to Rule of Professional Conduct (LexisNexis 2014) and there was a ruling stating that unbundled attorneys can enter general representation and do whatever they want on the record. The party has no access to the record except requesting that the court accept the attorney's Motion to Withdraw. That, at least was the law back in 2014 - the Supreme Court changes it weekly to prevent constituents from upholding their civil rights. After entering general representation Bonnie Shields' communications became muddled. The attorney then requests the appointment of a guardian ad litem. A party can't get their attorney dismissed for representing the interests of the opposing party - the rulings claimed its fine. A corrupt judge such as Angela Arkin will not dismiss an attorney. So then the party appeals. But if the attorney preemptively requests the appointment of a guardian ad litem - only the guardian ad litem can appeal. So the two attorneys and the guardian ad litem can rack up endless bills and the party is helpless. The judge gets kickbacks from all of this. She also traditionally removes the party from Permanent Orders and orders the wealthier party to pay the state funded guardian ad litem's fees a second time. She then closes the case, has the attorney hire a locksmith, enter the residence of the poorer party, steal the social security card, Xeroxes of I.D.s, medical and financial documents as well as titles, etc. The guardian ad litem now claims to have power of attorney. If the party appeals the GAL hijacks that litigation and creates endless bills again. All this, without tipping the public as to the correct law - something that a pro-se appeal could get onto a record. I'm giving away copies of my outdated appeal and story freely. The party is also instructed that they can request some of their stolen property back. If the do they get hit with an attorney bill because the case is considered closed (the attorneys and judges still use it - the courts decide whatever makes more money.) It sounds wild - but the judicial branch is unsupervised. Attorneys make their own terms of employment and if a judge feels the statutes get in her money making way she informs a justice. The Court Improvement Committee passes local laws and court rules to make all legislation irrelevant. Many of my friends told me they suffered the same scam by the attorney they hired. The judges intimidate them with fraudulent incarceration, mental hospitals, chemotherapy, etc. Judge Arkin created a 3 month schedule so that the statutes of limitation on the deniable domestic assault kicks in. She has always scheduled hearings around my husband's need to deny the domestic assault. It doesn't help with the injuries or medical bills. I worry that the GAL, Virginia Fraser Able will put me in prison for not taking chemotherapy. I don't have cancer. There is no medical documents showing cancer. But doctors are unregulated and I've seen one fraudulent medical document already. The judge could put me in jail anyway.

[@MrGeekGamer]

1:28 British cops. There are no known images of American police officers attempting to be civil.

[@guyshepard9658]

Have you seen that video of two British cops getting choked out at the same time by one guy. What does that imply about British police?

[@MrGeekGamer]

That they don't shoot people in the head for no reason. Next question.

[@fenrirthewolf5417]

I don think cops are accurate enough to shoot someone in the head. But regardless our police may kill us but britians is still as much if not more of a police state as the U.S.

[@MrGeekGamer]

Recent video footage would suggest that accuracy isn't an issue. The British police have no more right to search you, your home or your vehicle than the American police. They have to have reasonable grounds and/or a warrant.

[@merthyr1831]

Guy Shepard 1. What picture 2. You mean to tell me that every British police officer rolls over and lets criminals beat the shit into them, or American officers are hardmen who catch every criminal and never get hurt? You can watch police footage from Britain if you like, most of it's just watching someone whine over a speeding ticket or whatever, but never have I seen officers have to use lethal force to take down a criminal- bare hands and muscle does just fine. Besides, lethal force isn't illegal in the UK. It's allowed when raiding buildings which are suspected to have weapons (we *do* have SWAT teams), and of course in situations like terrorist/criminal hostage situations. Otherwise, if the suspect is dangerous but doesn't have a firearm, officers are armed with tasers anyway, which are still pretty dangerous. Someone in a few streets down the road was raided by police after murdering someone, and died after being shot in the eye.

[@SapphireCrook]

To append to that end statement: There's a reason why laws are subject to change instead of written in stone. As culture, circumstance, community and society change, so do the limits on what is and isn't acceptable. It's unreasonable to stripsearch everyone in a perfect utopia for no reason, but it's stupid to protest against searchwarrants against people involved in a violent riot. Not just the weather changes. So does America, and any country with its head screwed on the right way.

