Falsely Arrested TWICE in the Same Stop

[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what in the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers freedom of speech false arrests and qualified immunity and is brought to us by kdj pro's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on march 3rd 2021 missouri resident mark everman was riding as a passenger as his wife drove on highway 69 north of adair oklahoma when officer adolfo carlos of the adair police department pulled them over for an alleged speeding violation even though the body camera footage shows that officer carlos actually clocked the vehicle speed as under the 45 mile per hour speed limit after stopping the vehicle officer carlos approached the driver's side window how you doing got your license on you so why did you pull me off speeding ma'am no i slowed down to 45. no i got you i got you at 58 coming in there no i don't know sir is the traffic is the traffic stop with you step out for me step out step out i'm not going to ask you again step out add it right there to one steve james be on your back you're under arrest for the sorely conduct over here with me after mr everman uses a single profanity to show his skepticism of the speed officer carlos claims the vehicle was traveling officer carlos handcuffs mr everman and informs him that he is under arrest for quote-unquote disorderly conduct as discussed many times on ata vulgarities and profanities are protected speech under the first amendment and it is well established that voicing your opinion to the police is not illegal under section 21-1363 of the oklahoma statutes quote if any person shall make use of any profane violent abusive or insulting language toward or about another person in the presence or hearing which language and its common acceptance is calculated to arouse to anger the person about or to whom it is spoken or addressed or to cause a breach of the peace or an assault every such person shall be deemed guilty of a breach of the peace however as the supreme court held in the infamous 1971 case of cohen vs california quote the state may not consistently with the first and 14th amendments make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense and as the supreme court explained in the 1987 case of houston vs hill quote the first amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers including obscenities the court also referred to its decision in the 1949 case of term in yellow versus chicago which stated the quote speech is often provocative and challenging but it is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance are unrest given the long-established first amendment protection for using profanity and criticizing the police it is almost guaranteed that mr everman could not be constitutionally convicted of disorderly conduct for his use of a curse word right this way sir oh you're funny have a seat in your car man you can record have a seat in your car you can record all you want but have a seat in your car the way he's acting i don't feel comfortable leaving him in the vehicle the way he's acting have a seat back in the car the minute i walk up to the first words to come out of your mouth you first words that came out on that that i never said that that's a lie you call me it's not it's all recorded when you first walked up here right here here's the thing i don't feel comfortable leaving your vehicle i understand nobody knows listen let me explain to you nobody here nobody well you're going to hear cuz i'm telling you nobody in the right mind acts like that i don't know what you're dealing with when you're telling us i don't know what your deal is you lied when you walked okay that's fine so that's why you're in cuffs and sitting back here well you should have shut out from the beginning you wouldn't be where you're at officer carlos essentially admits that he arrested mr everman solely for his speech stating that he wouldn't be in handcuffs if he had quote unquote shut up from the beginning the fourth amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures because arrests are seizures of persons if an arrest is not reasonable under the circumstances it is a violation of the fourth amendment in general a warrantless arrest is considered reasonable only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a crime in the officer's presence as officer carlos had no evident probable cause to place mr everman under arrest for his protected speech his arrest almost certainly constituted a fourth amendment violation section 1983 of title 42 of the united states code allows an individual to sue a police officer acting under color of state law for subjecting them quote to the deprivation of any rights privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws however the legal concept of qualified immunity which makes police officers quote-unquote immune to lawsuits for civil rights violations in most circumstances severely limits the ability of individuals to proceed with the 1983 claim as the supreme court described in the 2018 case of district of columbia vs westby quote officers are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right and the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time of the officer's conduct this demanding standard protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law given the long line of supreme court cases supporting the argument that officer carlos violated mr everman's first and fourth amendment rights through a wrongful arrest if mr everman pursues a 1983 claim against officer carlos there is a strong chance he will not be entitled to qualified immunity here's the reason why your husband went in cubs let me explain to you let me explain to you i don't have to answer that part let me explain something to you when i walk up here and your husband disarms up and saying this guy's a i don't know there's a gun in here i don't trust them there's something wrong with your husband i don't think he has anger prop listen let me finish i don't know if he has anger problems or what's wrong with them but put yourself in my shoes if you walked up trust me okay what are you do you need help you're are you sure you're fine okay because you're not you're telling me you're scared to go with him i don't trust that guy there's something wrong with them i don't know if he has anger problems and you can record you don't have to hide your phone up there put it in front of you you have every right to record i don't