The reason why I asked you guys to pull over is because three of your buddies have pursued off of me. >> Wait, let me get this straight, officer. You're admitting right here on camera that you're pulling us over because of what somebody else allegedly did? >> So, you're not going to give me your ID. Now, that's a problem. Why are you going to stay here and argue with me? >> Because what have I done wrong? >> Imagine pulling innocent people over and harassing them for something someone else supposedly did. This video shows a female California Highway Patrol officer detaining a group of motorcyclists solely because other riders in what appeared to be their group accelerated away at high speeds, according to her. She admits that the stop's purpose is to investigate the fleeing riders by questioning and IDing those who complied and pulled over. Basically, this chick wants to penalize these riders after they submitted to her demand to pull over. And one of the riders was vocal. He repeatedly asked, "What have I done wrong?" And like a good American, he refused to provide identification citing no observed violation on their part. And of course, the female authoritarian escalates this by framing refusal to ID as the new problem. "You're refusing a lawful order and you need to comply." While the other riders also push back on the detention's legality. Let's take a look at this and then make some follow-up comments. >> The reason why I asked you guys to pull over is because three of your buddies have pursued off of me. So, you guys all ramped on together at 89. So, I want to see what's going on with the three that just decided they could just take off. >> How we going >> I waved them off and everything. 120 mph, gone. Passed on the shoulder. >> Can't tell you what they're thinking. >> Okay, well, what's their name That's what I want to know. >> Can't tell you that either. >> You don't know that? >> Who is it? This is just an acquaintance of yours. >> What's that? >> I just know him from riding. >> Okay. Can I get your guys' IDs, please? >> For what? >> I'm stopping you. >> I haven't done anything wrong. >> Okay, well, I have to know that I stopped you. >> No. >> So, you're not going to give me your ID. Now, that's a problem. >> Okay. >> So, I'm asking >> that I have to show my ID. I haven't done anything wrong. What did I do wrong? >> Why are you going to sit here and argue with me? >> Because what have I done wrong? >> I saw >> What did I do wrong that I did to you? >> Because you were all riding together. >> I've done nothing wrong. >> Look, man, I just want to write down your license, that's it. I'm not trying to write you a ticket. Just be cool with it. >> I understand. I'm just not trying to give it to you. I haven't done anything wrong. What have I done? >> What's that? >> Nothing at all. >> No. >> I'm detaining you? >> I'm detaining you. >> For what? >> For what? For what crime have you committed? >> How do you Did you have associated with anybody? >> Don't be like them, dude. Do not leave. Do not leave. >> Tell me what I've done wrong. >> I'm giving you a lawful order. You're refusing to identify yourself. That's the problem. >> It's not a It's not a law. >> Do not leave. >> I have I've done something wrong, then I have to give my ID. Otherwise, I >> something wrong right now. >> That does not matter. That's not the fact. That's because you're pressuring me for my ID. >> Because I have the right to identify you. I have the right to identify you. I have a right to identify you. >> This is so worth going over again. So, the officer's rationale was the group was riding together, some fled aggressively, and she needs the names and IDs so that she can know what's going on. And she needs to write this down in her report, so she needs your ID. She's got to document the stop. She's not going to issue any tickets or anything, but you do have to give up your rights because I'm giving you a lawful order when it wasn't even a lawful order. And what was the response of these riders? They stopped voluntarily, but they asserted that there was no reasonable suspicion for their detention and there was no obligation to identify or assist this CHP power tripper in her investigation of the other riders. So, what does the officer do? Of course, she grows frustrated and then she escalates, issuing orders and calling it a lawful order, which is a total lie. The riders remained calm but firm with some laughter at the circular reasoning from the power tripping CHP officer who's just pulling stuff out of her ass. Basically, what she's saying is, "I stopped you guys so that I could figure out who the guys are who didn't stop." So, let's go over it again and I want to point some things out. >> You guys were pulled over because three of your buddies pursued off repeat. >> I pulled you guys over because of what some other guys did. Makes a whole lot of sense, officer. >> So, you guys all ramped on together at 89. So, I want to see what's going on with the three that decided they should just take off. >> Uh we can't >> I lit them up and everything. 120 mph, gone. >> So, now it's guilt by association because you guys were riding with them, I decided to pull you guys over. You know, thanks for complying. The other guys didn't comply, so give me their names. Give me their license numbers. Give me some information I can go on so I can get them. Oh, and if you don't comply with me and give me your ID, I'm going to get you. >> Cops on the shoulder. >> Can't tell you what they're thinking. >> Okay, well, what's their names? What I want to know. >> Can't tell you that, either. >> You don't know their names? >> No, this is what friends do. >> What's that? >> I just know them from riding. >> Okay. Can I get their guys ID, please? >> For what? >> I'm stopping you. >> I haven't done anything wrong. >> Okay, well, I have to know that I stopped you. >> No. >> So, you're not going to give me your ID. Now, that's a problem. >> Okay. >> So, I'm asking you for your ID. All right. >> ID. I haven't done anything wrong. What did I do wrong? >> You're going to sit here and argue with me. >> Because what have I done wrong? >> You're going to sit here and argue with my tyranny. You're going to sit here and resist and assert your American rights, will you? Well, what if there's a penalty in it for you for doing that? I have a lawful order. I'm not out on a limb by any stretch of the imagination, and you're going to comply with my authority. >> I stopped you. >> What have I done to you? >> Because you're the law. >> I love this part right here. All that I have to show you my ID. I haven't done anything wrong. What did I do wrong? >> You're going to sit here and argue with me. >> Because what have I done wrong? >> I stopped you. >> What have I done to you? >> What have I done wrong? She says, I stopped