[@hellthiefchrolosnow6833]

Can you do a full Crash Course on Criminal Justice? For people studying to be in Law Enforcement

[@ineedagoodusernamebutfornow]

mongoltage. the person who does the closed captions for these videos need a raise

[@elfpvke]

I still remember the speech on the first day of school when they let us know that "at this school, you leave your Constitution at the door" . All thanks to 9 people feeling nostalgic for the days of one-room schoolhouses and corporal punishment. (Yeah, I know, not really, but a majority of the justices deciding TLO vs New Jersey were over 75 at the time..)

[@caseyc408]

Depending on the state you live in the the US, police need more PC (probably cause) to search a vehicle than a mere traffic violation. In NY for example there needs to be PC of another violation of law, or a search subsequent to a custodial arrest and or impound of the vehicle. Providing you're the driver, passengers there are other rules.

[@mbanana23456]

In NYC, being black is probable cause

[@caseyc408]

It's not actually, NYC has the same CPL and PL as the rest of the State. Anything other rhetoric you want to add?

[@mbanana23456]

Casey C the nycpd is infamous for being incredibly racist, new york state is probably not much better

[@caseyc408]

Really? I liberal city like New York? With so many black politicians, and police officers it's that racist huh? What makes it so? And you say probably for the rest of the state, but you have no idea do you. It just helps you justify your hate towards law officers and authority figures.

[@mbanana23456]

Casey C nycpd liberal? hahahahaha

[@iDomoPolyForums]

This was a very good vid, wheezy.

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

I'm white. I believe that gives me a near-immunity on that point.

[@SusanWojcucki]

Ha

[@lcmiracle]

***** Lucky you~

[@NaihanchinKempo]

***** And I'm a cripple my rights trump yours :P

[@sogghartha]

***** That isn't even remotely true.

[@carsontroeh127]

***** Finland is the whitest country in the world I think, officially. In West Europe its COMPLETELY different, lol.

[@dandixon7]

Most cases of speeding are not crimes. They are punished with a civil citation. There is no chance of going to jail. Police are still allowed to make a stop when they have reasonable suspicion of civil violation.

[@The1RosePhoenix]

I was kind of hoping there might be some discussion of TSA as they relate to search and seizure, but alas, probably a bit too sticky a topic for a Crash Course video, as there's a good bit of politics and emotion that go into TSA, and it's quite easy to upset people in a number of ways when you start looking at how they operate in relation to the fourth amendment.

[@YusufNasihi]

6:01 1000 ft? That's a bit excessive I think? That's like 300 m

[@Tfin]

***** Yes, it IS excessive. A local town, the county seat (where the county government is) has within its borders a single parking lot which is more than 1000 ft (304.8 meters) from something designated a "school." That's all.

[@YusufNasihi]

So you're saying that governments can't or shouldn't make rules apply outside its physical building?

[@Tfin]

What? No. You said it was excessive, and I agreed. That whole town is a "Drug Free School Zone" except for one parking lot. It's also the town with the most drug-related crime, so it hasn't helped any.

[@YusufNasihi]

R3Testa My apologies, I see now that you were referring to a certain example of the "1000 ft" rule in effect. That really shows that it's far too excessive.

[@dagamerking]

***** here in florida its only 300 ft and it applies only to advertisement. but i live cigar city USSA so whop de doo!

[@FlyingVolvo]

AM I BEING DETAINED?

[@toddhall4309]

The general way to say this to LEO's (law enforcement officers) is "Am I free to go?"

[@departed402]

Here are my possible explanations as to why CrashCourse skipped the Second Amendment: 1. CrashCouse has deemed that an episode about the Second Amendment would be boring and receive few views. (Though I personally think a 2A video would get lots of views from people just rolling in the read comments.) 2. CrashCouse is a channel intended for young people and an episode about firearms may be deemed inappropriate for young viewers. 3. CrashCourse has a neutral stance on the Second Amendment, but feels the comment section would contain a flame war with the intensity of a supernova. 4. CrashCourse is run by people who oppose personal firearm ownership and skipped it because: 4a. they're attempting to have the Second Amendment pass into obscurity through exclusion. 4b. they believe the SCOTUS's decisions in _D.C. v. Heller_ and _McDonald v. Chicago_ were errors, and don't want to make an episode acknowledging these "mistakes". 4c. The combination of Explanations 2, 4a, and 4b. (Basically, CC hate guns and doesn't want kids to think personal firearm ownership is positive in any way, shape or form).