know what's wrong with that guy you guys only record the part where he goes in cubs but you didn't record the whole part where he's over there why is he acting like that is he under the influence of something does he have mental problems anger issues anger issues there you go hang tight mr everman's wife tells officer carlos that her life is quote unquote going to be hell after the traffic stop and while denying that mr everman was under the influence or had mental problems answered yes when officer carlos asked if he had anger issues while these statements alone would not grant officer carlos probable cause to arrest mr everman a court could find that officer carlos was within his rights to detain and investigate mr everman on reasonable suspicion of domestic abuse in the 2020 case of kansas vs glover the supreme court stated that quote although a mere hunch does not create reasonable suspicion the standard depends on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men not legal technicians act courts must permit officers to make common sense judgments and inferences about human behavior for example in the 2021 case of jurassic versus county of san mateo the northern district of california found that an officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a terry stop to investigate a potential domestic violence issue even though no allegations had been made and no violence had been witnessed citing angry behavior and the suspect's contention that the driver of the vehicle was cheating on him the court held that quote those objective facts would lead a trained reasonable officer to be concerned that there was some sort of domestic dispute or activity occurring that may be related to the crime of domestic violence under this framework if officer carlos were to testify that mr everman's behavior combined with his wife's statements led him to believe there might be abuse occurring a court could determine that there was reasonable suspicion to investigate you got any idea on you tell me i'm gonna document your name and stuff and send it up i don't know why your wife's is that your wife okay everything is on body cam too okay she's saying she's scared to be get back in the car with you after she got a ticket i don't know if you beat your wife or what kind of come here i'm not done talking to you okay okay you need to get back in the car have a seat back over here okay this man lying like this have a seat back over there he just told me you said you were afraid right there back in the car stand right there come on you walk over there again i'm taking to jail i think you beat your wife honestly i'm gonna tell you right now the way you act what it's on body cam it's all on body cam why would she tell me i don't know your wife you didn't say that you're lying she said you have anger problems you need to stop okay you need it's all on body cam okay you got any idea anything on you you should no i don't i mean i'm gonna document this but you got involved with the traffic stop you want to sit there and get involved you're involved now you want it involved you're involved now you got any id on you do you have anger issues because you have not lowered your anger this time okay do you have any id on you i said no why where's your concerned for her honestly are you i am this is some weird twisted reasoning you've got a serious anger problem dude really worried about you oh let's put this guy you're free to go i don't know what this guy's capable of i appreciate it guys you guys be safe honestly come here hey now come here hey no no hey stay where you're at man hey do not leave hey you're not free to leave you you strand me step out of the vehicle get out of the car get out of the car you just told me get out you just told me that you hope i don't get hurt and i'm put on your back mr everman tells the officers to be safe and states that officer carlos's conduct is quote why cops get hurt he then immediately walks back to the vehicle and gets inside officer carlos demands that mr everman step out of the car and handcuffs him claiming that he threatened him and committed a felony as we've discussed in previous episodes of ata while the first amendment does allow states to criminalize quote unquote true threats it is difficult to believe that any court would find that mr everman's statement was a serious threat particularly given the fact that he immediately returned to his car to leave even if mr everman's statement did constitute an illegal threat it is unclear what felony offense officer carlos believed that mr everman had committed while section 21-1378 of the oklahoma statute states the quote any person who shall threaten to perform an act of violence involving or intended to involve serious bodily harm or death of another person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor because mr everman did not threaten any act of violence this misdemeanor offense wouldn't apply to this situation additionally section 21-649 makes knowingly committing an assault upon the person of a police officer a misdemeanor offense and section 21-641 defines an assault as quote any willful and unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another however mr everman's statement wouldn't be considered a violation of this statute because as the 10th circuit court of appeals summarized in the 2016 case of united states vs mitchell quote under oklahoma law the offense of assault may be characterized by either an attempted battery or a threatened imminent battery i.e an offer with an overt act beyond mere words mr everman's quote unquote mere words were not illegal under either of these misdemeanor statutes and certainly did not rise to the level of a felony criminal offense to learn more about threats in the first amendment check out the episode of ata linked in the description he's got a weapon you literally just told me i'm the reason cops get hurt and you hope nothing happens to me out here while you're carrying the gun on you seriously have a seat in there you ever sit and thought about the threats you made i did not threaten you sir you just literally said i said you're the reason you're saved yeah i hope you're saved you gotta agree we're acting out right and you say you're the reason cops get hurt out here to 100 level for no reason you're getting cited for 795 dollars all your information is on this ticket or what crime for the way you were acting your concealed carry i'm probably going to keep it and send to the state of