Cops Get Caught Lying And Cost Their Town $75,000

[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 fruit of the poisonous tree traffic stop frisks and consensual searches and is brought to us by wlky news louisville's 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 surf sharp surf shark is a premier vpn service that offers unparalleled digital security for a fraction of the price of other competitors we all know that surf shark is one of the most secure vpn tunnels on the market but a surfshark subscription also allows its users to bypass region restrictions on popular platforms like youtube and netflix and view content that's not normally available in your country thanks to surfshark i can still catch my favorite episodes of friends even though it was removed from the u.s netflix catalog a surf shark subscription is totally unlimited which means that you can use it on as many devices as you like and even on all of them at once no other vpn service offers that much accessibility right now surf shark is offering the ata community an 83 discount with an additional three months completely free with 24-hour customer service and a 30-day money-back guarantee you have absolutely nothing to lose on top of that surf shark is giving away their antivirus software completely free from now to the 4th of july so click the link in the description to claim your exclusive offer now thanks again to surf shark for sponsoring this episode on august 12 2018 louisville kentucky resident anthony parker senior was driving his girlfriend demetria furman's vehicle home from church with ms fuhrman in the passenger seat and mr parker's eight-year-old son in the back when officers kevin crawford gabriel heller josh door and william keeling jr of the ninth mobile division of the louisville metro police department stopped him for allegedly failing to use a turn signal despite the fact that the body camera footage clearly shows that mr parker had activated the turn signal and used it properly throughout the turn mr parker immediately pulled over and the officers approached the vehicle from both sides what's up man how much how y'all doing today i just in church awesome man that's awesome i'm sorry because you didn't use a turn signal he was already over here i got i gotta do it like that for his bro i got you that's where he's a lot man what's up [Music] so there's no guns in the car any knives no no no narcotics awesome man your hands are shaking like a leaf brother even your faces i just like people to be honest and straight up with me right right now do you have your driver's license i paid for reinstatement yes sir vehicle you have any weapons on you any guns awesome man we're mainly hey i'm gonna get him out let me get that out and we're gonna go to the back and then we'll get you out here in a second okay all right now when you actually go keep your hands those of all times all right don't put your hands in your pockets [Music] appreciate it springfield in one form spread your feet all right yes all right so we're just gonna come back to the other car after falsely claiming that mr parker did not use a turn signal the officer removes him from the vehicle and asks for consent to search him mr parker agrees and the officer thoroughly pats him down and searches the contents of his pockets the officer also asks mr parker for consent to search the vehicle but it is unclear from his response whether mr parker was consenting to a search or simply telling him that there was nothing illegal in the vehicle however even if the officer received valid consent to search the vehicle it is important to note that any evidence that was discovered from either of the searches would be inadmissible in court under the so-called fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine as the supreme court explained in the 1984 case of segura vs united states quote the exclusionary rule reaches not only primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure but also evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or fruit of the poisonous tree it extends as well to the indirect as the direct products of unconstitutional conduct while there are exceptions where this doctrine will not be applied such as when the connection between the illegal police conduct and the discovery of the evidence is too far removed or when the police also discover the evidence through an independent source it is well established that any evidence discovered through a consent based search during an illegal seizure must be excluded from court absent the existence of an exception for instance in the 1983 case of florida vs royer the supreme court held that because an individual was being illegally detained when he consented to a search of his luggage quote the consent was tainted by the illegality and was ineffective to justify the search similarly in the 2008 case of us versus blair the sixth circuit which includes kentucky explained that quote an ordinary traffic stop by a police officer is a seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment accordingly any evidence seized during an illegal traffic stop must be suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree here the body camera footage clearly shows that mr parker did activate his turn signal making the alleged traffic violation that the officers claimed was the reason for the stop completely fabricated because the officers had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify the traffic stop any evidence that was discovered as a result of their search of mr parker or the vehicle could be suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree even assuming they received valid consent from mr parker all right man let's step on that real quick you got your id on you on you what's your last name last name sperman what's your middle birthday well we do this is how we conduct all our stops we'll do so different type of unit that works a little bit different than a traditional while one officer talks to mr parker another officer removes miss furman from the vehicle pats her down without asking for her consent and questions her as we have discussed many times on ata the supreme court held in the 1977 case of pennsylvania versus mims that quote once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendment's prescription of unreasonable searches and seizures although the reasoning for granting this authority centers around so-called officer safety officers are permitted to routinely remove both drivers and passengers from vehicles regardless of whether they actually have any reason to be concerned for their safety however is the supreme court held in the 2009 case of arizona vs johnson quote to justify a pat-down of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous the sixth circuit has applied this precedent to many cases and the court summarized its holdings in the 2021 case of united states vs johnson stating that quote an officer may stop a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity but to frisk him for weapons the officer must reasonably believe he is armed and dangerous the officer must be able to point to particular facts from which he reasonably inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous additionally there clearly must be some nexus between the criminal conduct of which the police suspect the defendant and the aim of the protective search this all means that a lawful