[@codyjoe2442]

Yield term used for speeding is. A moving violation

[@kilroyfrills3084]

When you mentioned students and their backpacks are their vehicles unprotected also?

[@thelordofswag6618]

Corn Meister Depends, typically things on school property don't have the same protections, but this is all state and city laws, so it wildly varies.

[@JuanDVene]

+Fire Ferrett Depending on the school's reputation, and students' behavior, some schools will hold random mass searches of backpacks and lockers, to confiscate guns, drugs, dangerous objects, and obscene material. In primary education, medicine has to be reported to the school nurse, who administers the drug, based on written doctor's note. I don't know how colleges implement their drug policies though.

[@kilroyfrills3084]

I'm just hoping they don't find the knife I keep in my glove box.

[@roundmuffinjr4938]

What song is the intro..Holy that song is elite

[@Alverant]

You talked about searches, what about seizures like when cops seize your property and you have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get it back assuming you can in the first place?

[@jasonarmstrong7383]

Speeding does not equal probable cause to search. Also, the "Exclusionary Rule" and the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" are two different concepts.

[@SlimThrull]

Searching your trunk for a speeding ticket? That would be thrown out just about anywhere. Unless you gave consent, of course. Also, they generally CANNOT simply search your car if you've been pulled over. They need probable cause to do that. Of course, they can GET probable cause a number of different ways. However, simply being pulled over for a traffic ticket generally isn't one of them.

[@tompatterson1548]

Okay and legal are different things, it is not okay, or legal, but the courts aren't properly enforcing this law, and furthermore, students are protected by the 14th amendment (even if SCOTUS has yet to recognise this).

[@kd1s]

You do not have to CONSENT to the search though. Which is why you deal with police VERY carefully.

[@Alex-nl5cy]

Why does it actually matter if the search was illegal if the person has actually committed a crime, it doesn't change the fact a crime had been committed?

[@laurensimon3562]

What if the warrants are trying to search electronic communications and potential devices of people who are deceased...? How does that factor in to the ability of the DOJ to get a warrant to find some missing kids? I couldn't find any specific info on this.

[@humanp4th]

Yo you hired WheezyWaiter? That's so cool tbh

[@thegrandlevel313]

We often think about the bill if rights as it pertains to Police. But police didn’t exist when it was written. In fact, it was widely believed when the first police forces were formed, their existence was unconstitutional and that it violated posse commitatus

[@quinz8649]

You guys cant fool me, I saw that arm shadow under the white house in the beginning!

[@Goerno]

The ISP in the warrant at 1:35 was for the Silk Road lol

[@blueunicornhere]

Violating traffic codes are not necessarily a "crime". Usually it's a civil infraction which is a "tort".

[@jerryweng2095]

I'm Asian and has recently moved to the US. If one the police had a warrant to search my house, can I ask the officer to let read the warrant before the search? May sound like a stupid question but am grateful if someone could answer the question.

[@aserillll]

They'll usually give it to you first but they won't wait for you to read it before searching.

[@AndreRosario-zm8pf]

🌎🙏🙏🙏 No warrant. Attorney up always.

[@acidsniper]

We're skipping straight to the fourth amendment? I wanted to hear about the differences between the standard set in US v. Miller and how it differs from the standard set DC v. Heller and the how the two different approaches both uphold the NFA and the Gun Control Act of 1968 along with the thousands of other federal statutes involving gun regulation.

[@jonanthansalter9036]

what about drugs test/locker searches in private schools? ....i went to a private catholic high school and there was a big controversy on kids getting drug tested based off of a list of clients from a drug dealer's (also a student) phone confiscated by his parents

[@Beardman770]

will you make a video on the second amendment?

[@cookielamaproduction]

If there is going to be another video on this, can police search files on computers? Do they have to say which files(places) they want to search? How does this work?

[@rjkornegay]

Please, please, please don’t tell people that the police search’s of cars are usually legal. That is a misstatement of the law. Everyone has a right to refuse a search of there property. This is the take away for most people. NOT that police can just search your car. I really hope you amend this video.

