Arrested For Laughing At A Cop

foreign [Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers the First Amendment flashing headlights and retaliatory arrests and is brought To Us by the civil rights lawyers Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve before we dive into the interaction I want to give a big thanks to the sponsor of this episode raycon if you've been looking for the perfect gift raycons are the way to go their wireless earbuds headphones and speakers offer premium sound useful features comfortable fit and up to 54 hours of battery life with raycon you get quality audio at half the price of other premium audio Brands and a variety of colors and styles to choose from if you need some help with the selection raycon's website offers a holiday gift guide for everyone in your life such as the co-worker Fitness lover or gamer or knock it out all at once and get 30 off by shopping raycon's holiday bundles my favorite is the audio lover bundle with an the everyday earbuds and everyday headphones raycons make the perfect holiday gift for everyone from the audio Enthusiast the Casual listener and they're offering members of the ATA Community a limited time deal on all their products click the link in the description box or go to byraycon.com audit and use code early VF to get 20 off site-wide or save even bigger and get 30 off raycons exclusive holiday bundles there will also be different deals coming throughout the season and I'll try to keep the description box updated with the latest offers but just so you know you can always go to buyraacon.com audit to get the best deals available on raycon thanks again to raycon for sponsoring this episode on May 13 2022 Corporal JD Ellison of the Nicholas County Sheriff's Department pulled over a driver for flashing his headlights to warn oncoming traffic of a speed trap in Summersville West Virginia the driver who we will refer to as Mr headlights stopped on the side of the road and Corporal Ellison approached the driver's side of the vehicle that was pretty stupid wasn't it that's uh flashing your lights at everybody to let them know that law enforcement was sitting there running radar is that what I did is that a crime yeah it is I didn't know yeah you got your license registration pretty much why would you do that you're flashing your high beams of people into it doesn't say daytime or night time it just says that you can't do it and you did it yeah I'm sorry I didn't know I didn't know that was yeah you can't have any people at any time in the daytime or nighttime I don't know I mean yeah night time I understand Corporal Ellison claims it is a crime for individuals to flash their headlights and he eventually issues Mr headlights a citation for violating section 17c-15-26 of the West Virginia code which states that quote flashing lights are prohibited on Motor Vehicles however it should be noted that the use of the plural verb are instead of the singular verb is indicates that the word flashing is an adjective that modifies the noun lights and not a verb in other words the statute prohibits motor vehicles from having flashing lights but does not prohibit motorists from flashing their lights another important factor to consider when analyzing the meaning of this statute is that it is located in Article 15 of the West Virginia traffic code which focuses exclusively on the required and prohibited equipment that must or cannot be installed on certain Vehicles it seems clear from the context of the statute that it bans the installation of lights that automatically flash but does not prohibit a driver from manually flashing lights that are typically static such as headlights for instance the statute creates an exception to the general prohibition against flashing lights stating that quote any vehicle as a means for indicating right or left turn or any vehicle as a means of indicating the same as disabled or otherwise stopped for an emergency may have blinking or flashing lights this section of the statute inarguably refers to turn signals and hazard lights both of which flash automatically once they're activated similarly the statute also allows for blue flashing warning lights on police vehicles red flashing warning lights for ambulances firefighting Vehicles school buses and other emergency vehicles and yellow or Amber flashing warning lights for tow trucks Postal Service vehicles and other emergency or service Vehicles the pattern is clear whenever the statute mentions a flashing light it is referring to a light that intermittently and automatically illuminates given this context it seems unlikely that a reasonable Court would conclude that Mr headlights was in violation of this statute as his vehicle was not equipped with any flashing lights I'm sure I could articulate some other kind of driving charge in there for doing that too that's I mean that's pretty pretty cool yeah just uh you can hang tight listen to what he says foreign citations today first one being special restrictions on lamps uh which you can read that code that says no flashing lights she'll be on a vehicle and at that point in time you had flashing lights on your vehicle it's unauthorized well I got a constitution it's a it's protected in the first amendment I want me to look into it that's in Tennessee yeah I'm going to look into them yeah um yeah it's not illegal to do that it's a Flash and worn but it's