stop does not necessarily carry with it the authority to conduct a pat-down search in this situation in addition to the fact that there was no legal basis for the traffic stop itself there was absolutely no articulable evidence the officer could point to that would even remotely suggest that ms furman was armed and dangerous this means that even if the stop itself was lawful the officer would not be able to constitutionally justify the pat down frisk he conducted on ms furman all right big guy i'm heavy hop out there buddy so hang out right next to him despite the lack of clarity as to whether mr parker consented to a search of the vehicle the officer searched the entire car and the objects inside of it including ms fuhrman's purse without asking ms furman as the owner of the vehicle for consent in the 1974 case of united states versus matlock the supreme court explained that quote when the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected applying this standard courts have consistently held that the driver of a vehicle has the authority to consent to a search of that vehicle regardless of who owns it for instance in the 2010 case of people versus minor the supreme court of colorado noted that quote multiple circuits have applied this logic to vehicle cases in which the driver who has common authority and a sufficient relationship with the vehicle consents to a search and ultimately held that quote a driver with control over a vehicle possesses the authority to consent to a search of the vehicle even if the car owner is present as a passenger additionally in the 1991 case of florida versus jumeno the supreme court held that when an individual gives an officer consent to search a vehicle the officer can also search bags or other containers if quote it is objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that the scope of the suspect's consent permitted him to open a particular container within the automobile therefore if a court concluded that mr parker did consent to a search of the vehicle it would likely find that his consent was sufficient for the officers to conduct the search despite the fact that none of them asked for ms furman's consent and that mr parker's consent would likely authorize the officers to search most of the containers in the vehicle however because an officer cannot search an object on the basis of the consent of someone who does not have actual or apparent authority to authorize the search a court could conclude that the officers did not have valid consent to search ms furman's purse as the court of appeals of indiana explained in the 1999 case of state vs friedel where it held that a driver's consent to a search of a vehicle did not include consent to search the passenger's purse which was left in the vehicle explained that quote even though an officer does not have to obtain a separate consent to search each container found in a vehicle an officer is still required to act reasonably when deciding whether the driver's consent extends to a particular container found within the vehicle because the officer who searched ms fermin's bag saw it in her possession and actually told her to leave it in the vehicle it is likely that a court would conclude that he did not have consent to search it even if the officers had valid consent to search the vehicle like sometimes it'll work you know you have to hit it like normal but then sometimes i gotta double push the hazard for the clip that they even come in so that's probably what happened like i ain't even know after thoroughly searching the vehicle and finding nothing illegal the officers allowed mr parker mrs fuhrman and mr parker's son to leave without issuing a citation on august 7 2019 mr parker and miss furman filed a federal lawsuit against the officers as well as the chief of the louisville metro police department and the head of the ninth mobile division in the complaint mr parker and miss furman's attorneys who also represented brianna taylor's family allege that the ninth mobile division regularly engaged in deceptive and unconstitutional practices during traffic stops for instance the complaint stated that the officers conducted traffic stops in a manner designed to intimidate and trick the vehicle occupants to obtain their consent for searches and detentions by conducting stops with several officers in unmarked vehicles boxing in the suspect's vehicles surrounding the vehicle with several officers accusing the vehicle occupants of appearing to have something to hide and using quick double negatives to trick occupants into consenting to searches as the officers in this situation did with mr parker on september 9 2021 the city agreed to the 75 000 settlement that allowed the metro government to acknowledge no wrongdoing and prohibited mr parker miss furman and their lawyers from criticizing the louisville metro government or the police officers involved in the incident in may of 2019 the louisville metro police department announced a complete overhaul of its traffic stop procedures in response to community criticism over a video of another traffic stop conducted by the ninth mobile division on then 18 year old taehyun lee which took place on august 9 2018 just a few days before mr parker was pulled over notably the revised procedures prohibited officers from removing occupants from their vehicles and obtaining consent to search as a matter of routine overall the louisville metro officers get an f for fabricating an excuse to conduct an illegal traffic stop searching mr parker and ms furman and their vehicle without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and using intimidation and deceit in order to obtain coerced consent from mr parker this type of police conduct is completely unacceptable behavior on the part of public servants and destroys the general public's ability to trust law enforcement although these practices were routine in the ninth mobile division prior to the procedural update this does not absolve the officers involved in this incident of their personal responsibility for their intentional disregard for both the truth and the constitution this interaction highlights the counterproductive nature of certain aggressive police tactics there are many departments across the nation that could benefit from reevaluating their policing strategies mr parker and ms furman get an a because although mr parker consented to the officer's request to search his person and possibly the vehicle the couple remained calm and respectful throughout the encounter and followed up by taking appropriate legal action mr parker was faced with four aggressive officers who were determined to find contraband and it is certainly understandable that he agreed to be searched when he knew he had nothing to hide i do not know what was going through mr parker's head during this traffic stop but i would imagine that he chose to consent to the officer's request at least in part out of concern for the well-being of his family and i certainly cannot fault him for prioritizing his loved one's safety over his constitutional rights i commend mr parker for remaining calm and collected throughout the encounter and for following up this interaction with the proper legal action 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: 1,183,678

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: xb04rX1K79s

Length: 16min 50sec (1010 seconds)

Published: Mon Jun 27 2022