How To Turn A Simple Question Into A MASSIVE LAWSUIT

foreign [Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out The Who and the what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers stop and ID laws obstruction and unlawful seizures and is brought To Us by Long Island audits Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on October 31st 2022 officers dinatale and yeldell of the Trenton Police Department stopped Mr Daniel and Ms Myra on the street after being dispatched to a call that described a male and female in a gray truck with Pennsylvania tags Long Island audit stated in his video that the officers were responding to a call regarding a custody dispute although Mr Daniel and Ms Myra's role in the alleged dispute was unclear the interaction that followed was captured on officer dinatale's body camera y'all just got out of this truck right we are just sitting in the truck I mean yes right you was just sitting in the church what I don't know I don't want to accommodate myself you're not incriminating yourself you're answering your questions which kind of potentially implementing myself so I don't answer questions we're trying to see if you my partner's asking you a question to see if you retain the default if you don't then you'll be on your way and we'll be on our way handling our job we're just there's no need to get smart with you no no no I'm not I'm not trying to get smart with you I was just I was just saying like you know I want to get in trouble from doing nothing wrong okay you know what I mean I'm just standing here there's no need to get smart with the police officer I wasn't trying to get started okay keep it that way keep it that way you give a description of the vehicle you said it was a Dodge Ram truck ran colors guys get a call from Dodge Ram yeah so you guys can pull up here he had a responsibility to check it out if you guys are doing nothing wrong then you guys are doing nothing wrong I'm just I'm just curious you guys have IDs just so I can see who I'm talking with I do but I don't I don't feel like I have to give it to you well you do I don't I'm telling you um in the state of New Jersey it's an I-90 State I haven't committed a crime officer dinatale demands Mr Daniel identify himself as part of an investigation and Mr Daniel refuses arguing that New Jersey is not a stop in ID State as we have discussed many times here on ATA stop and identify statutes or laws that authorize Law Enforcement Officers to arrest citizens if they refuse to identify themselves under certain circumstances beginning with the landmark Terry case the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that an individual may be involved in criminal activity allows the officer to briefly detain them and take limited additional steps to investigate the situation further although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop prior to 2004 there was an open question regarding whether a suspect could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to answer this issue was resolved in the case of high Bowl versus Nevada where the Supreme Court held that Terry principles authorized states to enact laws requiring suspects to disclose their names if they are legally detained based on Reasonable Suspicion in upholding an individual's arrest for refusing to identify himself the court in high Bowl emphasized that the Nevada statute was quote consistent with fourth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures and that the stop in question was based on Reasonable Suspicion however because New Jersey is not a stop in ID state New Jersey police officers typically cannot arrest an individual for refusing to identify themselves outside of a traffic stop unless the officer is making an arrest or issuing a summons additionally officers cannot compel individuals to identify themselves under threat of arrest without reasonable suspicion that they are involved in illegal activity even if the state has a valid stop and identify Statute in Place Long Island audit reported that the officers were initially called for a custody dispute rather than a criminal offense and although this information has not been externally confirmed officer dinatale stated that the officers were responding to a call for service and that their investigation to not mean Mr Daniel had done anything wrong because it does not seem that the officers had the Reasonable Suspicion necessary to detain Mr Daniel it is unlikely that a court would find that Mr Daniel was obligated to identify himself in this situation even if New Jersey had a stop and identify law in place number by the way yeah I need you guys name and badge numbers I'm interacting I don't even know who you guys are I'm interacting with police what's you guys need to identify right now clear out there okay cameras are running why are you intimidating he came up to me really aggressively I was being aggressive like this I haven't committed a crime you're trying to idem yeah we got a call my dispatchers are giving your vehicles with you guys being described you're trying to you're trying to jump the gun and do what you're not three three when we got here all right what's the complaint about because we're out with these two parties we're trying to uh let's just identify them because to figure out what's going on the truck was identified I should not hurt actually sit in the truck because something could go wrong with her something could have been wrong with you that's why I asked you right but then you got Smart Ones we have an obligation right when we're talking with people and we get a call and I don't I'm not saying you two are doing anything wrong but I'm gonna call my dispatcher as you heard on my radio and I turned it up so you can hear right male female Dodge Ram truck that's it did I do something wrong no so I'm staying I'm asking you to identify yourself and I am refusing whether to identify myself because I have not committed a crime and in New Jersey this is a non-id state I refuse to identify myself you ask me and I refuse I feel like this is an investigation so now you're obstructing obstructing the officer places Mr Daniel in handcuffs accusing him of obstruction for refusing to identify himself section 2C 29-1 of the New Jersey revised Statute states that quote a person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight intimidation Force violence or physical interference or obstacle or by means of any independently unlawful act in the 1985 case of State versus Pearl the Appellate Division of the superior court of New Jersey expressly indicated that the application of this statute is quote limited to situations where there is violent or physical interference or where other acts occur which are unlawful independently of the purpose to obstruct government based in part on this decision the same Court held in the 2005 case State versus Camillo that an individual's failure to identify himself was insufficient to support a conviction for obstruction in this case the Court held that Mr Camilo's refusal to provide his name date of birth and social security number to a State Trooper who needed the information to prepare an incident report did not constitute obstruction under section 2C 29-1 while Trooper Dykeman gave Mr Camilo an ultimatum and said that he would be arrested and charged with obstruction if he did not provide the requested information the court noted that quote simply obstructing impairing or perverting the administration of law or the governmental function was not a statutory violation and that quote the obstruction must be carried out in a manner described in the statute by means of flight intimidation Force violence or physical interference or obstacle or by means of any independently unlawful act because Mr Carmelo did not physically interfere with Trooper dichmann or otherwise violate the law the court ultimately concluded that while Mr Camilo's actions may have obstructed the trooper from preparing his report his