Cops Get SUED After Falsely Arresting Innocent Teen

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 cell phone seizures resisting an aggravated battery and is brought To Us by wglt's Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve in the late evening on February 8 2023 a fire erupted in the quad Plex apartment of college student Taylor Brown which was located in the town of Normal Illinois both fire officials and police officers from the normal Police Department responded to the incident and at the officer's request Ms Brown agreed to be transported to the normal police station for questioning however after waiting more than 40 minutes at the police station without being interviewed Ms Brown requested that she be taken home the interaction that followed was captured on an unknown normal officer's body camera all right are you who are your phone with so we're gonna have to see your phone so go and hang up why go and hang up they want to seize my phone but I'm not under arrest right you're not under arrest but your phone's going to be seized um so no we're gonna you're gonna hang up the phone um so so listen all around so listen you listen for a second so the fire is going to be under investigation that's fine okay and we're gonna seize your phone why because we are because the fire is under investigation I need to know so you can hand me the phone or I can take the phone but I need to know where my phone's been they're not telling me a reason why my phone I just I just did but you said it's under investigation which I so so listen to me the fire that's helpful so the fire is going to be under investigation and your phone's gonna be seized oh no because you because I got here she didn't tell me okay and when I and when I got here the detective wasn't here you so I'm not going to sit here and argue with you no they're not taking my phone and letting me leave I don't know what I'm saying it's 3A it's free I can't go without my phone well if I do the interview you can go do the you can go do the interview but your phone's gonna currently be seized can I talk to him first can he come down here because nope we're not gonna do that so you can hang up the phone or I'm gonna take the phone that's how this is gonna work so she said hang on hang up the phone and they're gonna take the phone it's not a threat I've asked you several times and you're just gonna go back and forth with me so the fire is going to be under investigation by the fire department so don't interrupt me the fire is going to be under investigation don't ever tell me it's gone so the phone's gonna be seized so in a second I'm going to take it I'm asking you so if you have a reason being rebuttal I'm asking you so if you would like to talk to detective you can do you wish to talk to him yeah but do you want to get an interview no no I wanted to ask him why my phone's being seized because she said she could take me home but without my phone that doesn't make sense the officers in form is brown that her phone is being seized because the fire in her apartment is under investigation in order to comply with the fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures the government typically must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before it can legally seize an individual's personal property such as their cell phone as the seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over Illinois explained in the 1987 case of U.S versus Rivera quote seizures undertaken without warrants are presumed arbitrary and unreasonable subject to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions the United States district court in the southern district of Illinois outlined one of these exceptions in the 2011 case of U.S versus burgard stating that quote a container may be seized pending issuance of a warrant if there is probable cause to believe it holds Contraband or evidence of a crime and if the exigencies of the circumstances demand it the district court went on to explain that quote exigent circumstances exist when law enforcement officers have an objectively reasonable fear of imminent destruction of the evidence and determined that in the case at hand exigent circumstances Justified the warrantless seizure of a confidential informant cell phone when the officer reasonably feared that the informant might delete evidence from the phone before a warrant could be obtained in this situation it is unclear what proof the officers had that Ms Brown's phone contained evidence regarding the fire if they had any at all but according to a lawsuit Ms Brown filed concerning this interaction the officers attempted to obtain a warrant to search her phone after They seized it but the warrant was not approved by the state's attorney given this fact it seems likely that the officers did not have the necessary probable cause to seize Ms Brown's phone even if they may have feared she could delete any potential evidence from the phone if they did not seize it it should also be noted that even in situations where officers have the legal authority to seize a cell phone without a warrant they gen generally are prohibited from accessing the contents of the phone without first obtaining a search warrant in the 2014 case of Riley versus California the Supreme Court held that officers must generally secure a warrant before searching the data on a cell phone despite the fact that the phone itself has been lawfully seized during a search incident to arrest because quote once law enforcement officers have secured a cell phone there is no longer any risk that the arrestee himself will be able to delete incriminating data from the phone therefore even if a court concluded that Ms Brown's cell phone had been lawfully seized the officers would not be authorized to search its contents without a warrant you going to talk to the detective no I need I need everyone to come and tell me why my phone's dancing is because no one told me this until right now because it seems like the question so the question