Arrested On His Own Front Porch MASSIVE LAWSUIT

[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 obstruction the right to film police officers and warrantless 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 on august 7th 2020 deputies dalton martin and jordan horn of the mcdowell county sheriff's office in west virginia approached 66 year old donnie harrison and his 63 year old wife ventress while they were sitting on the front porch of the home they rented from former military police officer jason tartt the deputies asked the hairstons about four alleged marijuana plants that were found in some overgrown brush at a nearby property owned by a third party and they both denied any involvement when the deputies continued to question the harrisons walk around the property and look through windows they called mr tart who walked over to the hairston's residence from his nearby home the interaction that followed was captured on deputy martin's body camera just because in the season that we're living in i think it's important that i have your names what do you mean um a lot of crazy stuff going on and so having your name makes me feel more secure as i said we came here june 28th you know we're actually new here okay and for the police officers in this area to come up and say are you growing marijuana that is preposterous to me is just a question yeah well i get that and so then my only question to you is your names just so it's okay in my own heart and mind and when i say the season we're living in you know the season we're living in y'all concerned about something over here at this house this house no that house uh yes who lives there mr ferguson he's probably there now he's 79 okay all right what's your name sir jason jason park and what do you mean by the season we're living in ma'am sir what's your what do you need you got any questions for me no i'll just i'll collect some information from you man your name and date of birth such will you need my information for you you own these two homes correct okay these two homes is near that marijuana growth so i'd just like to have your name you know how many people go through here i understand that's not gonna do you one bit of good okay well sir i'm i'm gonna need your name date of birth okay well this is a criminal investigation you own these two homes so by law you do have to give me your name data burst he gives you a reason yes you do reason for what because of the marijuana it's not on my property okay well again i have reason to believe that these two homes here that you own is related to that marijuana growth so you have to give me your name and date of birth by law the deputies informed mr tartt that he is required by law to give his name and date of birth west virginia does not have a separate stop and identify statute that allows officers to arrest individuals for failing to identify themselves in certain situations rather officers often use the state's obstruction statute to arrest individuals who refuse to identify themselves when they are required to do so according to section 61-5-17 of the west virginia code quote a person who by threats menaces acts or otherwise forcibly or illegally hinders or obstructs or attempts to hinder or obstruct a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity is guilty of a misdemeanor in the 2003 case of state vs syrinsky the supreme court of appeals of west virginia held that quote refusal to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer does not standing alone form the basis for a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer and performing official duties however the court then clarified that quote the charge of obstructing an officer may be substantiated when a citizen does not supply identification when required to do so by express statutory direction or when the refusal occurs after a law enforcement officer has communicated the reason why the citizen's name is being sought in relation to the officer's official duties while the deputies did communicate a reason for requesting mr tart's name by claiming that they needed it due to the proximity of the properties he owned to the alleged marijuana plants the fourth circuit court of appeals which has jurisdiction over west virginia determined in the 2021 case of wingate versus fulford that the application of a local stop and identify ordinance was unconstitutional quote when applied outside the context of a valid investigatory stop and that quote a valid investigatory stop supported by terry level suspicion is a constitutional prerequisite to enforcing stop and identify statutes applying this reasoning it is likely that a court would find that the deputies could not constitutionally arrest mr tart for refusing to identify himself in this situation although the case law establishing this was not issued until after this incident occurred it should also be noted that mr tart did provide his name when the deputies first asked and because the case law likewise does not authorize an arrest for refusing to provide a date of birth it is likely that a court would conclude that mr tart's conduct did not rise to the level of obstruction go get a go get a 10 piece pack reason to believe what why because these houses are here do you understand that there are a lot of traffic going through here since we've lived here people come up here and they park there and we don't know where the hell they go and then they come back out i don't have a problem giving you my information okay well that's all i need it doesn't have to be an argument i mean just give your name that birthday easy it's not easy my property has nothing to do with what you found okay well we're we're just making sure that you scared me i mean you scared you says that by asking you a question who comes up and asks that's crazy and it scared you i'm trying to understand why it scared you by me asking you a question marijuana and that's a question to say somebody scared you because they asked you a question is ridiculous that's preposterous i'm gonna give you your name no yeah wait wait it's ridiculous to you sir yes ma'am but it's not ridiculous your first night i'm not giving you my information sir if you refuse to give me information i'm gonna arrest you that's why my property has nothing to do with any marijuana whatsoever you're going to arrest me if i don't give you my name and date of birth it's obstructing an officer yeah because you're hindering me from doing my job you're handling am i hindering you from doing your job if it's not on my property last chance give me your name birth sir how am i sir last chance to give me your name dave how am i hindering you place your hands behind your back place your hands behind your back are you going to give me a name daddy brother you're right i'm hindering you for doing your job please i'll see if i can find you my name first no i'm hindering you from doing your job yeah this is how you guys this is this is 112 this is how you operate this is the right i'm entering you from doing your job you all need to go inside again you too go inside go inside i'm afraid go inside go inside no go inside as of right now tell me why go inside what are you doing step off the porch step off the porch i'll step off go inside what are you doing this is unnecessary for you go inside he's standing on his own go inside don't come in my head go inside step back go inside that's completely uncalled for when mr harrison starts filming the interaction between the deputies and mr tart deputy martin forces the hairstons into their home pushing mr hairston into his doorway and closing the door behind him effectively preventing him from continuing to record the encounter while many federal circuits have acknowledged that the first amendment protects the right to film the police on the performance of their duties the fourth circuit which includes west virginia has not in the 2009 case of jameski vs hauck the fourth circuit court of appeals held that an individual's first amendment right to record police activities on public property was not clearly established in the circuit however because the zemeski decision did not weigh in on whether such a right existed