conduct was not a violation of the obstruction statute based on this precedent it is unlikely that a court would determine that Mr Daniel committed obstruction by refusing to identify himself even if his refusal actually limited the officer's ability to investigate um this is against my first amendment this is against my fourth amendment why are you don't touch me I'm not fighting is this your phone right here I want my supervisor maybe White I know I know I want a supervisor not this early person constructing an investigation then why the um told him he was being detained didn't want to provide identification females are getting rowdy started grabbing at us trying to prevent us from searching him incidental to arrest both are under arrest or disorder person So Daniel I want you to understand something when the police are conducting investigation right doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong right but you have to identify okay it's called search ins and out to arrest so I pat you down and I have to tie everywhere all right I do that I'm being possibly arrested because I haven't committed it's not it's called not identifying myself it's not illegal you're obstructing the administration stopping an investigation because I'm not identifying myself that's not obstructing I'm just trying to explain you guys that I don't have to identify myself I'm letting you guys know look I have identified myself yes of course I'm being placed under arrest so lawfully under the law I have to identify myself being suspicious is not a crime I don't have to identify myself so it's not obstruction so remember how I was saying dispatch what I took what I said are dispatchers are telling us a male and a female in a Dodge Ram grade color pickup truck that's fine that's fine but you haven't observed any crime so we have we have we have a right to investigate to investigate right that's not asking identify right you can ask me for identification I can refuse if the party refuses the police officer has an obligation to now if they refuse to give information we now detain if they still refuse it's an arrest officer dinatale claims that members of law enforcement have the authority to identify citizens during investigations detain them if they will not identify themselves and then arrest them if they they still refuse to identify officer dinatale seems to be referring to the three basic levels of police interactions consensual encounters investigatory detentions and arrests during a consensual encounter with a citizen officers can ask questions including an individual's name without any suspicion they have committed a crime however as the Supreme Court stated in the 1983 case of Florida versus Royer the individual quote need not answer any question put to him and quote he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way in order to detain an individual and prevent them from leaving a scene officers must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity and as the Royer case specifically noted an individual's refusal to listen to an officer answer their questions or identify themselves during a consensual encounter does not without more furnish grounds for detention although Reasonable Suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause inarticulate hunches is and an officer's good faith beliefs are insufficient to justify a detention and contrary to officer dinatale's assertions that an officer can detain a citizen for refusing to identify themselves an officer must be able to point to an objectively reasonable basis for suspecting criminal activity in order to detain a citizen finally for an officer to have the legal authority to arrest an individual they must have probable cause which is a more demanding standard than reasonable suspicion that requires an officer to have sufficient information for a reasonable person to believe that the individual had committed a criminal act based on the body camera footage Accord would likely conclude that Mr Daniel's detention was unlawful as it did not seem that the officers had reasonable suspicion that Mr Daniel was committing a crime and contrary to officer dinatale's assertions an individual's mere refusal to identify themselves during a consensual encounter does not give rise to the Reasonable Suspicion necessary for an investigative detention function likewise a court would probably determine that Mr Daniel's arrest was also unlawful because he did not have a legal duty to identify himself and as we discussed earlier in this episode refusing to identify is not sufficient to support an obstruction charge thank you thank you all right after their arrests Mr Daniel and Ms Myra were both charged with obstruction in his video Long Island audit reported that the prosecutor offered to drop the criminal charges in exchange for a civil fine and Mr Daniel and Ms Myra refused the offer because they wanted to hold the officers responsible for their actions he also stated that they are looking for an attorney to file a civil rights lawsuit that Mr Daniel and Ms Myra had another court date on January 17 2023 Long Island audit stated that an update video would be posted but an update has yet to be made as of the date of writing this episode overall officer dinatale and officer yeldell get an F for failing to conduct a legitimate investigation before attempting to identify anyone on the scene maintaining a rude and condescending attitude throughout the encounter and for escalating a peaceful interaction into a physical altercation and likely an illegal arrest rather than contacting the individual who made the 9-1-1 call to confirm the complaint the officers turned their attention to Mr Daniel and Ms Myra for refusing to answer a consensual question at no point was the couple legally obligated to answer any of the questions asked of them by the officers and their refusal should never have been perceived as grounds for intimidation like many other members of law enforcement featured on this channel the Trenton officers were mistaken about the scope and language of their State's obstruction statute and made an arrest based on this misinterpretation this fact alone will likely afford Mr Daniel and Ms Myra an opportunity to contest the legality of their arrests and potentially file a legal claim for several different constitutional violations this interaction highlights the importance of officers having a thorough understanding of the laws they are attempting to enforce and the critical role that de-escalation plays in preventing unnecessary and potentially illegal arrests Mr Daniel and Ms Myra get an A minus for refusing to identify themselves when they were not legally obligated to do so choosing to remain silent rather than potentially incriminating themselves and for standing up to the officers despite their intimidating conduct and threats of arrest when the Trenton officers arrived on the scene Mr Daniel and Ms Myra were under no legal obligation to remain on the sidewalk and it may have been in their best interest to leave the area immediately upon their arrival rather than standing around and waiting for an engagement it's also important to note that the right to remain silent must be verbally invoked in order to trigger the protections offered by the Fifth Amendment telling an officer that you quote will not answer any question is not enough to render any statements inadmissible in court and Even Silence can be used in court as evidence against a citizen as discussed in many previous episodes in order to properly invoke the right to remain silent citizens must verbally state that they are invoking their Fifth Amendment rights before choosing to remain silent I commend Mr Daniel and Ms Myra for Having the courage and conviction to stand up for their rights be sure to check out the Long Island audit channel for future updates on this case 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 even more police interaction content [Music] foreign [Music]