[@theenigmaencoder92]

I honestly thought that their would be alot more anti-government comments

[@CaptainCore993]

I'm about to take an AP Goverment and Politics class as a junior.Do I need to have taken Civics as knowledge before hand? I'm worried that I will go into AP Gov & Politics with little to no before hand knowledge.If I don't need Civics then do you guys think these videos would help me?

[@aserillll]

I'm taking AP Government and Economics right now, I'm pretty sure you'll be fine. These videos are really helpful not just for classes but for general knowledge.

[@CaptainCore993]

Aseril Alright,I will see when I enter the class.Thanks for replying.

[@mleeman01]

Glad we're making our way through the Bill of Rights. Ignoring the Second Amendment won't make it go away CC. (Disappointing finger wag)

[@TrueSkyblueClouds]

I've just pictured a policeman busting down a door and immediately collapsing on the ground and having a seizure.

[@Madmok128]

You’re wrong about the traffic violation - probable cause relation. Violations give PC to detain you for the amount of time it would take to perform the duties of a traffic stop for said violation(s). To search the vehicle, they need probable cause not related to the violation (like plain view contraband). If you’re pulled over for speeding and the officer asks you to exit the vehicle, you have to (lock your doors before closing them after stepping out). If they can’t see anything in plain view that shows probable cause of committing a crime, they need to ask for your consent and you need to give consent to search for the search to be valid. If they don’t ask for consent and search and find contraband, that evidence and anything found after it is subject to the exclusionary rule in which a suppression motion can be filed; putting the burden of proof on the state to prove they did not violate your rights and if they can’t, the evidence will be excluded from any trial. In many drug cases the suppression hearing IS the trial.

[@Pokemonlin99]

What about TLO vs New Jersey?

[@roguedogx]

"you can't hide a car in your kitchen drawers" CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! (not really)

[@Avidman42]

What about a persons right to refuse a search?

[@TheRyanator5000]

Avidman42 That was addressed. The police needs a warrant.

[@yoloswaggins372]

Ryan Partlan no they need probable cause

[@dadovuemedia]

Also, if you are arrested, police do not need a warrant to search your home.

[@Volteer]

It seems so crazy that people can't be found guilty of a crime that they clearly committed just because the evidence was collected illegally... Wouldn't it be better to just punish the cops for the illegal search and still apply the evidence?

[@TheTimoprimo]

It's better to let one guilty person go free if it protects the innocent in the long run.

[@emperorcharlemagne369]

Isn't a warrant required for any government official to enter your property to search?

[@emperorcharlemagne369]

@Smart Cookie I thought so. I had a code enforcer trespass a week or so ago and I'm getting ready to fight them. I've researched it and they need a warrant as well, I just wanted to hear it from another person (no matter who).

[@gunnerr8476]

oh God,not the Mongols again.The flashback..

[@xavier1x982]

Hey wat u have against us?

[@beanstalkstudio]

Holy crap! I just stumbled upon this, since when does Wheezy Waiter do politics videos?? Happy discovery!

[@Dignity100]

Yes, it is!

[@codejackup]

I wonder if any criminals actually watched this video, and if any of them only watched to know if they could get away with something

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

The police can in some case search you... unless you are the Mongols.

[@ljmastertroll]

So when the school stripsearches you it is completely unwarranted?

[@aserillll]

You don't have those rights really when you're in school.

[@TheOswald42]

it is about gun....if a cop is nervous, please don't let the person hold a gun....most people are not trained to stay calm at all times....which make people tend act nervous when police point gun at them...and make the nervous cop shoot

[@creepernerd101]

I hope the cops don't find my illegal stash of memes

[@ryanbusillo1039]

I hope they do more about politics

[@LittleSpaceCase]

A minor traffic stop, such as as speeding, is not automatically probably cause.

[@benaaronmusic]

What are you trying to hide? Thanks for the Fourth Amendment information, Craig.

[@saheel97]

That "99 problems" reference doe ahahaha

[@christopher5888]

I completely disagree with drug testing in school but I think a search for drugs "on" their persons sounds perfectly fine. Especially with how intrusive some of these drug tests tend to be.