HUGE LAWSUIT! These Cops Had NO IDEA What They Were Doing!

[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 filming police officers first amendment retaliation and breaches of the peace and is brought to us by a private submission be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on july 23 2022 animal rights activist curtis vollmer attended a pioneer day celebration in beaver utah along with several other members of the animal rights organization direct action everywhere the activists hope to engage the community in conversation about an upcoming trial for two animal rights activists who are facing criminal charges for having filmed conditions inside the local smithfield foods facility and rescuing two dying piglets while they were there originally the activists hoped to set up a booth but upon arrival we're told that they needed a permit so mr valmer chose to stand on a public sidewalk near the festival instead after handing out flyers and obtaining signatures for a petition against smithfield foods for several hours mr valmer was approached by officers from the beaver county sheriff's office you have to have a permit permit to up for a sidewalk let me get my camera on too sure okay you're not he's not a good luck you're not you're not to be spread not a good look you're not supposed to be down here this is public property not to be down here doing this so you realize do you realize that your your company caused a problem in our do you have anything relevant to say to me yes i do okay i've asked you to stop okay i'm on public property you need to stop do you realize you're not wanted in this community and you've been asked to leave i don't care i know you don't care that's the problem with your group you just don't care about people or anybody do you understand you've been asked to leave all of this for handing out some flyers this is how much promotion because all of this because your group has has been a direct influence on shutting down smithfield foods you don't realize that's the major employer in our county you don't think i know that there's a lot of people that have lost their jobs and you come into this community and pour salt into the wounds of the people that have lost their jobs well i don't care what the intent is what you're doing is causing a disturbance in the community i'm not trying to cause a discernment well i'm just trying to have conversations with people and if people don't want to talk with me i say thanks for your time and honor your day okay i'm going to stand right here and i'm going to tell people not to talk to you then fine do that this is great content for us absolutely ridiculous this is always this is very anti-free speech that's not everything are you a public servant yes i am okay well then you can be filmed no i cannot not a volunteer not servant okay you got a badge on i'm a volunteer don't get your camera on you need to stop stop what sir okay it's causing a problem in our community i'm not trying to cause any problems when someone's asking you like this a public servant he's a volunteer he's asking you nicely to please don't film him okay and we're asking you to stop filming him okay i won't film him i'm giving you a lawsuit sure do not do that okay if you violate that law [Music] we're not foreign him anymore okay we're filming you you too one of the volunteer officers informs mr valmer that he does not consent to being filmed and when mr valmer protests deputy laws states that he was given a lawful order not to film the officer and he will be committing the crime of disorderly conduct if he disobeys it under section 76-9-102 of the utah code quote an individual is guilty of disorderly conduct if the individual refuses to comply with the lawful order of a law enforcement officer to move from a public place or an official meeting or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose or intending to cause public inconvenience annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience annoyance or alarm the person engages in fighting or in violent tumultuous or threatening behavior makes unreasonable noises in a public place or an official meeting makes unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place or an official meeting or obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic in a public place or an official meeting while the statute does prohibit disobeying a lawful order to move from a public place or official meeting it does not allow for a disorderly conduct conviction for refusing any other lawful order including an order to stop filming further even if the disorderly conduct statue did make it illegal to disobey such an order a court would likely conclude that the order to stop filming a police officer in public was not lawful in the 2022 case of irazari vs yahia the 10th circuit court of appeals which has jurisdiction over utah officially recognized the quote first amendment right to film the police performing their duties in public and held that this right was clearly established law as of 2019 in reaching the conclusion the court looked to quote three well-established first amendment principles that show that filming the police performing their duties in public is protected activity first the court noted that quote a major purpose of the first amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs filming the police and other public officials as they perform their official duties acts as a watchdog of government activity and furthers debate on matters of public concern additionally the court reasoned that quote without some protection for seeking out the news freedom of the press could be eviscerated but there is quote an undoubted right to gather news from any source by means within the law and that video recording is quote unambiguously speech creation not mere conduct given the incontrovertible legal precedent a court would almost certainly determine that mr valmer was exercising his first amendment rights by recording the volunteer officer and the officer's orders that he stopped were a clear violation of those rights it's only drawn more attention to why we're here so i appreciate this thank you do you know do you know about this midfield trial happening you don't have a permit to approach people about your product okay i don't need to permit to talk to people on a public sidewalk you're causing a problem in the comments i'm not i'm asking people if they want to have a conversation if they say no i let them go people come to us sure they do not want you here okay that's that's fine then i'm keeping the peace and i'm asking you to leave all we're asking people i'm asking you to leave okay here's here's a here's an example of what i'm doing have you all heard about the smithfield trial okay okay they don't want to talk okay that's it i move on people don't want to talk we move on everybody have you all heard about the smithfield trial upcoming video trial these are the people that are trying to shut down smithfield okay it's not true these are the people that trying to shut down smithfield it's not true mr walmart attempts to speak with multiple members of the public and each time deputy woolsey tells them not to speak with him because he is trying to quote shut down smithfield while police officers do have first amendment rights as citizens of the united states as government employees they can face consequences for their speech in ways that private citizens cannot particularly for speech they make while on duty and in uniform as the supreme court described in the 1983 case of conic versus myers decisions as to when a government employer can take corrective or disciplinary action against an employee for their speech must quote seek a balance between the interests of the employee as a citizen in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees similarly the court noted in the 1994 case of waters vs churchill that for speech by a government employee to be protected by the first amendment it quote must be on a matter of public concern and the employee's interest in expressing herself on this matter must not be outweighed by any injury the speech could cause to the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees here while deputy woolsey's speech was undoubtedly on a matter of public concern a court