I'm going to record this live on YouTube right now. >> What the? >> Show me your head. >> What the >> You're under arrest. Open the door. >> Mike. Mike, stop. Use this. >> You're under arrest. Open the door. >> Step out. You're getting hosed. Step out now. Step out now. >> So, the next time a police officer orders you out of a vehicle and you're asking if that's legal for him or her to do so, the answer is, "Yeah, it is." >> Yeah, it is. Infused with power in their misunderstanding of a particular Supreme Court ruling, cops believe they have the right to do this to Americans. >> Like to leave right now. >> Am I free to go? >> versus battle. Traffic infractions are not crimes. Please do not attempt to assault me or or my property. >> Please do not touch my property, ma'am. There's been no crime committed. [Music] They're damaging the the property and this isn't even my property. >> I do not consent to any unlawful searches and seizures. Step out of the vehicle [Music] to my right. Step out of the car or I'm taking you out of the car. >> You're taking me out of the car for what? >> Nope. >> Nope. >> You really did it. >> Now you're under arrest for assault. >> Assault. Get out of the car. Police officers love the perceived fact that they have the hammer and chisel of Pennsylvania versus Mims to chip away and wipe away all of your rights at revenue generating corporate traffic stops. In spite of the fact that the judicial branch does not create legislative authority for the executive branch, which is the branch of government cops fall under. Here's Dennis Bonino, the owner of Street Cop Training, expressing his approval of his understanding that Pennsylvania versus Mims gives a green light by the Supreme Court to cops so that they can ignore unalienable rights. Do the police violate the Fourth Amendment by asking the driver and passenger out of a vehicle on a traffic stop without any reasonable suspicion? The answer is no, they don't. See, in 1977, there was a US Supreme Court case called Pennsylvania v. Mims. And in that case, they said that police could order a driver out of a vehicle any time during the course of a traffic stop, namely for safety reasons. 20 years later, a US Supreme Court case called Marilyn v. Wilson comes out and they held the Mims test against passengers and cars. And the court said the same rule applies. So, the next time a police officer orders you out of a vehicle and you're asking if that's legal for him or her to do so, the answer is yeah, it is. >> Yeah, it is. Keep in mind, the Supreme Court does not and cannot create police powers. Yet, cops and members of the public perceive and believe that the high court has granted cops the power to order them out of the car. And they love reminding you that the Supreme Court has their back. >> No, no, no. I'm giving you a cordial I'm giving you an order so that we can have a cordial conversation. >> An order? >> Yes. I'm giving you a lawful order that you need to step out of the car. >> What I'm saying is when you're on a traffic stop, >> I have the right to ask you to step out of the car to talk to a traffic stop at like correct. What I'm explaining to you is yes, it's Pennsylvania versus Mims is a Supreme Court case law that says on any traffic stop, I have the right as a police officer, as long as I have you lawfully detained, which I do on two moving violations to ask you to step out of the car to talk to. >> What are the moving violations? >> Improper lane usage and improper turn. This might surprise a lot of people, but to date, no legislator in any state has passed any legislation granting the police the power to order a driver out of a vehicle during a traffic stop. Because of article 1, section one of the US Constitution, which is supposed to still be the supreme law of the land, only the legislative branch can enact statutes, not the judicial branch. It's the same with the states. The Supreme Court ruling Pennsylvania versus Mims simply states that it would not be unconstitutional for legislators to pass a law allowing police officers to order drivers out of their vehicle. But there is no law that's been passed and therefore police do not have the statutory authority and citizens do not have the statutory obligation to comply with the command to exit the vehicle. Unfortunately, because we happen to live in a world where perception trumps reality, if you fail to get out of the car, they'll break your window, drag you out, and charge you with obstruction and resisting. Legally speaking, if a person was arrested for not exiting the vehicle, they could simply file a motion to dismiss based on the grounds that the police did not have statutory authority to order the driver out. The problem is the state courts will probably defer to the Supreme Court ruling in Pennsylvania versus Mims. Cops believe that Pennsylvania versus Mims is their statutory silver bullet, but it's not. And practically speaking, it doesn't really matter. Why? Because the psycho who wants you out of the car for no reason at all has a gun and the backup of other psychos who believe that he's right, even when they're wrong. And it will always be dangerous to be right when the government is so wrong. This is my challenge to you in this video. Try to find the statute that gives cops the authority or the statute that compels a citizen to exit their vehicle. It's not there. The legal reality is the Supreme Court does not create law or police powers. All of that is specifically done by legislators and the Supreme Court cannot do that. People who think that the Supreme Court empowered police or gave them authority have a misunderstanding of the branches of government. So, just to recap before we get into Pennsylvania versus Mims, no statute explicitly compels drivers to exit a vehicle, and most states lack specific statutes granting police authority to order exits. The problem is Pennsylvania versus Mims from 1977 and Maryland versus Wilson from 1997 gives officers the faulty perception that they can legitimately order drivers and passengers out during so-called lawful traffic stops for safety reasons. And that's all based on the Supreme Court's faulty interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Believe it or not, the court doesn't directly authorize or empower police in the sense of creating new powers like a legislature would. Instead, it defines what actions are constitutionally permissible by interpreting the Fourth Amendment by ruling that exit orders are constitutional. The general understanding is that the court effectively permits the police to act within those bounds and the officers rely on these rulings to justify their unconstitutional actions. This isn't the court granting power, but clarifying