He Got Arrested On A WARRANT For Recording The Cops!

[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 lawful orders the right to film and resisting and is brought To Us by four corner fist in the airs Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on February 6th 2023 officer Cali Boyd and other officers with the Farmington Police Department responded to a call regarding an individual named Jay delusio who had returned to the office of Farmington New Mexico attorney Brandt thrower after he had been trespassed from the property for making repeated threats according to an affidavit written by Officer Boyd Mr thrower reported that Mr delusio had told someone on the property that he had found a gun and before arriving at Mr thrower's office San Juan County dispatch informed officer boy that Mr delusio was listed in a data base of individuals who suffer from mental illness Andor substance abuse Mr delusio also called San Juan County dispatch and advised that he was in the parking lot across the street from Mr thrower's office and that he had a knife on him Mr delusio then said he wanted to Ram his truck into the building became very agitated and hung up the phone on the dispatcher upon their arrival at the office Mr thrower informed the officers that Mr delusio had a traumatic brain injury and had not been taking proper medication for some time now while the Farmington officers were speaking with Mr thrower inside his office local First Amendment Auditors Justin Chi of four corner fist in the air and Adam how of press for transparency saw the police vehicles parked outside Mr thrower's office interestingly we covered another audit of Mr Cheese and a previous episode of ATA and I've included a link to that episode in the description of this video unaware of any of the details regarding the reason for the police response the Auditors began to film Mr how attempted to film officer Boyd's computer screen from outside of her vehicle and she came out and shut her computer upon seeing what they were doing Mr Chi and Mr how continued to film and the officers eventually went back outside and cross the street to attempt to speak to Mr delusio and deescalate the situation the interaction that followed was streamed live by Mr chi on his YouTube channel you me a favor I don't mind if you guys film but can you guys come across the street for me please can you go somewhere else Hey sir I don't mind if you film somewhere else but right now can you go across the street from me please hear can you hear mewhere else sir I need you to the street get your name and badge number a badge number young R 924 9204 924 924 appr AC the street sir I need you to go across the street for me for your my safety I need you to go across the street while I talk to this gentleman he does not want to be filmed upon Mr delusio becoming more agitated at the Auditors filming in close proximity officer Boyd asks them multiple times to film from across the street and they refuse the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over New Mexico concluded in the 2022 case of irisari versus yahia that quote based on First Amendment principles and relevant precedents we conclude there is a First Amendment right to film the police performing their duties in public in this case the court also found that now quoting again a peaceful recording of a traffic stop in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation and that the authority of the government to limit the exercise of First Amendment activity on a public street is quote unquote sharply circumscribed however it also noted that now quoting again this right is subject to reasonable time place and manner restrictions and in determining that individuals filming a traffic stop were engaged in First Amendment protected activity the court heavily emphasized the fact that they did not interfere with the traffic stop hinder law enforcement or impede officers from performing their duties other courts have noted a similar authority of officers to restrict filming that interferes with an officers performance of their duties for instance in the 2012 case of ACLU of Illinois versus Alvarez the the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals explained that quote it goes without saying that the police may take all reasonable steps to maintain safety and control secure crime scenes and accident sites and protect the integrity and confidentiality of Investigations while an officer surely cannot issue a quote unquote move on order to a person because he is recording the police May order bystanders to disperse for reasons related to Public Safety and Order and other legitimate law enforcement needs and although the court recognized the constitutional right to record a police officer it clarified that quote nothing we have said here immunizes behavior that obstructs or interferes with effective law enforcement or the protection of Public Safety likewise in the 2014 case of gki versus begin the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that quote reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to film may be imposed when the circumstances justify them the circumstances of some traffic stops particularly when the detained individual is armed might justify a safety measure for example a command that byst standards disperse that would incidentally impact an individual's exercise of the First Amendment right to film such an order even when directed at a person who was filming may be appropriate for legitimate safety reasons it is important to note that the court also clarified that now quoting again a police order that is specifically directed at the First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public may be constitutionally imposed only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering or is about to interfere with his duties however in this situation the filming itself appeared to be provoking a mentally unstable and