Ex-Cop Forces Officers to Give Up and Leave

[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 the fifth amendment reasonable suspicion and stalking and comes to us from awakening the masses channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on june 5th 2015 private investigator and first amendment activist michael hoffman was working a case in jacksonville florida that required him to conduct surveillance on an individual and follow her to several locations after the target apparently called the police and accused mr hoffman of stalking her he was pulled over while driving by an officer with the jacksonville sheriff's office now we get to meet one another how are you doing what's going on with you following are you an investigator of some sort can i ask why you pulled me over sir i pulled you off because the young ladies came over there and said you've been following her since she left the airport yesterday so i want to know who you are have i committed a crime no but i'm conducting an investigation have you been following that young lady i mean if you're an investigator investigate what but if you're somebody harassing her or stalking her that's against the law me pulling you over to find out who you are is me doing my job am i free to go no you are not not until i find out who you are i'm conducting an investigation do you have your driver's license registration improvement insurance have you pulled it for a trial for violation sir no sir i've already explained that to you now you can play the back and forth rig them around all you want to i've explained to you why i pulled you over okay and young ladies you didn't have pc i'm not suspecting that you've been following this young lady you know that sir did you see that did you see that why'd you come back i don't have to answer questions okay you don't have to ask a question okay you do have to identify yourself uh sir if you suspect me of criminal crime or about to commit a crime i have to identify myself you have no probable cause to pull me for a traffic violation i asked you why you pulled me you because the young lady said that you've been following her since yesterday so you you believe everything everyone says to you mr hoffman verbally announces that he was not going to speak without legal counsel present invoking his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination as we have discussed in previous episodes of ata simply remaining silent is not enough to claim the right to remain silent rather individuals must affirmatively state that they are invoking their fifth amendment right in the 2013 case of salinas versus texas the supreme court held that quote a suspect who stands mute has not done enough to put police on notice that he is relying on his fifth amendment privilege the court additionally concluded that because the fifth amendment did not create an unqualified right to remain silent a suspect's silence during questioning can be used against them as evidence of their guilt after mr hoffman invoked his fifth amendment rights the officer told him to bring his legal counsel to the scene so that he could be questioned however officers cannot require citizens to produce legal counsel so they can question them during a terry stop as the supreme court explained in the 1984 case of burkhamer vs mccarty during a terry stop quote the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions but the detainee is not obliged to respond and unless the detainee's answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him he must then be released in fact police officers typically cannot compel a citizen to answer their questions or cooperate with their investigations under any circumstances even if the individual has been arrested and charged with a crime a judge may order an individual to answer a question during a court proceeding but even then they can claim their fifth amendment privilege if they believe the answer may incriminate them therefore mr hoffman was completely within his rights to refuse to answer questions and as long as there was no probable cause to make an arrest mr hoffman should have been released after a brief detention i'm conducting an investigation okay will you conduct right away sir at this point in time i elect to not say anything i like to speak to my uh say anything without having my attorney present that would be eric friday cole colin tell them to come up here we're at the um 8100 block of all time i don't answer questions stephanie you don't ask a question you just stop young lady just stand by them your name and badge number deputy your name and badge number deputy hey buddy what's going on here name and badge number sir simpson66190 mccinson m-a-f-i-n-s-i-n so i like to know why i'm being detained no we want to find we want to someone's saying that you're stop claiming your stock and then where's that is that are you an investigator right okay let me make this clear sir i would like for you to articulate what crime you suspect me of committing or what crime you suspect me about to commit no we just have problems we just have a reasonable suspicion to figure out what's going on here no no so you don't get to detain me to figure out if i've committed a crime sir the law and the statute states in order for you to detain me you have muscle you must have reasonable articulable suspicion that either i have committed what is your probable cause you gotta complain that we got that's the red that's not probable sir what crime do you suspect me of committing mr hoffman argues that the officers cannot detain him to figure out if he had committed a crime and that they need a reasonable articulable suspicion that he has committed or is about to commit a crime although officers are required to have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a terry stop they do not need reasonable suspicion of a specific crime in order to satisfy the fourth amendment and