Detained For Wearing a Bikini

[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 beach attire excessive force and hindering and comes to us from samantha panda's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on august 2nd 2020 myrtle beach police department officer zach reffy and kyle dick detained professional aerialist samantha panda and her sister-in-law kendall lee during an outing to myrtle beach after an unidentified woman called to complain about their bathing suits ms panda's boyfriend who was at the beach with ms panda and ms lee began filming the encounter after ms panda was placed in handcuffs so why is it illegal to wear to have a bikini on the beach i literally wear this to the beach i want to show you we're going to show absolutely did someone complain yeah i mean we don't just show up and tell everybody everything yeah shall be unlawful for any person if you're in the nude on any public beach beach beach access to the public waters or any public property in the view of the public i'm not so nobody's nude there's nobody dude right now dude okay the officers refer miss panda to section 5-30 of the city of myrtle beach code of ordinances which prohibits public nudity and we will discuss this code in more detail later in this episode public nudity regulations are common in the united states and almost every state has some sort of law involving lewd behavior or indecent exposure public nudity is also often regulated even more strictly on the municipal level as is the case in myrtle beach and these local ordinances have generally survived constitutional scrutiny when challenged in court in the 2000 case of erie versus paps am the u.s supreme court upheld a public indecency ordinance in the city of erie pennsylvania that prohibited knowingly or intentionally appearing in public in a quote state of nudity a nude erotic dancing establishment called candyland challenged the constitutionality of the law arguing that because the ordinance required the dancers to wear a certain amount of clothing it violated their first amendment right to freedom of expression in reaching its decision the court determined that while quote being in a state of nudity is not an inherently expressive condition new dancing is expressive conduct that falls quote only within the outer ambit of the first amendment's protection despite the first amendment implications the court upheld the ordinance as a content neutral regulation that attempted to avoid the negative secondary effects associated with new dancing establishments rather than restrict speech in other court cases public nudity ordinances that prohibit women but not men from exposing their breasts have been challenged as a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution while the majority of courts considering these cases have upheld such laws in the 2019 case of free the nipple fort collins vs city of fort collins the 10th circuit court of appeals upheld a district court's determination that such an ordinance quote discriminates against women based on the generalized notion that regardless of a woman's intent the exposure of her breasts in public is necessarily a sexualized act thus it perpetrates a stereotype ingrained in our society that female breasts are primarily objects of sexual desire whereas male breasts are not based on this reasoning the court concluded that there was a strong likelihood that the plaintiffs could establish that ordinance violates the equal protection clause the u.s supreme court has yet to weigh in on the issue but on january 13 2020 the court rejected a request to review the 2019 case of state versus lily where the supreme court of new hampshire upheld an ordinance banning women from appearing topless in public as mentioned before we will discuss the parameters of the myrtle beach municipal code in a moment but it is important to note that the concept of public nudity is still a relatively controversial subject within the courtroom as long as it's not in a sexually explicit manner and there's no sexually there's nothing sexually explicit about this okay nude in the nude this is not considered nudity there is clothing covering their private parts just because just because she she has a bikini that that is more revealing does not mean that she's in the wrong yes because of the way you're acting so what's going on he said no he told me that he wouldn't show me and i said okay then we're done here and then he put me in cuffs immediately and then after that they brought me over here showed me their book which doesn't say anything about being in a thong it just said you can't be new jimmy james so let me go let me go to the orders for give me just a minute and get everything printed out i will show it to you but you cannot be heard with mom you have to have on the cover because actually she asked you to show you she asked you to show you and then you guys said no right off the bat so she did say walk away after that ms panda admits that she attempted to walk away from the officers when they initially approached her about her swimsuit and the officers claimed that her behavior is why they elected to place her in handcuffs while it is difficult to conclude anything definitively without footage of this encounter it's likely that the officers were attempting to legally detain her to investigate a potential violation of myrtle beach's public nudity ordinance although officers are permitted to use handcuffs when detaining a suspect who is deemed a flight risk or a potential danger the unnecessary use of handcuffs can give rise to excessive force claims against police officers in the 1989 case of graham versus conor the u.s supreme court held that when an excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen it should be analyzed under the protections of the fourth amendment which guarantees citizens the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures of the person under the fourth amendment standard the force used must be reasonable under the circumstances from the officer's point of view at the time the force was used in explaining this standard the court stated that quote the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense uncertain and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation if ms panda were to file an excessive force claim against the officers for placing her in handcuffs a court would apply the standard outlined in the gram decision and quote determine whether the officer's actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them without regard to their underlying intent or motivation as mentioned before it is difficult to conclude whether officer dick's use of handcuffs were warranted without seeing footage of the initial encounter but if ms panda did attempt to walk away from the officers after being detained then there is a high probability that a court would find her handcuffing to be justified you want to come around and throw your weight around like like i have to do everything you say that's not the case so if you don't want to show me something you don't want to tell me what you're going to for what we're talking about officer dick threatens to arrest miss panda's boyfriend for quote-unquote hindering which is likely a reference to section 14-63 of the city of myrtle beach code of ordinances the ordinance states that quote while a law enforcement officer is actively in the lawful discharge of his duties relating to law enforcement investigation or arrest it shall be unlawful for any person to place or position oneself in such proximity to the law enforcement officer that would have the effect to physically impede interfere obstruct hinder or molest the law enforcement officer in the performance of the public duty given that the code requires an individual to