illegal to high beam and it is legal to have flashing lights on your vehicle uh not being in emergency vehicles Mr headlights argues that he has a constitutional right under the First Amendment to flash his headlights in order to communicate with other drivers although the issue has not been considered by the Supreme Court or reviewed by a considerable number of lower courts several courts have determined that flashing headlights to warn drivers approaching in the opposite direction about a speed trap is expressive conduct that is protected by the First Amendment as the U.S District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin summarized in the 2019 case of obrecht versus Splinter the first amendment protects quote conduct symbols and non-verbal communication that Express or convey a particularized message reasonably understood by viewers for this reason the court determined that quote although the law is far from clear on this issue the plaintiff who was stopped and cited for flashing his headlights had a plausible claim for Relief under the first amendment in reaching this decision the court noted that quote at least two State Circuit Court have also found that drivers have a constitutional right to flash their headlights including the 2003 case of State versus Walker where the Tennessee Circuit Court in Williamson County accepted a First Amendment defense to the charge of knowingly interfering with an officer from an individual who flashed their headlights to warn oncoming motorists about a speed trap the court also relied on the 2014 case of Le vs city of Ellisville in which the U.S District Court for the eastern district of Missouri recognized the action of flashing headlights as protected expressive conduct and issued a preliminary injunction for bidding the Ellisville Police Department from continuing its quote policy and custom of having its police officers pull over detain and cite individuals who are perceived as having communicated oncoming traffic by flashing their headlamps and then Prosecuting and imposing fines upon those individuals due to the chilling effect of this practice on Free Speech the Le Court reasoned that quote even assuming that plaintiff or another driver is communicating a message that one should slow down because a speed trap is ahead and Discovery or apprehension is impending that conduct is not illegal and concluded that the ordinance that the plaintiff was charged with violating which prohibited the use of quote alternately flashing warning signals on Motor Vehicles quote was clearly inapplicable to the expressive conducted issue although there is limited case law on this topic and the precedent that we have discussed would not be binding on a West Virginia Court there is certainly a strong argument that Mr headlights was engaged in protected expressive conduct when he communicated with other drivers by flashing his headlights huh I said Austin okay and I could take you to jail today for your unsigned registration card but I just wrote you a citation for that that's actually up to six months in jail you think it's funny sir take the tickets here I know but do you think this one I'm allowed to laugh I can laugh sure I'm asking you to step out it might be entertained yes sir you are step out of the vehicle serious place your hands behind your back for me serious yes sir place your hands behind your back oh man I'm not your brother yeah I'll never be my brother I'll never be your brother be careful I don't want to be your brother don't jerk away from me don't jerk away from me sir don't jerk away from me my wallet is in the car okay I don't want you to jerk away from me throw it away from the traffic no I was putting you in front of my car okay which is away from traffic you're arresting me for laughing no I didn't do anything I'm arresting you for unsigned registration okay all right that's fine okay let's just stand right there even though Corporal Ellison does not Place Mr headlights under arrest until after he laughs Corporal Ellison claims that he is arresting him for having an unsigned registration card and not his protected speech according to section 17a-3-13 of the West Virginia code quote every registration card shall at all times be carried in the vehicle to which it refers or shall be carried by the person driving or in control of such vehicle who shall display the same upon demand of a police officer or any officer or employee of the division notably there's no mention of the registration card needing to be signed however the prior version of this statute explicitly required that quote every owner upon receipt of a registration card shall write his signature thereon with pen and ink in the space provided this amendment was enacted by House Bill 4345 which was passed on April 19 2022 but did not go into effect until June 5th 2022 therefore at the time of this encounter the updated law had been passed but was not yet effective so Mr headlights was technically required to have signed his registration card under section 17a-3-1 of the West Virginia code quote any person violating the provisions of this article is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars as we have discussed before on ATA the Supreme Court held in the 2001 case of Atwater vs city of Lago Vista that the Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense such as a misdemeanor punishable only by a fine concluding