the state of the law regarding the right to film the police in the fourth circuit has remained unclear in the 2021 case of hulbert vs pope a u.s district court denied qualified immunity to an officer who arrested two individuals in february of 2018 for recording the police on the public sidewalk in front of the maryland state house although parties typically cannot file an appeal until the case has been completely resolved in the lower court the defendant filed what is known as an interlocutory appeal under section 1292 of title 28 of the u.s code which states that quote when a district judge in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation he shall sow state in writing in such order the court of appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon in its discretion permit an appeal to be taken from such order the defendant's interlocutory appeal to the 4th circuit court of appeals argued that the arrest was proper and that video and audio recording of the police was not a so-called clearly established first amendment right as of the date of writing this episode this case is still pending but when the fourth circuit issues a decision it will hopefully clarify whether the circuit recognizes the right to film the police and the performance of their duties until this decision is released it is difficult to predict how a court would rule on whether deputy martin violated mr harrison's first amendment rights by forcing him to stop filming and if such a right was clearly established at the time of this encounter come on look don't don't don't don't don't listen listen you don't have to listen you're being recorded listen listen listen listen listen listen i can walk i can walk without you putting your damn hands on walking through the vehicle i have not broken the law walk toward the vehicle we'll walk to the vehicle you're being recorded on me i give you no reason to touch me i'm going to arrest you then place your inside your back uncalled forward place your hands behind your back put your hand down place your hands behind your back just listen just relax okay listen you just place your hands please place your hands behind your back my hand is behind my placement it only takes one of you place your hand let him do it all right take your hands off that's fine okay let him do it let's walk this way deputy martin initiates an arrest against mr tart on the porch by ordering him to place his hands behind his back he then orders him to step down and deputy horn handcuffs and arrests him in the driveway area immediately in front of the home in general the supreme court has long recognized that the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home known as the cartilage is considered part of the home itself for fourth amendment purposes the court held in the 2021 case of longa versus california that without other exigent circumstances the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not justify an officer's warrantless entry into a home or its cartilage further in the 2018 case of collins versus virginia the court concluded that quote when a law enforcement officer physically intrudes on the cartilage to gather evidence a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment has occurred such conduct thus is presumptively unreasonable absent a warrant based on this precedent it would seem that officers cannot arrest an individual in the cartilage of their home absent exigent circumstances justifying the intrusion however in the 1976 case of united states vs watson the supreme court held that the warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place upon probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment and later that year the court decided in the case of united states versus santana that the front door of an individual's home was considered a so-called public place for the purposes of the fourth amendment in reaching this conclusion the court reasoned that quote while it may be true that under the law of property the threshold of one's dwelling is private as is the yard surrounding the house it is clear that under the cases interpreting the fourth amendment santana was in a public place what a person knowingly exposes to the public even in his own house or office is not a subject of fourth amendment protection relying heavily on this case in the 2003 case of the united states vs hagerman the united states district court in the western district of virginia which is part of the fourth circuit upheld the warrantless arrest of an individual on his lawn when an officer told him to come down from his porch and arrested him once he came into the yard citing the santana decision the court determined that because the defendant emerged from his home onto the porch voluntarily and the officer without drawing a weapon asked him to come down to the lawn the warrantless arrest was valid notably the santana and hagerman cases were both decided well before longa versus california and collins versus virginia so it is possible that a court would conclude that mr tart could not be constitutionally arrested without a warrant on the porch or the yard of his property based on this precedent however because the long case involved an entry to a garage rather than a yard or porch and the collins case involved a search rather than a seizure it is also possible that a court would distinguish this situation from those decisions and hold that the location of mr tart's arrest did not violate the fourth amendment ten-four he owns two properties right here on this fabulous drive we locate a marijuana grove probably not 100 foot 50 foot from this last property he is and he just won't give us his name date of birth real white male black man what now after placing mr [ __ ] in the back of the police cruiser and radioing in his arrest deputy martin gathered the alleged marijuana plants and placed them in the trunk of the vehicle presumably to take to the station as evidence mr tart was charged with obstruction of a law enforcement officer but the case was dismissed by the prosecuting attorney on october 28 2020 because deputy martin failed to appear in court on august 9 2022 mr tart and the harrisons filed a federal lawsuit against the deputies and as of the date of writing this episode the case is still pending overall deputy martin and deputy horn get an f for maintaining a hostile and aggressive demeanor throughout the encounter arresting mr tart for refusing to provide his name when he had already provided it and preventing mr hairston from filming their arrest of mr tart by forcing him into his own home when there were clearly no safety concerns although it is possible that the officers will be granted qualified immunity for at least some of their actions in this encounter it is important to note that this does not mean they behaved professionally or even that they did not violate mr tarts or the hairston's constitutional rights it should not be forgotten that the deputy's behavior towards the harrisons caused them to fear for their safety and the deputy's failure to demonstrate any empathy or understanding as to why the hairstons might feel that way can only be characterized as a willful refusal to acknowledge the realities of the current state of police citizen relations mr tart and the hairstons get an a for remaining relatively calm and polite throughout the encounter attempting to exercise their constitutional rights and taking appropriate legal action after the interaction while issues of qualified immunity may pose difficulties in their pending litigation against the deputies i commend mr [ __ ] and the hairstons for having the courage to initiate a lawsuit after having their rights infringed upon and it will be interesting to see how all of the legal issues involved are resolved i would also like to acknowledge mr tart in particular for his willingness to be arrested for standing up for the constitution and the protections it grants him 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] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 6,841,668

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: 77OPfmCWMUw

Length: 16min 15sec (975 seconds)

Published: Mon Sep 12 2022