physically hinder the officer to be found guilty of this offense it is highly unlikely that a court would conclude that ms panda's boyfriend violated this ordinance by merely talking to the officer walk away we have our social distance we have our social distance i'm investigating them right now okay there's no need to talk and and to speak with them they're being irrational unreasonable and that's just how it is officer hinton shows ms panda and ms lee the public nudity ordinances that they are accused of violating section 5-30 of the city of myrtle beach code of ordinances states that quote it shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally appear on any public beach beach access in the public waters any other public property or in view of the public in such a state of dress or undress so as to expose to the view of others specified anatomical areas section 5-1 of the code of ordinances clarifies that the phrase specified anatomical areas includes buttocks and nipples officer hinton argued that ms panda's bathing suit bottom exposed her buttocks and that ms lee's shirt exposed her chest because it was see-through while the city of myrtle beach's website states that quote thong-style bathing suits are not allowed on the beach or in public neither the ordinances nor the website provides any guidance as to what constitutes such a bathing suit among the many variations of thong type bathing suits or what is an acceptable amount of visible anatomical area under the local ordinance ms panda and ms lee attempted to gain some clarity on appropriate beach attire from the officers but they did not provide any substantive guidance on the matter given the language of these laws it's likely that a judge would agree with the officers that both ms panda's bathing suit bottom and ms lee's shirt violated the public nudity ordinances by exposing buttocks and female breasts at or below the areola to the public through their state of dress is it this isn't muted i'm not saying you're new we have to cover up two if you're out here in a bathing suit and and a cover-up you have a thorn under it that's fine so what's what's considered a thong because that's a brazilian cut bikini we're not getting it doesn't matter because i'm gonna go buy a bikini i would like to know if i can wear it but our ordinance just says that's all it is okay so so then so then that's a buttocks over there so and that's left off okay okay now after discussing the public nudity ordinances the officers allow ms panda and ms lee to leave without further incident ms panda posted the interaction on her facebook page instagram and youtube writing on her instagram post quote i will not allow women to feel like they are obligated to dress a certain way because it makes someone else feel more comfortable this is a vulgar use of force an egregious overuse of power and it needs to be addressed in an interview with wpde myrtle beach ms panda pledged to take action stating that while she wants to get the ordinance thrown out entirely if the law is going to stay on the books she believes it needs to be easier for people to understand and for police to enforce ms panda said in the interview that she was in the early stages of forming a legal team but it is unclear whether she filed a complaint about the incident or what type of legal action she plans to pursue and it does not appear any lawsuits have been filed thus far however a few weeks after ms panda's encounter with the officers on august 21 2020 a south carolina woman named nirvan ibrahim and her teenage daughter filed an excessive force lawsuit against the myrtle beach police department for another incident involving officer reffy and officer dick the complaint alleges that the officers unnecessarily handcuffed the women and held them at gunpoint during a traffic stop that occurred when the women were driving a rental car with a license plate that had previously been reported as stolen as of the date of this episode the case is still pending in the horry county court of common pleas overall officer dick and officer reffy get a c-minus because although they were likely within their authority to detain and investigate ms panda and miss lee the officers made no effort to de-escalate the situation maintained a rude and condescending demeanor throughout the interaction and baselessly threatened to arrest ms panda's boyfriend regardless of whether the language of myrtle beach's nudity code exactly described the type of bathing suits ms panda and ms lee were wearing the officers would likely have been within their authority to investigate them under the suspicion of violating section 5-30 as mentioned in many episodes of ata corroborating the evidence offered by a 911 caller typically can serve as reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop and once the officers received the call and located two individuals that matched the description offered by the caller the foundation for reasonable suspicion was built the officers also made the decision to contact a superior officer which significantly contributed to the peaceful resolution of the interaction all that said the officers utterly failed to de-escalate the encounter and much of their language was accusatory and tone deaf they also threatened to arrest miss panda's boyfriend for verbally criticizing their actions but ultimately did not act on those threats much of the myrtle beach officers conduct was within the bounds of their authority but their lack of professionalism and poor discretion disparage the legitimacy of their investigation ms panda and miss lee get a b because although it is likely that they were lawfully detained the two remained calm and collected throughout the encounter at the awareness to begin recording and pose legitimate verbal challenges to the officers without becoming overtly hostile while it is likely that ms panda and ms lee were in violation of section 5-30 they did not challenge the existence of the code but more so the code's verbiage and constitutionality ms panda's two principal points were that one what she is wearing does not fit the language of the code and two the code should not grant officers the authority to dictate what kind of swimwear a person can wear within reason both of these points are valid and when taken at face value section 5-30 does appear to raise some questions of constitutionality however the constituents of a municipality are free to participate in the drafting of local laws and codes such as this one typically reflect the majority opinion of any given community the fact that the police were called on ms panda and ms lee is likely a testament to the overall consensus of the local citizens regarding the code and there is a strong possibility that section 5-30 would have been challenged long ago if the citizens of myrtle beach found it to be unconstitutional or misaligned with their community values much like many other aspects of life the law can be seen as a relative concept that should be interpreted and enforced based on the societal standards of the locality it governs and although a majority of americans would likely disagree with myrtle beach's enforcement of proper swimming attire the citizens of myrtle beach are more than capable of participating in their local political process and dictating the code and conduct of their community 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 the ata patreon page for more police interaction content you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 935,217

Rating: 4.8416328 out of 5

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: 148I0ntw-Eo

Length: 16min 21sec (981 seconds)

Published: Mon Mar 15 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/DefendCharterRights]

See thread posted 9 hours before this one.