Fake Laws Were Enforced By These Officers

[Music] welcome to audit the audits where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers solicitation the right to petition and officer conduct and is brought to us by kimberly totsky'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 would like to invite you all to check out the ata patreon page where you can find ad-free uncensored and exclusive content that you can't get anywhere else and right now we're offering a limited time one-year membership with two months completely free on the evening of january 2nd 2021 battle creek resident laurent marshall was going door to door at the wind tree townhomes complex in battle creek michigan collecting signatures in an effort to form a tenants association to combat crime and mistreatment within his community mr marshall had already collected nearly 100 signatures before he knocked on the door of kimberly totsky and asked her if she would like to participate in the formation of the association while engaging in small talk with ms totsky mr marshall was approached by deputy hamilton and another unidentified deputy from the calhoun county sheriff's office that's not what you learn i don't know put your hand behind your back for what put your other hand on your back right there okay you're either going to follow instructions or you're going to go to jail come over has he broken the law has he broken whatever you're soliciting so you don't even know what i'm doing he's soliciting that's why we're turning over if there's problems if you don't want them doing that then that can be done but like he's not doing anything wrong he lives here give me your id for what has he broken a law is he committing a crime i just told you listening soliciting without a permit he hasn't tried to sell me anything then what are you doing collecting signals that's what i'm doing can do that it doesn't matter i could do that it does matter oh we have a right which is why we're here making contact with you okay what does the caller tell you i didn't have my foot of any money or anything but what the deputies accused mr marshall of soliciting and mr marshall informs the deputies that he is collecting signatures and has not requested any money from anyone he has spoken to outside of lewd or sexual acts the crime of soliciting generally refers to approaching citizens in an attempt to beg or ask for money or exchange an unrequested service for money and soliciting is ordinarily regulated at the municipal level the legislative framework for soliciting varies dramatically from city to city with some cities outlawing the act altogether and others drafting very specific protocols for allowing solicitation to some degree for example the city of new york allows the solicitation of charitable funds through the acquisition of a city-sponsored licensing program and in contrast the city of detroit permits the solicitation of food or money without a license so long as it does not interfere with the safety and security of others section 618.25 of the battle creek municipal code once outlawed the act of solicitation however this section was repealed by the passage of ordnance 04-04 on february 17 2004. even if mr marshall was soliciting there are no municipal state or federal statutes that would prevent him from doing so nonetheless it is clear that the phrase solicitation does not apply to mr marshall's attempt to gather signatures and the first amendment offers explicit protection from government entities while exercising the right to petition the right to petition can be traced back to the drafting of the magna carta in 1215 and through various disputes between the english parliament and the dominating steward monarchy rose to prominence once again with the petition to write in 1628 which was a constitutional document that set out specific individual protections against the state the right was further legitimized with the drafting of the landmark english bill of rights act of 1688 which was largely attributed to the revolutionary ideas of philosopher and physicist john locke during this time the english government began to prioritize the concept of individual liberty while maintaining their quasi-monarch structure of governance and many of these documents came to serve as the framework for america's constitution roughly 100 years after the english bill of rights was legislated into effect america became an independent nation and drafted its very own bill of rights in 1791 which included the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the very first amendment mr marshall's petition stems from the legal concept of tenants rights and would fall under the scope of protection guaranteed by the first amendment because the purpose of attendance association includes forcing a property owner or manager to adhere to the governmental standards associated with those rights the fact that the deputies who are government agents made a concerted effort to intrude upon that right would also be a factor in deciding whether mr marshall's first amendment rights were violated there is nothing illegal about what mr marshall was doing and as demonstrated in this section mr marshall's conduct is vehemently protected by the constitution this interaction should have ended the moment that mr marshall informed the deputies that he was collecting signatures but the deputies decided to shift their focus to ascertaining mr marshall's identity okay where's your idea but they don't want to ask them questions if you fail to identify yourself you're going to go to jail but he's not committed to crime and he's not doing anything wrong we have the right we have the right to petition in this country back under arrest no i'm not turn around and put your hands right what am i going to wrestle with can i have your badge number sir and opposing turn around and put your hands hindering what there's no investigation because there's been no crime commitment okay well don't play with my rights i need your badge number one put your hands right on your back i live in the front up there i just told you that deputy hamilton and who are you behind you i'm the one can i have your badge number officer hold it behind you how many times i gotta tell you to put your hands behind your back please don't do this right now for my name right how many times are we gonna do this turn around you're under arrest you're under arrest i said what you gonna do about my kids figure that out turn around you'll figure that out seriously what's he under arrest for first the deputy tells mr marshall that he will be arrested for failing to identify himself but then changes the alleged charge to hindering an investigation and orders mr marshall to place his hands behind his back michigan is not a stop and identify state and in order to demand identification from a citizen an officer must acquire reasonable suspicion to believe that the citizen is involved in criminal activity according to the calhoun county sheriff's office the original 911 caller reported a suspicious person that was possibly soliciting and when the deputies arrived on the scene they were given more than enough evidence to conclude that mr marshall was not soliciting not only did mr marshall have a list of signatures in his hand and made a concerted effort to inform the officers that he was not soliciting but this information was also validated by ms totsky who was an independent witness the deputies did not have enough evidence to suggest that mr marshall was soliciting and as mentioned before the city of battle creek has no statutes that pertain to the act of soliciting which means that the deputies did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that mr marshall was engaged in criminal activity furthermore the deputies accused mr marshall of obstructing or hindering their investigation and michigan has several laws pertaining to the obstruction of an investigation section 750-478-a of the michigan penal code states that a person who is informed by a peace officer that he or she is conducting a criminal investigation shall not attempt to intimidate hinder or obstruct a peace officer in the discharge of his or her official duties by a use of unauthorized process and the code goes on to define an unauthorized process as a document simulating legal process that is prepared or issued by an illegitimate agency that is not a court or that would otherwise be legal process except that it was not lawfully filed with or recorded by a governmental agency subsection 6 of this code creates an exception for individuals assembling lawfully or lawful free expression of opinions or designation of group affiliation or association it is clear that mr marshall was not in violation of this code and would likely fall under the exemptions specifically outlined within the language of the statute section 750.479c of the michigan penal code is another version of the state's obstruction law and essentially criminalizes the act of knowingly concealing facts or providing false statements or documents material to an investigation