you. No, ma'am, that's what you did wrong. What have I done wrong? >> It's all right here. >> I've done nothing wrong. >> Look, man, I just want to write down your license. That's it. I'm not trying to write you a ticket. Just be cool with it. >> Just be cool with it. Just be cool with my tyranny. All I'm trying to do is get your information illegally, unconstitutionally, and I need you to be cool with that. >> Ma'am, I'm just not trying to give you my ID. I haven't done anything wrong. What have I done? What have I done? >> What's that? >> What have I done? >> No. >> I'm detained? I'm detained? >> For what? >> For what? Turn the lights off. Turn the lights off. I'm not committed. How do you tell if you're associated with anybody? >> Don't be like this, dude. >> She says, don't be like this, dude. Don't stand for your rights like this, dude, standing for his rights. I don't need any more trouble out of you guys today. >> Do not leave. Do not leave. >> Tell me what I've done wrong. >> leave. >> I feel you got a >> order. You're refusing to identify yourself. That's the problem. >> It's not a It's not a legal >> Do not leave. >> If I've done something wrong, then I have to give my ID. Otherwise, >> something wrong right now. >> No, the only person doing anything wrong in this video is the female CHP officer. >> That doesn't matter. That's That's the fact. That's because you're pressuring me for my ID. >> I have a right to identify you. Yes. I have a right to identify you. >> Nope, she does not have a right to identify anyone if she doesn't suspect that they've committed a crime. See, it's encounters like this that create the core tension in US constitutional principles, particularly Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the protection of your right to be secure in your person. The right to be free from arbitrary government interference. There's supposed to be at least a reasonable suspicion requirement from Terry v. Ohio back in 1968, where police need specific, articulable facts of what, Brian? That suggests criminal activity is a foot. That's the only way you can detain and identify somebody. Right here, the officer openly bases the stop on guilt by association with other riders who didn't comply with her authority. The other riders sped away, so these riders must be investigated. The problem with this CHP officer's circular reasoning is that riding in a group isn't inherently suspicious, and mere presence near others' potential violations doesn't automatically create reasonable suspicion for anybody. Besides, haven't the courts rejected broad group stops without individualized suspicion cuz if it wasn't rejected then basically there are no limits on dragnet tactics which is exactly what this is. This officer's admission that the stopped riders have done nothing wrong undercuts her entire justification for the stop. But no, she has to be miss "Papers, please. I need your papers. I need to conduct this investigation." In the 2004 case Hiibel versus the Sixth Judicial Court, states can require identification during a lawful Terry stop if there's a specific statute. But also only if reasonable suspicion already exists that the person you're stopping has committed a crime. A lot of jurisdictions, including California, don't have a general stop and identify law applying to mere detentions without suspicion of that crime. And you got to understand that refusing to ID isn't automatically obstruction if the initial stop lacks basis. And this stop definitely lacks basis. And this cop admits that it lacks any kind of basis. I mean, this rider repeated, "What crime have I committed?" And there was no logical answer. Demanding ID to fish for associations risks turning routine group riding into de facto registration and surveillance and demand for ID. And don't Americans have the right to travel and associate without presumptive criminality? Motorcycling in groups shouldn't expose everyone to detention if some members act recklessly. This is nothing more nothing less than overbroad policing. It'd be like stopping all cars because one car fled or profiling by appearance or vehicle type. It just erodes presumption of innocence and innocent until proven guilty. The CHP officer was assuming all the motorcyclists were guilty or she never would ask for the ID of the innocent motorcycle riders. I know the female cop doesn't want it to be like this, but the Constitution prioritizes individual liberty over investigative convenience. I need you to just be cool with my tyranny or hey, I need to identify you for investigative purposes doesn't erase in alienable rights. And escalating a weak stop into obstruction charges often fails in court when body cams come out because that's what really shows the initial detention's flaw. This female cop was obviously frustrated over the riders who managed to outrun her and she was giving off that strong retaliation vibe. And we love to see this because it openly undermines her own assumed legitimacy. From the freedom standpoint, the riders have a very strong argument that this was an unlawful detention. And it's a good thing this guy was recording it because cops lie and cameras don't. There was no observed violation by them. There was no warrant and there was no emergency. Just proximity to other riders who allegedly sped away. Complying minimally or asserting rights like these riders did protects broader liberties against guilt by association policing. Now, having said all that, in practice, prolonged refusal can lead to arrest, towing, or escalation even if you're later vindicated. Recording like these guys were doing is crucial for accountability. This isn't isolated. Videos just like this one spark debates about qualified immunity, training on constitutional limits, and public frustration with perceived power trips. It really highlights why so many view aggressive traffic enforcement, especially protectual or associative stops, as a threat to the live and let live ideal of American liberty where government must justify intrusions rather than Americans proving their innocence. And this strong pushback by this writer reinforces that cops are supposed to serve the public, not vice versa. Leave your thoughts about this in the comments section below. I want to hear what you have to say about it. Also, if you like these videos, like this video, share this video, definitely comment under the video, subscribe, hit the bell notification icon. Maybe grab a shirt if you want to support further, the links are in the description. But more importantly, understand that the price of freedom is now always be eternal vigilance. And indifference to this notion is the means by which the people have and will secure their own oppression. Let's stop securing our own oppression, start recording, and let's start today. I'll see you in the next video. >> [bell]