the primary purpose of a terry stop is to investigate whether criminal activity is afoot in the 2002 case of united states vs rv zoo the supreme court explained that quote when discussing how reviewing courts should make reasonable suspicion determinations we have said repeatedly that they must look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing the court also concluded that quote a determination that reasonable suspicion exists need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct and that a stop can still be reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment if the detainee's conduct is susceptible to innocent explanation in this situation the police stopped mr hoffman based on an accusation of stalking and the fact that his vehicle allegedly matched the description of the vehicle the subject of mr hoffman's investigation reported as following her which a court would likely conclude gave the officers reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate mr hoffman in the 1990 case of alabama versus white the supreme court held that an accusation whether from a known informant or an anonymous source can be sufficient to justify a terry stop as long as the tip included sufficient quote indicia of reliability the court explained that quote when significant aspects of the caller's predictions were verified there was reason to believe not only that the caller was honest but also that he was well informed at least well enough to justify the stop while we are not privy to all of the information the police had at their disposal when deciding whether to stop mr hoffman because the standard for reasonable suspicion is so low a court would likely uphold this stop based on the information provided by the complainant and the corroborated description of the vehicle your name and badge number sir sir what's your name your name and badge number sir but all you're being recorded i've got four cameras in this truck you're required by policy to issue your name and bag number i'm gonna ask you what i'm speaking to this gentleman right now i'll get your name and badge number in a minute your name and badge number zero zero five one what's your name i just told you i didn't hear it because i'm sitting there speaking and starting it so you can pick it up later so i'm gonna ask you once again if you want to be a smart about it i'll follow internal affairs case on i gave thank you once already i didn't hear it i'm asking you once again so just send some professional courtesy and treat me with respect i deserve it what is your name and badge number one you know so i gave him zero zero five one thank you i appreciate that deputy was that so hard no the law of state the law states i don't have to give my name and uh information unless you suspect me of committing a crime if i don't then am i free to go because this is an illegal detainment that's this time this is an illegal detainment because like i said your paralysis description we were given i respect that you're guilty i respect that you're talking to an ex-law enforcement officer buddy now i understand you're doing no fault with that you are doing your job okay and the mere fact that i'm exercising my legal rights does not make me uncooperative okay now the fact that someone called you and said that harassing doesn't give you the general order just to stop people that was that wasn't the reason why because a person in a vehicle that matched your description was doing that we didn't say you were doing it okay and that's all coming down to but how do you define harassment someone just closes they were harassing me did you ask her what they did did you ask ask the person you said a big red swap was following her is that a crime the officers claimed that the subject of mr hoffman's investigation reported that a vehicle matching the description of his truck was following her and mr hoffman asks if that's a crime according to section 784.048 of the florida statutes quote a person who willfully maliciously and repeatedly follows harasses or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking a misdemeanor of the first degree the standard jury instructions for the statute explain that quote willfully means knowingly intentionally and purposely and quote maliciously means wrongfully intentionally and without legal justification or excuse in other words following someone can be a crime in florida but only if it is repeated and intentional and there's no legitimate reason for doing so according to section 493-6101 of the florida statutes as a private investigator mr hoffman is licensed by the state and authorized to conduct investigations to obtain information about topics such as the identity habits conduct movements whereabouts affiliations associations transactions reputation or character of any society person or group of persons the credibility of witnesses or other persons the whereabouts of missing persons owners of unclaimed property or heirs to estates and the location or recovery of lost or stolen property when he was following the individual who reported him to the police mr hoffman claims to have been investigating her for a domestic case which would almost certainly fall under his authority to investigate the quote identity habits conduct movements whereabouts affiliations associations transactions reputation or character of any person although private investigators are not permitted to commit crimes or otherwise break the law while conducting investigations in this case a court would likely conclude that mr hoffman was not maliciously following the subject because his surveillance served a legal and legitimate purpose which would mean that he could not be convicted under the florida stalking statutes all that said there is a high probability that mr hoffman could have been lawfully charged with stalking if he wasn't a private investigator and the jacksonville deputies had no way of knowing that