it seems like he's being petty because okay so so the question so the question is are you going to talk to the detectives as a matter of fact are you recording this are you going to talk to the detective and provide an interview yes or no is without the phone the phone's being seized are you talking to the detective or no I don't know that my that's not my question I need an answer to that before so the question is are you going to provide an interview no foreign the officers attempt to seize Ms Brown's phone and when she pulls away they force her to the ground and attempt to take it from her as the U.S District Court in the eastern district of Wisconsin noted in the 2014 case of Wisconsin carry Inc versus City of Milwaukee 7th circuit case law quote makes clear that using physical Force against an individual who has made no verbal or physical threat in order to seize property that is lawfully in the individual's possession is a constitutional violation however if the individual is found to be resisting officers may be authorized to use some level of reasonable Force depending upon the circumstances section 31-1 of Article 5 of title 720 of the Illinois compiled statutes which defines the offenses of resisting and obstructing states that quote a person who knowingly resists arrest or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer of any authorized act within his or her official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor because the statute also states that quote A person shall not be subject to arrest for resisting arrest unless there is an underlying offense for which the person was initially subject to arrest and Ms Brown was not under arrest when the officers attempted to seize her phone any potential charges under this statute would need to fall under the obstruction subsection as the Appellate Court of Illinois explained in the 2017 case of people versus driver obstructing charges in Illinois do not require physical acts rather passive acts that impede an officer's ability to perform his duties such as repeatedly refusing in order to exit a vehicle can be a violation based on this broad characterization of obstruction it seems likely that a court would consider the refusal to surrender personal property that was being seized to be a violation of of this statute however as the Appellate Court of Illinois noted in the 1968 case of people versus young quote the provision covers only resistance or obstruction to authorized acts of the officer in the young case the court determined that an individual could not be convicted of obstructing the illegal search of her home when the officers only had a warrant for another residence because quote whether the officer's belief as to his authority was reasonable or unreasonable he was not authorized to search the defendant's apartment and the act of the defendant in resisting him did not violate the statute accordingly assuming that the officers did not have the Reasonable Suspicion necessary to seize Ms Brown's cell phone without a warrant it is also likely that a court would conclude she could not be convicted of resisting unauthorized Act of a police officer are you a black because I trusted you and look at what you're doing are you willing to provide a statement or no what does that mean are you gonna talk to me if we go back there you are forcing me to I'm asking you if you're gonna but you're forcing me to I can't force you to talk you're taking my items I'm seizing this for now yes what does that mean you want to provide a statement protective I need to talk to her I need an attorney person you can okay I need a lawyer you can take her to jail all right where's your property whatever charges you guys have you have resisting an aggravated battery with a police officer oh my God I didn't have to aggravate you you want to talk to me okay so relaxed see me I'm 18 years old and you assaulted me after placing Ms Brown in handcuffs and helping her stand up the officers state that they will be charging her with resisting and aggravated battery of a police officer as we discussed earlier in this episode it is unlikely that Ms Brown could be convicted for resisting or obstructing if the court concluded that the seizure of her cell phone was unlawful as for an aggravated battery charge section 12-3 of Article 5 of title 720 of the Illinois compiled statute states that quote a person commits battery if he or she knowingly without legal justification causes bodily harm to an individual or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual and under section 12-3.05 of the same article quote a person commits aggravated battery when in committing a battery he or she knows the individual battered to be a peace officer performing his or her official duties battered to prevent performance of his or her official duties or battered in retaliation for performing his his or her official duties unlike the analysis for whether an officer was engaged in an authorized act for purposes of the resisting statute which requires that an officer have actual constitutional authority to make a search or seizure the Appellate Court of Illinois held in the 2020 case of people vs Macintosh that the constitutionality of an officer's actions is not relevant in determining whether the officers were executing their official duties for the purposes of the aggravated battery statute rather the court concluded that quote a peace officer is executing His official duties when acting in the good faith performance of his job-related duties regardless of whether those actions are later determined to be constitutionally unreasonable it is unclear from the footage whether Ms Brown made physical contact with any of the officers during the altercation although one officer alleged that she kicked her but if she did make physical contact with any of the officers it is possible that she could be convicted of battery or even aggravated battery if the judge jury believed that the officers were acting in good faith however although