Injoker
Matthew "Ken,Kenny,Kennedy,Kennith" Kennedy
 
 
⠀⠀⠀ "We the unappreciated, Must do the unimaginable,
⠀⠀ And see the unthinkable, To protect the ungrateful"

Currently Online
Artwork Showcase
City Middle
Achievement Showcase
1,582
Achievements
23%
Avg. Game Completion Rate
Sovereign Citizen Movement Class
To start we will go back to 8th grade Social Studies Class, The Articles of Confederation did give you freedom of travel, which makes a law enforcement officer stopping you illegal. Yes I said it, according to the Articles of Confederation a Law Enforcement Officer cannot legally stop you, this would obstruct your freedom of travel. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation were also ratified on March 1, 1781, we now follow this thing called the United States Constitution, which does not guarantee that same right.

Ok first things first, COPS DON'T NEED TO READ YOUR MIRANDA RIGHTS EVERYTIME YOU ARE ARRESTED! YOU WILL NOT GET LET OFF IF A COP DOESN'T READ THEM YA IDIOT! The key words here are "before police questioning" and "in response to interrogation". This means you must be under arrest, AND you must be being questioned about the crime you are being accused of. This second one doesn't apply if the crime is still an ongoing emergency circumstance.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court. In a 5–4 majority, the Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.



What's that? It's a siren shit you are being pulled over! I know you like to believe that it is a violation of your rights for a law enforcement officer to order you out of your car, but it actually isn't! Meaning you can be arrested for refusing a lawful order and/or Obstruction of Justice if you do not get out of your car!

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.



Also, your girlfriend/boyfriend/insert gender pronoun here filming you educating a cop about something we ratified over 200 years ago can also be pulled out of the car sorry!

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1999)

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1999), In this case we consider whether the rule of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle, extends to passengers as well. We hold that it does.



I also know you guys love to do dumbass shit like this , fun fact them doing the felony arrest on you is 100% legal I am sorry sovereign citizen. Walking into a Police Department with a gun counts as, "or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." "

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark case argued by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."



Also back on the topic of traffic stops, when the bork bork nom nom comes out and does his little alert on your car, they don't need a warrant anymore!

Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013)

Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics, under the specific context of whether law enforcement's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That concludes today's lesson. Stop being a sovereign citizen libtard thank you for your cooperation!

P.S. Black's Law Dictionary is not a legal document, nor is it a law. You citing it means absolutely fucking nothing on a traffic stop!
Favorite Game
2,715
Hours played
Screenshot Showcase
Items Up For Trade
2,135
Items Owned
99
Trades Made
253
Market Transactions
Achievement Showcase
1,582
Achievements
23%
Avg. Game Completion Rate
Favorite Guide
Created by - Spongeass
690 ratings
ur m0m
Favorite Group
Unit5.org - Public Group
Only the best school system!
14
Members
0
In-Game
4
Online
0
In Chat

Recent Activity

523 hrs on record
last played on Oct 14
247 hrs on record
last played on Oct 12
2,715 hrs on record
last played on Oct 12
kitsune Dec 9, 2018 @ 1:44pm 
Theres no word to tell you how awful and ♥♥♥♥♥♥ of a player you are, seriously. lmfao its just funny
Justic11 Dec 8, 2018 @ 12:01pm 
Theres no word to tell you how awful and ♥♥♥♥♥♥ of a player you are, seriously. lmfao its just funny
Majer Apr 6, 2018 @ 8:46pm 
Theres no word to tell you how awful and ♥♥♥♥♥♥ of a player you are, seriously. lmfao its just funny
Perfection [TC] Feb 1, 2018 @ 7:57am 
Theres no word to tell you how awful and ♥♥♥♥♥♥ of a player you are, seriously. lmfao its just funny
LevelCake Jan 25, 2018 @ 11:00pm 
Theres no word to tell you how awful and ♥♥♥♥♥♥ of a player you are, seriously. lmfao its just funny
Ovicron Jan 13, 2018 @ 8:53am 
Theres no word to tell you how awful and ♥♥♥♥♥♥ of a player you are, seriously. lmfao its just funny