once again mr marshall was not violating any part of this statute which renders his arrest invalid especially considering that the deputies did not have reasonable suspicion to effectuate a detainment in the first place what's your badge number officer you legally have to provide that to me you're on my property on my camera under my surveillance with my sticker in the window when you owe me a badge number both of you we'll get to that when we're finished when you're finished i need a badge number now or i'm going to have them call them and then i'll have your superiors come down here there are due processes that you need to follow as officers and you're not so please give me your badge number i'm not asking you for anything else but a badge number not you you're on my property on my camera under my surveillance so we have a problem because you're definitely tripping i'm talking to her you talking i'm soliciting how am i switching my man i'm any money i ain't talking about any money i'll take y'all home in a second just collecting sickness the deputies escort mr marshall to their patrol vehicle and the unidentified deputy violently shoves mr marshall into the vehicle and slams the door closed moments later deputy hamilton returns to mrs totsky's port to hand her a business card with both of their badge numbers was that necessary was that really necessary to do in front of his kids y'all is wrong as hell and he lives here okay i got the utmost respect for you here's your mom i got the utmost respect for you officers when you come out here and look out but he lives here and he was on my porch and he didn't start a thing and y'all is wrong every last bit of this was wrong and y'all done messed up you messed up you messed up i'm going to take these babies home they arrested people that live here collecting signatures is our legal right no you don't every name okay well you can look it up y'all obviously have been here i'm not doing this with you y'all were wrong y'all was definitely wrong you're gonna what are you gonna do arrest me on my porch when i've done nothing wrong i'm not knocking his children i'm definitely taking them as soon as you get away from me because i feel threatened i just talked to their mama on the phone right up front with their newborn baby no she's not get up on my porch the unidentified deputy attempts to coerce ms totsky into providing her identification but she refuses to comply and the deputy walks away miss tatsuki was under no legal obligation to provide her identification to the deputies and given the circumstances of this arrest her decision to take mr marshall's children back to their house was not unreasonable i find it difficult to believe that a court would consider the deputy's decision to leave mr marshall's children with ms tatsuki to be unreasonable considering that their home was within walking distance and mr marshall authorized ms totsky to take them to their house in most situations one of the deputies would have likely driven the children to their home and surrendered them into the custody of their mother and in cases where both parents are arrested it is generally the policy of most departments to contact child protective services to arrange for the children to be handed over to the nearest relative all that said it appears that the deputy's reasoning for attempting to ascertain mrs tatsuki's identity was to ensure that she could be contacted in the event that something happened to the children once the deputies left the scene and there is a legitimate possibility that the calhoun county sheriff's office could be held liable in such an event a more professional approach might have been to have a separate deputy escort miss tatsuki and the children to their home to guarantee that the children made it home safely do you see this right now my dad got a lawyer so they definitely gonna get a suit for this [ __ ] i have no idea what's going on came in and grabbed my phone the deputies returned to their patrol car and eventually left the scene without further incident and miss totsky walked mr marshall's children back to their home safely mr marshall was arrested and was charged with felony resisting and obstructing an officer which falls under section 750.81d of the michigan penal code however this is yet another statute that mr marshall was clearly not in violation of as it defines obstruction as the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command mr marshall was not physically combative in any way and none of the orders issued by the deputies were lawful on january 6th calhoun county sheriff steve hinckley and undersheriff tim hurt issued a statement via facebook declaring that the department had completed a preliminary investigation into the incident and that the unidentified deputy was being placed on an administrative leave until further investigations could be conducted the sheriff stated that the deputy was quote acting on ordinances that were valid in other communities and not this particular community on january 9 the charges against mr marshall were dropped and the calhoun county undersheriff issued an apology in person as of the writing of this episode i have spoken to mr marshall's attorney jennifer lord who informed me that they are still in the investigative stage of the interaction and are deciding whether or not to pursue further legal action overall the calhoun county sheriff's deputies get an f for attempting to enforce a statute that doesn't exist displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of reasonable suspicion and for violently arresting mr marshall when he had committed no crimes it is clear from the video that the deputies had no interest in carrying out a legitimate investigation to determine the legality of mr marshall's conduct even when presented with overwhelming evidence that mr marshall was not breaking a law that didn't even exist to say that the unidentified deputy engaged in an act of gross incompetence would be an understatement and this is yet another interaction that would certainly warrant a lower grade than an f the very fundamental elements of policing were called into question by this deputy's conduct and at the very least members of law enforcement should be more than familiar with their municipality statutes even if they demonstrate a complete ignorance of the constitutional protections they are charged with protecting and the state level statutes they are authorized to enforce there is simply no excuse for this deputy's conduct and there is no doubt that the deputy's ego played a major role in the outcome of this interaction i see no other recourse for the public at large outside of this deputy's termination and this is the precedent that must be set in order to restore the reputation of american policing as a whole it'll be interesting to see the outcome of the calhoun county sheriff's investigation and i firmly believe that mr marshall has a strong federal case on his hands mr marshall gets an a because although he could have exercised his right to silence more tactfully he made a legitimate effort to dispel the deputy's suspicions without compromising his constitutional rights refused to allow the deputy to intimidate him and followed up this interaction with the proper legal action there should never be a circumstance where a citizen is arrested for laws that are non-existent especially when they are exercising a right that is protected by the constitution mr marshall did more than what was legally required of him to prove his innocence and everything he told the officers was corroborated by an independent witness and plainly observable facts mr marshall managed to tear down the deputy's assertions without even referencing the fact that no solicitation laws existed and both mr marshall and miss tatsuki reminded the officers about the right to petition mr marshall was never rude or confrontational with the deputies and managed to remain calm while being unlawfully arrested mr marshall excellently maintained a degree of professionalism that eclipsed the rude and condescending conduct of the deputies and as mentioned before he will likely fare very well in the courtroom if he decides to sue the deputies and the department there is certainly an argument to be made that the department bears some level of liability for the deputy's lack of training in regards to the battle creek municipal code and it is difficult to understand how the department could continue to employ a deputy who is not familiar with the laws of his community i commend mr marshall for having the courage to challenge the legitimacy of his detention and the conviction to follow up this encounter with legal action i also commend ms tatsky for having the courage to defend mr marshall against the deputies and the awareness to begin recording this encounter be sure to give your support to mrs totsky's channel you can find a link in the description below let us know if there's 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 [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,109,284