section 7-7 of Article 5 of title 720 of the Illinois compiled statute states that quote a person is not authorized to use Force to resist an arrest even if the arrest is unlawful under Section 7-3 of the same article quote a person is Justified in the use of force against another to prevent or terminate such others trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with personal property lawfully in his possession in the young case we discussed earlier in this episode the Appellate Court of Illinois applied a similar statute that permitted the use of force to prevent unlawful entries into one's dwelling to overturn the defendant's battery conviction holding that she quote acted from a reasonable belief that her conduct was necessary to terminate the officer's unlawful entry into her dwelling and that her use of limited force was justified accordingly if a court applied the same logic to justify any use of force by Ms Brown as protecting her personal property she could potentially be acquitted of any battery charges filed against her of course I'm aggravated I wasn't a resisting arrest who didn't say that I was under arrest I asked you so listen don't I ask you to provide your phone and you refused okay you didn't give me no reason no no I said your phone was being seen I asked you the reason several times I trusted you that's why I cannot hand me your phone then we took your phone I came here you're going to jail I kicked you off because you all were manhandle police officers but I was scared hello you would do the same thing why is my stuff being seized pretenses that is the case itself do you want to go back and talk or not there will be three cases filed in the morning I promise you yes or no let's go let's go to the cage in jail wherever we're going I need to make a call I get one call I know that much I I resisted because you gave me no reason you cannot search me or take my items with giving me no reason and it wasn't aggravated assault it's called defending myself when I feel that I'm In Harm's Way and that's the situation that you put me in because I thought I was coming for an interview and now I'm in handcuffs without a phone why would you lie to me I didn't lie to you you did like I did not lie to your time you told me he was here when we got here you told me I was doing an interview and you would take me home why are you treating me like I'm a criminal there was a fire at my house that doesn't matter to you when I'm sitting here talking to you I tried to talk to you and reason with you more reasoning with me you were just telling me and I'm asking you questions like a human being and you're smiling this is funny to you Ms Brown was taken to McLean County jail after her arrest and was released at approximately 1pm the following day however she was not charged with resisting battery or any other crime stemming from the altercation at the police station or the fire at her apartment the officers returned Ms Brown's phone to her around 3 30 PM several hours after her release on February 23 2023 Ms Brown filed a federal lawsuit against the unknown normal officers involved in the incident alleging counts of false arrest excessive force failure to intervene and Battery the complaint alleged that as a result of the encounter quote Ms Brown suffered physical pain including bruising sore muscles and lacerations to her wrists and emotional trauma including but not limited to humiliation and severe emotional distress as of the date of writing this episode the lawsuit is still pending overall the normal officers get an F for likely seizing Ms Brown's phone without the required probable cause to do so legally using unnecessary Force when Ms Brown refused when allow them to take her phone without a warrant and arresting Ms Brown for charges that were ultimately determined to be unfounded while it is unclear what evidence the officers believed they would find on Ms Brown's cell phone if they actually did believe there was evidence on the phone the seizure of her phone appeared to be at least partially punitive in nature due to her request to turn home before she could be questioned I cannot say whether any of the officers acted in good faith or if they were simply attempting to coerce her into remaining at the station for an interview but either way the officers unnecessarily escalated the situation into an unreasonable and potentially unconstitutional physical encounter and likely illegally seized Ms Brown's personal property Ms Brown gets a b because although it does not appear that she violated the law in this situation if the officers had actually had the probable cause necessary to legally seize her phone she could have found herself facing several criminal charges for her refusal to surrender it contrary to popular belief and Ms Brown's assertions during the interactions officers are not legally required to disclose their reasons for seizing property conducting searches or making arrests before they can do so rather the law simply requires them to possess the necessary legal justifications for taking these actions for this reason I always strongly suggest that individuals avoid resisting these types of Officer actions even if they believe them to be unlawful because an officer may know more than the individual about the reasons for the search seizure or arrest that being said Ms Brown does have a strong argument that her rights were violated in this situation and I commend her for taking Swift and appropriate legal action against the officers involved let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that 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] thank you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,059,993

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: xGdGQMSr_WE

Length: 17min 51sec (1071 seconds)

Published: Mon May 08 2023

Reddit Comments

[u/gwgos1]

Lock the phone, hand it to them. When they say give us the code for unlocking it, ask them “do you have a search warrant”? That is what you do.