One, one, one, that's a way,

I don't have a way, uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

You trying to be a street cop?

All right, just to address Paul Paul who was in the group and he's commenting on the

video that I put up yesterday regarding arresting for motor vehicle offenses and I

actually didn't mention State v. Lark in the previous video, but it exists as well.

I put a picture of it up in the groups, you can scroll down, you can read the verbiage on that.

And in Lark, and I'm going to just touch on a few different things here.

Let me just go back to it on my computer here so I can verbatim, read it to you.

In Lark, the court said, where the driver's without a license and persist concealing his identity,

an officer may then either continue to detain the driver

for further investigation or arrest the driver

under 393-10 or 329.

So for the people who are watching that Iran estate, 310 is an licensed driver and 329 is failure to provide documents.

And it's such as this one, a driver's without a license and offers false information in a response to a reasonable police inquiry, there exists a sufficient basis for the police officer to detain the driver for questioning until the officer learns the true identity, the driver, assuming that the driver persists and concealing his or her identity and there

appears to be no other reasonable alternative.

The police officer may then take the driver's custody.

Again, consent decrees from cases that you will experience, the field that go up to the Supreme Court level,

this is what's decided, this is what you're told you aren't supposed to be doing or allowed to do in these circumstances.

So people will say, you know, you could believe or not. I think one goes like a post it. He goes like, oh,

Supervisors head would explode. Your Supervisors head would explode, but it's in case law. It that's legal I'm not making this up I

...