he was an investigator upon making contact with them we haven't determined that we just want to make sure do you see where i'm going with this sir i mean i understand these guys are doing your job do you see how this goes i'm aware of my rights you do not have or excuse me you have the right to ask me whatever question you want you're really enjoying this i'm not enjoying anything you know what i am enjoying how you officers fail to realize that those badges and those guns don't give you the right to violate other people's rights i have sure you are i've articulated to you that you were illegally detaining me and because you choose to abuse your authority and not recognize that what i'm saying is a fact you were illegally violating my rights to find out if you are the one or not the one that was violating this other woman's rights but i've made it clear sir i'm not going to answer questions i've made it clear you don't get too cooperating yes sir the fact that i'm exercising my rights does not mean i'm not cooperating sir yes it does it does not i'm not saying i am this person i'm not saying i am not this first but what you fail to realize is i do not have to speak to you sir and that does not give you the right to detain me until you get some information to charge me with the crime you don't get to search and search until i say something or you twist something i say to use it against me okay sure back to my original question when i first got here yesterday are you following somebody i don't answer questions sir okay am i free to go thank you after mr hoffman repeatedly refused to answer the officer's questions they eventually ended the encounter and informed him that he was free to go it is unclear whether mr hoffman will be pursuing legal action against the officers or the sheriff's office however the videos on mr hoffman's youtube channel includes footage and follow-up information for several other encounters he had with the jacksonville sheriff's office including a trespassing conviction against him for an incident stemming from a first amendment audit in 2014. so be sure to check those out if you want more information overall mr hoffman gets a b because although he demonstrated a blatant misunderstanding of the concept of reasonable suspicion he respectfully challenged the legitimacy of the stop verbally invoked his right to remain silent and ultimately left the scene without providing the officers with any unnecessary information there is no denying that mr hoffman was under no legal obligation to assist the jacksonville deputies with their investigation however providing a reasonable degree of information in an effort to dispel the deputy's suspicions was arguably the most productive means to end this encounter without risking a violation of rights if mr hoffman had simply informed the deputies that he was a private investigator then any further inquiries about his conduct would have been that much more unreasonable and he would have essentially dissolved any standing of reasonable suspicion that the deputies could have pointed to within a courtroom it could be argued that mr hoffman's decision to withhold the fact that he was a private investigator working on a case is what provided the officers with enough articulable suspicion to continue detaining him as mentioned in the episode members of law enforcement do not need suspicion of a particular crime in order to detain an individual as mr hoffman suggested and what many first amendment activists fail to understand is that the bar for achieving an acceptable degree of reasonable suspicion was intentionally set extremely low by the courts so that officers would have a great deal of leniency to investigate potential criminal activity the supreme court has said on many occasions that their interpretation of the fourth amendment readily accepts the notion that sometimes innocent people will be detained for appearing suspicious and being mistakenly detained within reason is merely a byproduct of living within a well-policed society this interaction highlights the notion that invoking the right to remain silent is not always a binary tool and it can sometimes be beneficial to make an effort to dispel an officer's suspicions in certain circumstances the jacksonville sheriff's deputies also get a b because although they also demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of reasonable suspicion the deputies were largely calm and respectful initiated the stop based on a reasonable and credible complaint and remained within the bounds of their authority throughout the interaction it is clear from the video that the officers likely did have enough reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate mr hoffman based on the corroborated evidence provided by the complainant and while florida's stop and frisk law does not explicitly grant officers the authority to demand identification from a stopped individual it does grant them the authority to detain an individual until their identity can be ascertained all that said the conduct and verbiage of the jacksonville deputies suggest that none of the deputies on the scene had a thorough understanding of how reasonable suspicion works or how to effectuate their authority properly under the doctrine it appears that this lack of understanding is what ultimately led to the deputies essentially giving up and leaving the scene without completing their investigation the jacksonville deputies could certainly benefit from revisiting the fundamental legal concepts associated with policing but at least for this encounter their ignorance of the law did not result in an escalation of force or a violation of rights let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you'd 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: 3,279,990

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: uF7m95e7V6Q

Length: 16min 32sec (992 seconds)

Published: Mon Nov 01 2021