Citizen Wrongly Arrested For "Trespassing" His Own Property

[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 probable cause trespassing and mental health and is brought to us by the reformatorium's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve in the early morning hours of october 12 2021 pope county arkansas resident corey jones was doing some yard work on his property using a headlamp and a corded halogen light he had affixed to a tree a neighbor who saw him working in the yard called the police to report him as a suspicious person and sergeant damon mcmillan and deputy hayden saffold of the pope county sheriff's office responded to the call after discussing the situation with mr jones's neighbor sergeant macmillan and deputy saffold entered mr jones's property and approached him thank you come here i'm not gonna go over there what are you doing [Music] i know you hear me yeah i hear you what are you doing um i'm just hanging out you know well i'm not trespassing right here [Music] this is my property right here it is yes sir okay what are you doing here scaring this old lady at five o'clock in the morning well i just figured you know it'd be a good time to get started get started i'm working right here you are yeah uh-huh yeah and you live here right uh-huh what's your address yeah um do you live out here yes sir i do okay what's your what's your name badge number i can't quite see it it's hayden saffold 1602 sappho in a minute okay i know you're recording me but you gotta understand i'm asking you a question do you live in these woods or do you live in a house you guys approached me i mean you could you could tell me right now i believe you're trespassing until you prove otherwise you are committing a crime well is this america are we innocent until proven guilty you're telling me i'm guilty of trespassing right here i'm asking you your address because i want to know if you live on this property because you could just be telling me that i have a fifth member i don't have to answer any questions i would like to alleviate you guys as um worries so you can't prove to me that you live on this property sure i could okay well then you probably need to do that or you're going to arrest me might have to yeah the officer informs mr jones that he may be placed under arrest if he does not prove that he is the owner of the property before we discuss the applicable legal standards further it's important to note that mr jones was not under any legal obligation to prove that he owned the property or otherwise assist the officers in their investigation however it is possible that he still could be legally arrested if a court concluded that the officers had probable cause to believe that he was trespassing although mr jones is correct in his assertion that in the u.s justice system criminal defendants are innocent until proven guilty this is not the standard that applies to when an individual can be arrested according to section 5-39-203 of the arkansas code quote a person commits criminal trespass if he or she purposely enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises owned or leased by another person so in order for mr jones to be found guilty and convicted of trespassing a prosecutor would have to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and because mr jones was the owner of the land a prosecutor could not meet this legal burden as the supreme court explained in the 1949 case of brineger versus united states quote these rules are historically grounded rights of our system developed to safeguard men from dubious and unjust convictions with resulting forfeitures of life liberty and property however if those standards were to be made applicable in determining probable cause for an arrest few indeed would be the situations in which an officer charged with protecting the public interest by enforcing the law could take effective action toward that end for this reason the standard for placing someone under arrest for a suspected offense is much lower than beyond a reasonable doubt and is known as probable cause while courts have consistently avoided setting a precise definition of what constitutes probable cause the brineger court explained that quote the substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt and this means less than evidence which would justify condemnation or conviction probable cause requires that an officer have quote more than bear suspicion and it exists where quote the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed therefore if the officers arrested mr jones for trespassing after he refused to prove that he owned the property it is possible a court could conclude they had sufficient probable cause to make the arrest even though they would be mistaken about the fact that he was trespassing and he could not be convicted of the offense i mean can you not see that i'm out here doing work we can see that but she called because she's saying that you're on her property and i've been out here for 30 minutes yelling and you didn't come out until now well i've got to get my kids off to no i didn't i've been back and forth i've carried some stuff up here to get ready to work what are you doing i am i am it's not often we get people wandering around the woods at 5am scaring people what i want to know is do you own this property and what is your address it's a simple question that i am allowed to ask because right now i think you're trespassing well i'm also allowed to not answer it if if i don't so you answering the question could prove you innocent but you're not going to right i have i have the fifth amendment right sir you have the fifth amendment right not to prove yourself innocent i don't think you want to chop your address because i don't think you have one and i don't think this is it well sir you're mistaken are you going to arrest me for loitering on my property no i'm going to write your name see what your address is i have a right to do that because you're accused of a crime right now the officer tells mr jones that he has a right to identify him because he is being accused of trespassing however a court would likely find that mr jones was not under any legal obligation to identify himself to the officers the arkansas code does not include a stop and identify statute that requires individuals to identify themselves to the police during terry stops instead arkansas only places a requirement for citizens to identify themselves in the state's loitering statute section 5-71-213 of the arkansas code states that quote a person commits the offense of loitering if he or she lingers remains or prowls in a public place or the premises of another person without apparent reason and under circumstances that warrant alarm or concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity and upon inquiry by a law enforcement officer refuses to identify himself or herself and give a reasonably credible account of his or her presence and purpose while it is understandable why the officers would think this statute would apply to mr jones in this situation as they do not believe his assertions that he owns the property because mr jones was not in a public place or the premises of another person he could not be convicted of loitering further it is unclear whether the officers even had sufficient evidence to support the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity needed to detain mr jones although mr jones's neighbor reported him as a suspicious person she admitted that she didn't know who owned the property the officers also did not know who owned the property and they made no attempts to determine who owned the property before approaching mr jones and demanding that he identify himself they likewise did not attempt to speak with the property owner by knocking on the door to the house the only information the officers had is that someone was walking on mr jones's property and they had no real reason not to believe mr jones when he said he was the property owner given the lack of evidence supporting that criminal activity