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 2,390,837

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: uRlWssjtqcY

Length: 17min 43sec (1063 seconds)

Published: Mon Apr 10 2023

Reddit Comments

[u/AutoModerator]

** Please don't:

• be a dick to other people

• incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned.

• be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry.

• JAQ off

• be an authoritarian apologist

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/barelycriminal]

The prosecutor offered to drop charges if they took a fine. Prosecutors are bastards too. Them offering to drop charges for a fine is the prosecutor covering the city’s ass because if victims take the fine they cannot sue.

[u/AntiStatistYouth]

This is why you don't let LEOs get close enough to put hands on you. If they are close enough to put hands on you without drawing, aiming, and firing your weapon, they are too close.

[u/Dyolf_Knip]

Why would it matter if they are still allowed to break it a million times a day with zero consequences?

[u/beezerguy]

"there's no need to get smart"... yes there is you condescending POS...

[u/21stCenturyRedditMan]

They see themselves "above" the law and most of the time never called out for it nor answering for it...taxpayers on the other hand

[u/Victor_Delacroix]

Why would the ruling class teach officers anything other than how to protect their private property?

[u/tally06]

Cities plan for being sued instead of training properly they have huge funds. They likely tell them not to worry about lawsuits during their lousy training. Must be hell being married to them too. Stats show high suicide and spouse abuse rate.