would most likely determine that his interest in expressing his opinion at the time and in the way that he did was outweighed by the potential injury to the state's interests as his actions likely constituted so-called first amendment retaliation against mr vollmer for his protected speech in general the first amendment prohibits the government from retaliating against an individual for exercising protected expression as the 10th circuit noted in the 2000 case of world versus henry quote any form of official retaliation for exercising one's freedom of speech including prosecution threatened prosecution bad faith investigation and legal harassment constitutes an infringement of that freedom the decision also explained that to succeed in a first amendment retaliation claim the plaintiff must prove that they were engaged in constitutionally protected activity that the government's action caused them quote to suffer an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity and that the government's action was quote substantially motivated as a response to the plaintiff's exercise of constitutionally protected conduct in this situation mr valmer was unquestionably engaged in speech that was protected by the first amendment and deputy woolsey essentially admitted that he was taking this action because he did not like mr vollmer's past and current speech as to whether mr vollmer suffered an injury because of deputy woolsey's conduct the 10th circuit determined in the irizarry case we discussed earlier in this episode that because quote physical and verbal intimidation are cognizable injuries a youtube journalist suffered an injury when an officer stood in front of his camera and shined a flashlight into it now quoting making it difficult if not impossible to continue recording a potentially critical moment of the police activity the court also noted that quote this injury alone would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to film the traffic stop because the 10th circuit has recognized that interfering with an individual's exercise of protected speech can constitute a sufficient injury for a first amendment retaliation claim a court would likely conclude that mr valmer had a claim against deputy woolsey for his attempts to dissuade individuals from talking to him more importantly i'm more important for your safety we're not here to talk about that let me talk go ahead i'm more worried about what people here might how they feel towards you in your protest so i'm more or less walking we're not protesting let me finish don't cut me off please i'm more worried about your safety and some of these citizens being upset with you than anything deputy laws informs mr valmer that they are taking these actions out of consideration for his safety and are trying to protect him from the many local citizens they claim are angry with him however courts have long recognized that police officers generally cannot censor an individual's controversial speech even for their own protection this issue known as the problem of the heckler's veto has been addressed in numerous supreme court decisions and although speech is not protected by the first amendment when it creates a clear and present danger of riot disorder or other immediate threat to public safety as the court noted in a footnote in the 1966 case of brown versus louisiana quote participants in an orderly demonstration in a public place are not chargeable with the danger that their critics might react with disorder or violence in the 1949 case of terminiello vs chicago the supreme court overturned a disorderly conduct conviction against a suspended catholic priest who in an address that he delivered in a chicago auditorium quote condemned the conduct of the crowd outside and vigorously if not viciously criticized various political and racial groups despite the fact that police officers assigned to the meeting to maintain order were not able to prevent several disturbances and quote the crowd outside was angry and turbulent the court determined that he could not be convicted for disorderly conduct simply because his speech caused quote a breach of the peace in reaching this conclusion the court explained that quote a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are or even stirs people to anger the court expressed a similar sentiment in the 2011 case of snyder vs phelps where it held that the infamous westboro baptist church could not be sued for protesting soldiers funerals noting that although speech can inflict great pain quote we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker as a nation we have chosen a different course to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate here it is clear that most of the citizens of beaver did not seem to even notice mr valmer's presence at the celebration and there was absolutely no evidence that his speech was on the brink of causing any sort of violence or disorder a court reviewing this situation would therefore almost certainly conclude that the deputies could not censor mr valmer's speech based on the justification of preventing a breach of the peace when you come in on a day the people are trying to enjoy the holiday and you stir them up we get calls and complaints about about having conversations they need to look in the mirror if people are so triggered and so upset from having a conversation they need to look in the mirror you know what you need to have a little bit more compassion okay okay with people okay well you don't understand that smith hill field has shut down following the interactions covered in this episode the deputies cited mr valmer for disorderly conduct and ordered the activists not to quote bring up the issue again at the local horse races and rodeo which were taking place later that evening on august 2nd 2022 mr valmer and his fellow activists filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the beaver county deputies along with the sheriff himself had violated their first amendment rights they also submitted a motion requesting a preliminary injunction that would prevent the sheriff's office from prohibiting speech on public sidewalks or parks threatening citation or arrest or citing or arresting the activists for engaging in public outreach handing out literature and soliciting signatures as of the date of this episode the case and the motion for preliminary injunction are both still pending i reached out to the beaver county sheriff's office but i was unable to obtain a comment this time overall the beaver county officers get an f for blatantly violating mr valmer's first amendment rights actively hindering his attempts to engage the community in dialogue and retaliating against him for simply exercising his fundamental right to freedom of speech it is undeniable that the deputies allowed their personal feelings about the activists their speech and smithfield foods to interfere with their duties as law enforcement officers while there was no apparent evidence that anyone in the community was bothered by the activist presence if the officers truly believed that they were in danger the constitution required them to physically protect the activists while also protecting their rights to speech instead the beaver county officers chose to censor the activist speech and cite mr vollmer for disorderly conduct for doing nothing more than exercising his first amendment rights mr valmer gets an a-plus for understanding and defending his constitutional rights trying to educate the officers on the first amendment and maintaining a respectful demeanor throughout the encounter although their attempts were ultimately unfruitful i commend mr valmer and his fellow activists for trying to engage in meaningful conversation with the officers to explain the protections granted to speakers by the first amendment and for immediately taking appropriate legal action against the officers it seems clear that the officer's actions were incontrovertibly unconstitutional and it will be interesting to see how this case plays out in the courtroom 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] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 3,376,106

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: BuXXYUcuUmI

Length: 17min 8sec (1028 seconds)

Published: Mon Aug 22 2022