I used to get this treatment a lot when I was younger, with long hair and a beard, riding a motor cycle. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now. Street cops have to make split second judgements on how to relate to people they interact with. Most of the time they are talking to the dregs of society who only respond to aggressive language. Sometimes they guess wrong and this is the result.

I actually saw this on another site. It was reported to the LAPD who said it wasn't one of their officers.

But that she really didn't have a reason to ask for the paperwork in the first place is troubling.

I wonder if it would be appropriate, in addition to calling the LAPD, to also contact a lawyer.

Can't watch the video at work... so if it wasn't the LAPD, who was it?

Hey, Cousin Dave. It's a very short video of a lady cop who suddenly becomes belligerent. She asks "Where are you guys going from here?"
He responds by asking why he was pulled over.
She explains, he asks if he's free to go, and she replies in the affirmative, then asks "Where are you guys headed?"

He responds by asking if he's being detained or if he's free to go. That's when she gets belligerent, threatening to have him pulled out of car and she can search the car right then and there, maintaining that she can do this. She won't be able to use what she finds, but she can do it.

She then makes certain personal remarks, which are entirely inappropriate, blabity, blah, blah. You'll see it later, Cousin Dave, but that's the gist of the thing.

A friend of mine, who recently graduated law school and tutors classes on the law, had this to say:

"I do not consent but will not resist" then sue the shit out of them later you fight in court, not on the streets (this is literally a lesson I teach every class I tutor, low income students think rights violations allow immediate and physical response)

Ha! That's a good one - talking shit is when you say "Am I free to go or am I being detained?"

A good cop should be able to remain calm when someone doesn't respond the way the cop expect. This cop lost her cool.

That is an indication of someone who should not be a cop. I think this cop needs to "get the fuck out of here," and be off the force.

Gee, I wonder why the LAPD might say she's not their officer?

Two takeaways:

1) Record every interaction with the cops if it's legal in your state to do so (and it probably is)

2) Go to Flex Your Rights and order their videos "10 Rules for Dealing With Police" and "Busted: The Citizen's Guide To Surviving Police Encounters." Watch them. Instruct your children.

Never, never, never allow a police officer into your home or car without a warrant unless forced to do so. Never consent to a search.

Amy, if you check out my Facebook wall, you can see the other comments made. Including this one, from another friend of mine who also happens to be a lawyer. This is something that hadn't even occurred to me.

Interesting. She even knows the search she threatens is illegal because she explicitly says she wouldn't be able to use the results, so she knows the search would trigger the exclusionary rule. The search could be a violation of civil rights actionable against her individually, except she only threatened and didn't actually do it.

Makes me wish she actually did do the search she threatened. I would love to see some self-righteous prick of a cop paying out the wazoo for civil rights violations.

It makes me wonder why she made the threat at all if she knew it wouldn't be admissible. What was she trying to prove with that?

"Makes me wish she actually did do the search she threatened. I would love to see some self-righteous prick of a cop paying out the wazoo for civil rights violations."

So. How is this different - how is it that if the same two people had wanted to fly on an airplane, they MUST be searched and can be patted down?

Driving is a privilege, not a right. That's why your license can be revoked.

They could be carrying WMD in the car. Man-portable atomic bombs have been possible since the '60s, and a variety of chemicals suitable for killing can be in any trunk. Further, many more car bombs have killed people than anything in the air.

Right. Of course, my question reveals an interesting distinction by the quoted poster, who won't explain it because the question is too hard and he doesn't like me.

"Driving is a privilege, not a right. That's why your license can be revoked."

That's true, but at least in theory, searches related to your driving are limited to assuring that you are in compliance with traffic regulations. If you are, say, carrying a lot of cash in the car, the officer looking in your window and seeing the cash does not constitute grounds for a search under the terms of the license, since the cash is immaterial to complying with traffic regulations. Or maybe a better example: A traffic cop can demand to see your driver's license. He cannot demand to see all of your credit cards, since nothing about the credit cards has anything to do with traffic regulations.

(Note I did say "at least in theory". We all know how that's working out these days.)