what police can quote legally do without infringing on constitutional protections. And because people believe black robe tyrants to be gods, they take their word as Bible truth. Because the fact is that every corporately empowered traffic stop is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. So Pennsylvania versus Mims tells us when Harry Mims was pulled over, it was the officer's general practice to order all drivers out of their vehicles, no matter the reason for the stop. So, here's the quick backstory to this. In 1970, two police officers from the Philadelphia Police Department pulled over a vehicle driven by Harry Mims for an expired license. The officers instructed Mims to exit the vehicle, and when Mims complied, an officer noticed a bulge in his pants under his jacket. He conducted a patown and discovered a weapon. The officer proceeded to arrest Mims for carrying a concealed deadly weapon and unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license. Charges from which Mims was later convicted. But the conviction was reversed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on March 31st, 1975 because they ruled that the evidence should have been suppressed because the police had violated Mim's Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure. But the United States Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's reversal, upholding the original conviction on the grounds that no violation of the Fourth Amendment had occurred. The ruling said, quote, "The state argues that this practice was adopted as a precautionary measure to afford a degree of protection to the officer and that it may be justified on that ground." The court argued, quote, establishing a face-to-face confrontation diminishes the possibility, otherwise substantial, that the driver can make unobserved movements. This in turn reduces the likelihood that the officer will be the victim of an assault. In other words, and these are my words, while the hardworking public is being ironically victimized by their protectors and servants during a roadside shakeddown under the faux legitimacy of corporate traffic codes. The court has ruled that they don't want cops to be victimized in return while they're busy doing the victimizing on the rest of us. The court says that the safety of the officer is quote legitimate and weighty. And they claim that quote according to one study approximately 30% of police shootings occur when a police officer approached a suspect seated in an automobile. And if that's true, then there's an easy remedy to take that 30% number to zero. Maybe cops should become actual peace officers and stop pulling people over for unconstitutional reasons. Obviously, people are sick of being harassed and robbed at gunpoint and some decide to take matters into their own hands. But check this out. The court states, quote, "The hazard of accidental injury from passing traffic to an officer standing on the driver's side of the vehicle may also be appreciable in some situations. Rather than conversing while standing exposed to moving traffic, the officer prudently may refer to ask the driver of the vehicle to step out of the car and off onto the shoulder of the road where the inquiry may be pursued with greater safety to both. Basically, the courts and the cops admit that when they pull us over, they're putting our safety and their own at risk. I thought they were there to protect and serve us. How can they be protecting while they're subjecting us to serious danger? And the courts won't answer that because they don't have to. Why? Because they answer to no one. The 1803 case of Marberry versus Madison, in which the High Court granted itself to be the final arbittors and gatekeepers for interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, is really the beginning of all the legalized evil we've seen spread like cancer across America. Harry Mims was stopped for a freaking expired tag. It wasn't until he stepped out of the car upon demand that the cops saw a bulge under his jacket and found a loaded 38 revolver. The passenger was also found to be in possession of a gun, a .32 revolver. They were charged for quote carrying a concealed deadly weapon and for unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license. And what this effectively means is that neither the cops nor the courts value or respect or recognize the Second Amendment. So of course, it's no surprise that they would create the unconstitutional Pennsylvania versus Mims ruling and that cops would view it with the same devotion that Christians view John 3:16. Of the millions of traffic stops that occur every year, what percentage of those pose a risk to officer safety? Do the parents of a car full of children on their way to Sunday school pose the same risk as a man who just led the cops on a 50minute high-speed chase? How about the elderly grandma? Are you telling me that she has to exit her warm car on a cold, rainy night just so she can quell the fears of a quivering law enforcer? A Kevlarvested armed law enforcer? Are they really that scared? Let me propose a crazy idea. If officer safety is that important, why don't we suspend all traffic stops for officer safety? And if the issue in Mims is officer safety, maybe it'd be a good idea to immediately ask the cop who pulled you over and approached your car, "Are you a scared cop or are you a brave cop? Do you fear for your safety at this moment, officer?" If he says he doesn't fear for his safety, then asking you to get out of your car after this admission would be beyond the scope of Pennsylvania versus Mims. Right. In my opinion, Pennsylvania versus Mims demonstrates just how little the black robe tyrants of the Supreme Court and the cops value our liberties. Traffic stops in the cop's eyes and in the court's eyes trump the constitution, which makes it all a con. Leave your thoughts about this for the world and the global thought police in the comments section below. If you like these videos, check out my memorizing rights and laws playlist. You can just play these over and over again until they're firmly planted in your mind. You've got 18 USC 241 conspiracy against rights. 18 USC 242 deprivation of rights under color of law. 42 USC1 1983 civil action for deprivation of rights unassalable free man memorizing USC 241242 and 42 USC 1983. We've got the memorization of the first amendment, wraps, raps, religion, assembly, petition, press, and speech. Got the memorization of the second amendment, the 3rd, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments all the way up to the 10th amendment. If you have others you want me to add, just leave a comment in the comment section below. I'll see you in the next video. [Music]