Philosophically I agree with you. I was just discussing a technological way to accomplish age verification without giving up users’ identities to a service provider, or the government knowing what service you’re using. Unfortunately, too many governments want to know what you’re doing inside your pants.

Oh, I was thinking the certificate would only be needed for signups - once the account is created, it absolutely should be on the account holder, not the service provider.

The service provider could even generate a certificate request that the age verification entity signs (again, with no identifying information, other than “I need an age verification signature, please”). That certificate would only be valid for that specific service provider and can’t be re-used.

Bleh, you’re right, they did provide the infraction, even though it was BS (it was cloudy, but it was not raining). I still think the excessive force gives him a pretty decent chance at winning.

I suppose I was making a more general argument that may or may not apply to this case. I am just uncomfortable telling people “just comply, or you’ll make things worse,” even if pragmatically that might be true.

That is true, but if the court decides it was unlawful, then the failure to identify charge will also be dropped.

Yeah, I saw that after I replied. That doesn’t change the fact that ID is only required if the stop itself is lawful. Officers can’t just pull anyone over because they “feel like it,” otherwise the traffic stop itself is unlawful.

Obviously he would have had a much better time if he complied, but that’s a pragmatic solution, not a legally required one. Unless the officers can show to a court what offense warranted the traffic stop in the first place, failure to identify is not by itself an offense.

Also, the video didn’t appear to be making a sovereign citizen argument, just asking why he was pulled over. Pulling someone over simply for driving while black is not a lawful stop. But like you said, there are 6 more minutes of video, so we have no idea the details of this specific case, but that doesn’t mean it’s lawful for every case.

I’m fully aware of that entire genre of videos from sovereign citizens. /r/amibeingdetained was one of my favorite subreddits before leaving reddit.

“During a lawful traffic stop”

Officers must have reasonable suspicion of a law being broken to require ID: https://legalclarity.org/can-a-cop-ask-for-your-id-for-no-reason/. The case you cited was because of an expired plate.

He was within his rights to ask what law he violated before complying. The cops mentioned he needed his headlights on for the conditions, but he was skeptical, so he asked for the statute or a supervisor. If he refused after that, fine; but the cops escalated way earlier and with more force than was reasonable.