potentially armed individual that the officers were attempting to calm down as such it is likely that a court would find that officer Boyd's order for the Auditors to film from across the street was a reasonable time place and manner restriction and therefore did not violate the First Amendment no there's no privacy in public right what there there's no privacy in public no no yeah you think just let her know just you know we're not doing nothing wrong you know if they want privacy they can need to create their own privacy you I'm a young one yeah that's me you guys having fun today enjoying the day enjoying day yeah you guys live right now oh yeah yeah yeah too I don't know sir I'm going to need you to go across the street you want me to get out your car open get sir I'm going to need you to go across the street my investigation you hear it's got to be physical act I need to stre us what's your name off you want to let them know what bransburg Rachel ha is we'll call you guys on or what calls have you guys been on today so we need to tell you about some case law it's called bransburg B Hayes it's a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Press has the right to be wherever the Public's allowed and so right now we're uh we're on a public sidewalk which is a traditional public forum we're going to exercise our right here invoking our first amendment rights here in arguing that the Auditors have the right to film from the sidewalk Mr House cites the 1972 Supreme Court case of bransburg versus Hayes where the court determined that journalists just like ordinary citizens were required to respond to Grand Jerry subpoenas and answer questions related to criminal conduct they personally observe regardless of any promises of confidentiality giv into the subjects of stories in reaching this conclusion the court noted that quote it has generally been held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally although Mr Hal is correct in his assertion that this means that journalists generally may be wherever the public may be this does not necessarily mean that journalists may always film whatever they want from a public Street as we discussed earlier in this episode courts have repeatedly recognized the authority of officers to place reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to film when the circumstances justify them particularly based on safety concerns or interference with the officer's duties further the court noted in the bransburg case that now quoting again newsmen have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is excluded and explained that now quoting again it is clear that the First Amendment does not invalidate every incidental burdening of the press that may result from the enforcement of civil or criminal statutes of General applicability otherwise valid laws serving substantial public interests may be enforced against the press as against others despite the possible burden that may be imposed accordingly it is likely that a court would conclude that Mr Hal and Mr Chi did not have a limitless First Amendment right to film from a public sidewalk and that the officers had the authority to impose reasonable restrictions you know the the five freedoms under the first amendment five freedoms yeah you're going to quiz me right now man you don't know that we can teach we can teach each other I'll take crack at it there you [Music] go assembly position what are we doing what are we doing and the last one what are we doing right here educate me on the last one I'm missing man you go press press yeah so if you understand that you know you would understand what we're doing here yeah you know like you said they can create their own privacy there but we have a right to film in public you know so these are our rights under the First Amendment and these are supreme law of the land hey starting with a turn that mother turn look hey loser that's called freedom of speech there does sound a little intoxicated this guy you yeah he totally sounds like he's sling his yeah she tried intimidating you too right she tried intimidating you a female officer I think they called another one another the way you see [Music] another how's it going can we give them a little bit of space so they can do what they need to do I gave him a little just a minute ago can we give them a little bit more I'm I'm fine with us talking about what's going on but this is something we just need a little bit of space on you you don't want us to hear or see anything is that what's going on no I mean if we could just take a few steps back that's fine with me okay now that we're here just so that they don't have to keep looking over their shoulder and that's it we're just filming that's all we're doing I know what you're doing and that's but they can't look over their back and talk to this guy who's kind of upset at the same time so now that we're here you're fine okay thorberg five elements five freedoms yeah do you know what the five freedoms are under the first amendment I Didn't Know I Was Here for a constitutional test yeah they're just conducting investigation like like he said you're welcome to film from a safe distance BL you know the fire freedoms I'm just going to I I I don't want to engage okay I I'm just here he did engage with us okay I'm going to pay attention to the officers and you're allowed to do what you want to do and that's fine okay so you're saying you don't know to fight freedoms freedom of religion freedom of assembly freedom of trust freedom to petition your government address of grievances freedom of speeech thank you [Music] we'll see you guys be safe you guys are you guys are dismissed now go Viola anybody's rights out there after Mr delusio left the parking lot Mr Chi and Mr how were allowed to leave the scene without further incident however on February 7th 2024 a judge found there was probable cause to believe that Mr Chi had violated section 18-7 2a1 of the