Can’t wait to see what the “panels thst that offer context about it’s history” will say…

Well dont I look the fool. I’m pissed off now, I didn’t watch the video. Inhave seen like 3 where tthisnsame judge throws out the case based on an illigal stop. Ill find them tomorrow. As to yoir question, you keep leaving oit the illigal part. Yes, not providing ID is an offence if the initial stop is legal. Now you are again correct, the officer does claim that the driver wasn’t wearing a seat belt, so I suppose the initial stop can be justified, which makes refusing to ID an offence.

Well, I watch the video when it camentonlohht a fewndays ago, I don’t remember anything about the aeatbelt. But the reason the officer gave to the driver was driving without headlights in inclement weather, which would only be a violation if the weather were inclement, which it wasn’t, and the driver states that. The officer doesn’t get to change his mind as to the reason for the stop, thats well established in law.

As to physically resisting, the driver did not physically resist, he passively resisted, refusing to unlock the car door andnexit the vehicle. He didn’t at any point lay hands on the officers.

A stop where the initial stop was deemed unconstitutional: Here’s one . The first one on YouTube. I admit I haven’t watched this one, but then same judge is on YouTube presiding over dozens of similar cases, and there are many other similar videos.

Is driving without headlights in daytime illigal in Florida? That is the stated reason for the stop. If that is not in fact, illigal, then the stop is illigal. Regardless if the officer thinks it’s illigal.

As an analogy, lets say an officer stopped you for wearing your backpack on your left shoulder, which he says is in violation of some ordinance. Is that a legal stop?

And to answer yoir question, if you find footage where the initial stop was deemed unconstitutional, but the subsequent conviction fir failing to ID stands, I will accept that I am wrong.

Please show me some evidence of an illigal stop leading to an arrest and conviction on the charge of the original stop,or failure to ID.

Im the video you cite (guy in Texas holding signs?) the officers ask for ID and he refused because they have no legal basis to ask him. Similarly in the Florida traffic stop, the officers have no legal basis fir the stop. End of story. You no more have to comply with police, when they are not legally executing their duties, than you do with any random stranger on the street asking for your ID.

The Florida guy was not stopped on suspicion of having committed a crime, because driving without headlights during the day is not a crime. Therfore there is no legal basis for the officer to demand ID. If you think that the officer _thought _ driving without headlights is a traffic violation , and was therfore justified in the stop, you just overturned the 4th amendment, as any officer could claim they thought x or y is a crime and therfore stop anyone yhey choose, for any reason they choose.

You see you your interpretation of the law strips you of your 4th amendment rights? You are saying that the police have the right to stop and ID anyone at anytime.

The stated reason for the stop is driving without headlights on in inclement weather. Its not raining, its full daylight, a bit overcast. In my opinion the stop is not justified, so the officer has no legal basis to ID the driver.