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: IfVpOCbAPa8

Length: 17min 23sec (1043 seconds)

Published: Thu Jan 21 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/DefendCharterRights]

At 6:38, AtA: "Michigan is not a stop-and-identify state, and in order to demand identification from a citizen an officer must acquire reasonable suspicion to believe that the citizen is involved in criminal activity."

AtA is correct in pointing out that Michigan is not a stop-and-identify state.

AtA is wrong in asserting that Michigan police can demand identification if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This would be true if Michigan was a stop-and-identify state, but AtA just explained Michigan is not.

This is a pretty basic error, and I'm surprised to hear it in an AtA video.

ETA: AtA posted the following correction in the description of his YouTube video:

Published on Jan 21, 2021

***CORRECTION*** Mr. Marshall would not have been legally obligated to present his ID unless he had been arrested at the time of the command. Michigan is not a stop and ID state, meaning that more than RAS is required to compel citizens to present ID.

[u/Dreams_of_Eagles]

"Restore their reputation with the public", Ha Ha Ha, You said that like the police ever had any positive reputation to begin with. These fuckers still think they are on slave patrol.

[u/OhighOent]

wow... they charged him with a felony for that....

[u/samsong]

Update: officer fired: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/michigan/articles/2021-01-22/cop-who-arrested-black-man-collecting-signatures-is-fired

[u/DefendCharterRights]

At 1:56, cammer: "He lives here."

At 10:21, cammer: "He lives [muted] here."

At 10:29, cammer: "He [muted] lives here."

At 10:43, cammer: "They arresting people that [muted] live here."

At least two news sources identify Kimberly Totzke (cammer) as La'ron Marshall's (arrestee) neighbor, which becomes evident during the encounter. Given the way these deputies were behaving, Ms. Totzke was lucky the deputies didn't arrest her on some trumped up charge, such as Michigan Penal Code Section Section 750.479c(1)(c).