One, one, I'm going to be on the way.

A-1-1.

You trying to be a hot-up.

You trying to be a street cop?

All right, welcome back everybody. Today I'm going to be revisiting Stiebous Camillo.

We talked about the difference between Stie and Stie Vritt the other day.

I'm doing this on my cell phone, not usually, I usually go to my tablet tablet so the phone rings and it cuts off and

please nobody call me and my friends who are watching who think would be cute to call me and cut my

video off I'll kill you. So we're going to State into State v Camille 2005.

And this is the case that said that a person who refused

to answer the questions of a state trooper

who needed his information to complete an incident report was not

found guilty of obstructing the administration law, wasn't found guilty on 2C29-1, and

I'm going to try and explain this to you have some stuff highlighted in here and

hopefully you guys get this so you don't

get caught up in this exact scenario you know how to approach it correctly if it does present

itself to you. Now, I had this conversation you had a day with another guy and we were discussing it and I said you know likely it's very

unlikely that somebody's going to be hip to this game of refusing to answer

questions or provide their information during the requirement to fill out an incident report.

So right here it says, in this appeal, the question presented is whether the defendant's refusal

to provide his name, date of birth, and social security number to a state trooper who required the information of a incident report constitute an obstruction of the administration of law pursuant to NJA2C-29A. We concluded the facts of this case, it did not. And consequently we

reverse the defendants March 24, 2004 conviction of that offense. So basically what happens

...