missouri and get it revoked from you for the threats you made while we're in the traffic stop as of this time the firearm is being seized as evidence the officers inform mr everman that his firearm is being seized as evidence and that they will have missouri revoke his concealed carry permit for the quote unquote threats he made under section 21-1290.26 of the oklahoma statutes an individual who was in possession of a firearm authorized for concealed or unsealed carry by another state must disclose that fact upon coming in contact with any oklahoma peace officer in general officers can seize a firearm if they have a reasonable suspicion that it has been used in the course of a crime and this appears to be the basis for the seizure in this situation because mr everman had the firearm on his person when he made the alleged threat the officers argue that it is evidence potentially for a charge involving a threat with a deadly weapon however as mr everman doesn't appear to have violated any laws aside from failing to immediately disclose his weapon to the officers it is likely a court would find that the seizure of the firearm was not warranted the officer's threat to get mr everman's concealed carry license revoked also appears to be baseless under section 571.225 of the missouri revised statutes quote any person who has knowledge that another person who was issued a missouri concealed carry permit no longer is eligible for such permit may file a petition with the clerk of the small claims court to revoke that person's concealed carry permit however quote unquote making threats is not identified as one of the reasons an individual can become ineligible while criminal convictions can lead to disqualification a mere arrest or charge cannot serve as the basis for revoking a permit an individual can also lose their license if the sheriff reasonably believes that they are quote a danger to self or others based on previous documented pattern but a single incident would not be sufficient to meet the standard evidence of the threats you made that's why you receive a citation while you're winning cuff the whole time you have a business card after providing a citation and a court date the officers allow mr everman and his wife to leave according to a follow-up interview mr everman posted on his youtube channel he called a defense attorney five minutes after this interaction concluded and fully intends to pursue legal action mr everman also stated that he called the chief of the adair police department but his concerns were not taken seriously because of the alleged threats involved in the incident several youtube channels have shared mr everman's story and within hours of the video being shared by the lackluster youtube channel the adair police department's facebook page and phone number were down according to mr everman the prosecutor has dropped all charges against him and returned his property after two and a half months overall officer carlos gets an f for blatantly violating mr everman's constitutional rights displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the first and fourth amendments and for maintaining a hostile and accusatory demeanor throughout the interaction officer carlos's conduct speaks for itself to a large degree and it goes without saying that his behavior should be investigated at the very least not only did the officer display a reckless disregard for mr everman's civil liberties but it appears that he also initiated the traffic stop based on a lie although it could be argued that officer carlos had the legal authority to investigate mr everman for a possible domestic abuse charge it is clear from the video that the officer was maliciously accusing mr everman of anything he could in an effort to justify his detention this stop is wrought with misconduct from beginning to end and i firmly believe that mr everman has a strong federal case on his hands officer carlos's behavior is a prime example of the type of conduct that contributes to the erosion of public trust in law enforcement and it'll be interesting to see if the city of adair holds him accountable for his actions mr everman gets an a-minus because although he failed to inform the officers that he was armed and could have invoked his right to remain silent more effectively he exercised his civil rights without physical resistance peacefully complied with the orders of the officer and followed up this encounter with the proper legal action whether or not mr everman's statements were offensive or unprofessional they were protected under the first amendment and mr everman is not held to the same standard of professional courtesy as a trained and experienced member of law enforcement it is well established that citizens have a right to verbally challenge the legitimacy of a stop and mr everman was well within his rights to express his dissent of officer carlos's claims while mr everman did make some minor mistakes during the stop he maintained an excellent balance of complying with the officer's orders and exercising his constitutional rights as mentioned before mr everman plans to take legal action against the officers involved in this encounter and if you're interested in contributing to his legal fees you can find a link to his gofundme page in the description below you can also find a link to mr everman's youtube channel so be sure to give them your support and let them know that ata sent you 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 more police interaction content you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,415,393

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: NSjBqW8OY3U

Length: 17min 58sec (1078 seconds)

Published: Mon Jun 14 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/a-mirror-bot]

The following alternative links are available:

Mirrors

• Mirror #1 (provided by /u/AdvinK)

Note: this is a bot providing a directory service. If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.

---

^{source code | run your own mirror bot? let's integrate}

[u/Mission-Two1325]

That officer is very unstable. He didn't sound the least bit in control, very dangerous person.

[u/LtColShinySides]

I know this isn't the point of the video but I'm tired of seeing fat cops. How can you be that fat and be allowed to be a cop. What are you going to do besides shoot someone because you're too fat to do anything else?

[u/Cappmonkey]

ACAB

[u/CT_Gamer]

A real Jordan v the City of New London hire right there.