that quote if an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence he may without violating the Fourth Amendment arrest the offender accordingly it is highly likely that a court would conclude that Corporal Ellison would be within his constitutional authority to arrest Mr headlights for his unsigned registration card likewise although Corporal Ellison undoubtedly chose to arrest Mr headlights because he laughed at him a court would most likely reject the first Amendment retaliation claim against Corporal Ellison based on this encounter as the Supreme Court explained in the 2019 case of Nieves versus Bartlett quote the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions for engaging in protected speech if an official takes adverse action against someone based on that forbidden motive and non-retaliatory grounds are in fact insufficient to provoke the adverse consequences the injured person may generally seek Relief by bringing a First Amendment claim however the court also noted that because quote it is particularly difficult to determine whether the adverse government action was caused by the officer's malice or the plaintiff's potentially criminal conduct when reviewing a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim a court must consider quote whether the circumstances viewed objectively justify the challenged action and that quote a particular officer's State of Mind is simply irrelevant and it provides no basis for invalidating an arrest for this reason the court concluded that quote a plaintiff pressing a retaliate arrest claim must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the arrest here as long as Mr headlight's registration card was actually unsigned the court would presumably determine that Corporal Ellison had probable cause to arrest Mr headlights and therefore it is highly unlikely that Mr headlights would be able to succeed in a First Amendment retaliation claim despite the fact that Corporal Ellison appears to have arrested him for protected First Amendment speech still it may be possible for Mr headlights to succeed in a First Amendment retaliation case in this situation as his chances of Victory would likely be improved by arguing that the traffic stop itself was unlawful retaliation for flashing his headlights you have any weapons okay hang tight in front of my vehicle hang tight right here in front of my vehicle for me Corporal Ellison eventually released Mr headlights and allowed him to leave with a citation instead of paying the ticket Mr headlights fought both charges against him in the Nicholas County Magistrate Court in Summersville West Virginia he represented himself in the proceedings and on October 4th 2022 magistrate Michael Hanks convicted Mr headlights of the special restrictions on lamps violation while dismissing the charge for the unsigned registration card overall Corporal Ellison gets an F for pulling over Mr headlights for engaging in legal Behavior threatening to arrest Mr headlights for simply failing to sign his vehicle registration card and then actually arresting him for laughing at his absurd Behavior throughout this interaction it is evident the only real crime that Mr headlights committed was not showing Corporal Ellison the level of respect he felt he was entitled to receive he appeared to be angry that Mr headlights warned other drivers about the speed trap and then seems to have become even angrier when Mr headlights laughed at his self-important albeit Tech technically accurate contention that he had the authority to arrest him for his unsigned registration card at every stage of this encounter it seems clear that Corporal Ellison was making decisions based on his ego and reacting to the perceived injuries Mr headlight's cause to it this interaction underscores the importance of Officer discretion and demonstrates the consequences of officers refusing to set aside their egos to focus on the community's actual law enforcement needs Mr headlights gets an A plus for remaining polite and respectful throughout the encounter verbally questioning Corporal Ellison's actions without escalating the situation or violating the law and attempting to fight the charges against him in court I commend Mr headlights for maintaining a calm demeanor throughout his interaction with Corporal levelsen even after finding himself in the unimaginable situation of being arrested for laughing and choosing to oppose the charges against him the right way in court it is simply unbelievable that a court convicted him of violating the clearly inapplicant prohibition on equipping motor vehicles with flashing lights and I would encourage Mr headlights to appeal his conviction to a higher court if he is able to do so let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music]

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 2,497,620

Keywords: amagansett press, first amendment audit, 1st amendment audit, auditing america, news now california, sgv news first, high desert community watch, anselmo morales, photography is not a crime, san joaquin valley transparency, first amendment audit fail, walk of shame, news now houston, police fail, 1st amendment audit fail, public photography, auditor arrested, police brutality, highdesert community watch, pinac news, cops triggered, news now patrick, east hampton

Id: t5j9X4IcGjs

Length: 16min 41sec (1001 seconds)

Published: Thu Nov 17 2022