had even occurred a court could conclude that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to detain mr jones which would make the detention unconstitutional so what's your name so have i not dispelled your your suspicions yes or no no because i don't even know who you are is the yes or no question are you going to tell me your name or not if you got to get your kids yes i do am i going to be arrested if if i do not tell you my name yeah probably really cause i don't know where you live at and i don't know if you belong on this property sir i live right here i belong right here tell me your address tell me your name so i can run it i'll tell you my address my address is okay i don't know this is your problem what i would suggest what i would suggest is maybe maybe you get with her one of you guys and if you want to hold me here and detain me i understand if you want to get with her and just make sure that this isn't her property and maybe you're on the wrong prove it's yours i can prove it's mine then tell me i don't intend to answer any questions i'm under arrest yes sir am i detained or am i under arrest right now you're detained until i figure out who you are are you going to release me if i give you my name well i've asked you how many times you've reviewed your fingerprints no it's not was i do anything wrong yes you were accused of it and until i can prove that you're not by simply giving me your name and i can get your address we would have left you're the one keeping me here this long because for some reason then i don't know why you just want to make this so hard why are you just anti-government i hate the police what no i'm pro-civil rights if you tell me the last time i'm gonna ask if you tell me that you will let me go if i give you my identification i will give you my identification i don't know that i should let you go i really think right now you might have some mental health problems and i think we might need to go see a doctor the officer tells mr jones he suspects he may be suffering from mental health problems and suggests that he's going to have mr jones taken to be psychiatrically evaluated under arkansas law police officers have the authority to take citizens into protective custody for psychiatric evaluation and possible care under certain circumstances this is known as involuntary commitment section 20-47-207 of the arkansas code states that quote a person shall be eligible for involuntary admission if he or she is in such a mental condition as a result of mental illness disease or disorder that he or she poses a clear and present danger to himself or herself or others in order for an individual to be considered a clear and present danger they must have inflicted serious bodily injury on themselves attempted suicide threatened to inflict serious bodily injury on themselves or inflicted attempted to inflict or threaten to inflict serious bodily harm on another and there must also be a reasonable probability that the conduct will occur or continue if admission is not ordered if an officer observes behavior that meets the standard firsthand section 20-47-210 of the arkansas code allows them to take the individual into protective custody if now quoting immediate confinement appears necessary to avoid harm to the person or others and transport them to a hospital or to a receiving facility or program for evaluation by a physician notably this statute also allows any quote-unquote interested citizen to take an individual they believe to be a clear and present danger to themselves or others to a hospital or a receiving facility or program to be evaluated for potential involuntary commitment and therefore does not grant police officers any special authority to evaluate an individual's mental health however based on the behavior that the officers observed mr jones clearly did not pose a clear and present danger to himself or others as it is defined in the statute and so if the officers were to take him for evaluation a court could conclude that taking him into protective custody was an unlawful seizure in violation of the fourth amendment sir if i give you my identification will you have about 10 chances to tell me your name got it yet i asked you i also asked you i don't care what you asked me i'm asking the question it's not you you need to lay it off then the youtube stuff cause all it's doing is making it worse man the officers placed mr jones under arrest and drove him to the pope county detention center where they ran his name and confirmed that he was in fact the owner of the property and was not trespassing despite this he was processed and written a ticket for obstruction of governmental operations for refusing to identify himself according to county records a hearing for the charge was scheduled for december 14 2021 and mr jones did not attend or pay the ticket this resulted in an additional charge of failure to appear which is a class a misdemeanor as of the date of writing this episode both charges were still pending overall sergeant macmillan and deputy saffold get a c-minus because although there is an argument to be made that the troopers could have arrested mr jones for trespassing the deputies failed to carry out any sort of legitimate investigation displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of arkansas's identification laws and escalated an innocent non-criminal encounter into an extremely questionable arrest instead of reaching out to the nearest homeowner or attempting to verify mr jones's address by knocking on nearby homes the deputies elected to interrogate mr jones and then refused to believe anything that he told them if the deputies had taken the time to conduct an actual investigation into the complainant's claims or made any effort to verify the information that mr jones provided outside of forcing him to identify himself then this interaction could have had a peaceful and positive resolution in an effort to curtail the duty of acting as an impartial investigator into criminal claims the deputies misrepresented the facts of the encounter made blatantly false claims and distorted the language of arkansas law in their favor at one point in the video sergeant mcmillan tells the jailer to be sure to book mr jones so that it appears less like the trooper had made a mistake and it appears as though the sergeant was questioning the legality of his own conduct ultimately the deputy's decision to arrest mr jones was lazy and unprofessional and this interaction highlights the important role that investigation plays in law enforcement mr jones gets a b-minus because although he could have invoked his right to silence more effectively he remained calm and collected throughout the encounter challenged the conduct of the deputies without becoming rude or vulgar and maintained a respectable balance between complying with the lawful commands of the deputies and invoking his constitutional rights mr jones offered the officers all the information that they needed to verify whether or not he was trespassing and it is difficult to fault mr jones for refusing to surrender information that he was not legally obligated to share it was not mr jones job to investigate whether or not he was trespassing and he made a legitimate effort to dispel the deputy's suspicions without compromising his own personal privacy all that said the fact that mr jones did not attend his court hearings may have a significant impact on the outcome of his case and it goes without saying that it is extremely important to be present at any court summons so that you can ensure that your case is being properly handled if nothing else i commend mr jones for keeping a levelhead throughout the encounter and for insisting that his rights be respected however i would also encourage mr jones to channel his passion into defending his actions in the courtroom as well 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: 3,180,746

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: UFx-2I3UVZQ

Length: 16min 48sec (1008 seconds)

Published: Mon Dec 27 2021