Farmington code of ordinances which prohibits resisting or obstructing officer and an arrest warrant was issued on February 8th Mr Chi was arrested on February 9th and his arrest was captured on body camera hi Mr Chi morning how are you good good you War for your arrest you need to lock up anything or anything okay on I got my my I'll get it for you I'll get it for you you're good back got to make a call yeah we can do that a warant it's from Municipal for for resisting okay Mr she I'm going walk you in front of my unit and then we'll this before we we'll pick it up before we uh do any type of searches or anything like that we'll we'll get your phone if you're okay with us grabbing it from in your pocket um she's just going to double walk your cuffs we'll confirm the warrant however you grab your phone and then make a phone call right here I'm just going to listen these up I did them a little too tight the officers informed Mr Chi that he is under arrest for resisting section 18 7-21 of the Farmington ordinances states that quote resisting or obstructing an officer consists of resisting or abusing any peace officer in the lawful discharge of his duties this statute mirrors the New Mexico State resisting statute which is codified in section 30- 22-1 of the New Mexico statutes and states that quote resisting evading or obstructing an officer consists of resisting or abusing any peace officer in the lawful discharge of his duties in the 2019 case of United States versus Romero the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which again has jurisdiction over New Mexico explained that quote the New Mexico Court of Appeals has so far interpreted the phrase resisting or abusing to prohibit three types of conduct physical acts of resistance the use of fighting words to attack an officer and the refusal to obey lawful police commands for instance in the 1995 case of State versus Diaz the court of appeals of New Mexico concluded that quote unquote resisting refers not only to a defendant's overt physical act but also to the failure to act when refusing to obey lawful police commands such as to drop a weapon likewise in the 2006 case of city of Roswell versus Smith the court of appeals of New Mexico affirmed an obstruction conviction under an equivalent ordinance based on the defendant's refusal to leave a fast food restaurant parking lot after being ordered to do so by an officer as such if a court concluded that the order to film across the street was lawful it is probable that it would also determine that the Auditors refusal to comply would constitute resisting in addition to the arrest warrant for resisting a bench warrant was also issued for Mr Chi for failing to comply with the terms of his probation for a previous conviction on January 24th 2024 Mr Chi was sentenced to 362 days of unsupervised probation after a judge found him guilty of Criminal Trespass for failing to leave a closed public park where he was filming after hours and one of the terms of his probation was to avoid future criminal violations if you're interested in learning more about this encounter I've included a link to Mr Chi's live stream of his trespassing arrest in the description for this video on February 21st 2024 Mr Chi was sentenced to 66 days for his trespassing conviction after serving his full sentence he was released from the San Juan County Adult Detention Center on April 25th 2024 and as of the date of writing this episode The resisting charge is still pending Mr how was also arrested for resisting on February 12th 2024 and he was released the next day as of the date of writing this episode the criminal charge against Mr how is still pending overall the Farmington officers get an A for maintaining professional but firm demeanors throughout the encounter and demonstrating respect for the auditor's First Amendment right to film while also de-escalating a potentially explosive situation although officer Boyd asked the Auditors to film from across the street in order to attempt to diffuse the situation with Mr delusio she made it clear that she had no issues with the auditor filming and simply ordered them to do so from a distance that did not interfere with her efforts to deescalate a troubled agitated and possibly armed individual and while I do not believe that pursuing criminal charges against the Auditors was absolutely necessary the officers were almost certainly within their authority to do so as a judge found that there was probable cause for a resisting charge clearly this was not the first time that Mr Chi has run into legal troubles with his auditing and I can understand why the Farmington officers would choose to pursue a criminal charge in this situation particularly if they have had repeated issues with Mr Chi and Mr how Mr Chi and Mr how get an F for maintaining an antagonistic demeanor throughout the encounter refusing to comply with the officer's orders to film across the street and likely committing a crime in the process not only did the Auditors demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the authority of officers to issue reasonable restrictions on the right to film but they also refused to comply with those restrictions the Auditors had no idea what the situation with Mr delusio concerned but they chose to assume the worst of every officer involved concluding that the officers were simply attempting to restrict their first amendment rights rather than control a precarious and potentially dangerous set of circumstances this encounter demonstrates how biased Auditors can find problems when they do not actually exist and also land themselves in extensive legal trouble when they attempt to conduct audits that exceed the bounds of their first amendment rights 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]

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 166,686

Keywords:

Id: JIEX4dWFE2c

Length: 18min 55sec (1135 seconds)

Published: Thu Jun 20 2024