Informed Sergeant Orders Officer To Release Citizen

[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 disorderly conduct personal privacy and remaining silent and is brought to us by IDC Chris's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve let's dive right in and audit the audit on July 4th 2019 youtuber and First Amendment auditor Christopher B der stadt was conducting a First Amendment audit on a public sidewalk outside of the Mendota Lutheran home in Mendota Illinois when he was contacted by Officer Holland of the Mendota Police Department the MPD had received a complaint from the residents of the Lutheran home that mr. beter stet was trying to film the inside of the building from the outside Chris what is going on why are you recording Chris stop at this point mr. beter stet is officially detained and must obey the commands of the officer in the infamous Terry versus Ohio case the Supreme Court recognized that when an officer by means of physical force or show of authority has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen than a seizure has occurred the moment that Officer Holland ordered mr. beter stet to stop he was officially detained and subject to the lawful orders of the officer whether or not the officers orders are lawful is to be interpreted by a court and in our current justice system even if the officers orders are unlawful they must be obeyed when they are issued and challenged later in court I have covered the topic of detainment in many of my other videos and I will not spend much time on it in this episode but I highly recommend taking a look at past episodes to get a better understanding of how a detainment works and how it relates to the Fourth Amendment you're upsetting the people who work here so stop you work for me I don't work for you I work for the public because I do anything illegal you're upsetting the people who live here did I do anything illegal 27:56 to assist you need a sound I want to know what's going on because you're upsetting these people I want to know what you did I do anything illegal I don't answer questions definitely not to disorderly conduct how am I allowed to photograph on the sidewalk or no section 26 - one of the Illinois Criminal Code states that a person commits disorderly conduct when he or she knowingly does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace this is a prime example of a code whose language is so vaguely written that almost any action could be perceived as a violation the core tenants of the code are entirely subjective and inherently flawed codes like this one exist in almost every state and they are typically just as vague these codes essentially authorize officers to take anyone to jail for any reason and are often used by officers to arrest civilians who have broken no other laws we will discuss whether or not mr. beter stet was committing a crime later in this episode I'm gonna put you in because if you don't stop you could put me a hankie okay no you could put me in handcuffs this isn't legal stop this is not legal this this is not legal Chris this is not a Terry stop is a stop of a person by law-enforcement officers based upon reasonable suspicion that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity mr. beter stat is correct that officer Holland is conducting a Terry stop based on the reasonable suspicion provided by the 911 apartment received the Supreme Court has ruled that 911 serve as reasonable suspicion and I have covered that subject in different episodes which I will link to in the info card above it is impossible to know what the 911 caller reported to the Mendota police but the officers mentioned that the caller was concerned about mr. beter Stetz mental stability because of his bizarre actions it is likely that a court would find that the officers were within their authority to stop mr. beter stet based on the information provided by the 911 caller as officer holland places mr. beter stet into handcuffs sergeant Stewart arrives on the scene why are you recording them inside okay I'll hold him go shoot they'll say I'm playing for this early conduct why you be in there when you could walk there they were they were concerned that you were photographing residents inside no you weren't you just photographing along here and I don't know if they are not go look at him why wouldn't you stop when she asked you to do I have to yes yes it is a common misconception that officers require suspicion of a specific crime in order to detain an individual the legal doctrine set forth by the Terry case dictates that officers only need a suspicion that criminal activity is afoot if an officer can point to specific facts which made them believe that some crime may have been committed then the officer may detain an individual in order to investigate further although photographing on a public sidewalk is not a crime in and of itself there are limitations to the protections offered by the First Amendment citizens are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain places and in the 1967 Supreme Court case of Katz versus United States Justice John Marshall Harlan established a two prong test for determining whether an individual's expectation of privacy is reasonable the Katz test considers whether an individual has exhibited an actual subjective expectation of privacy and whether the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable that being said the First Amendment does protect the act of public photography and the public domain extends to whatever can be seen from a public location while citizens may assume that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside their homes courts have ruled many times that photographing the inside of a home through an open window is a constitutionally protected activity you really want to go that route what we're investigating somebody acting in a disorderly manner your video recording a nursing home and look you're upsetting the residents we didn't know that don't we have to talk about okay so that no I don't Wow do I where'd you get your law degree man do i I have no idea man you you won't cooperate with us and tell us what's going on you're being asked to operate and the police officers giving you a direct order and you're certain you won't stop because I don't you do so that's in your opinion not ours no okay okay okay the Fifth Amendment's quote right to remain silent can be a powerful tool for anyone interacting with the police and in most cases it is a good idea to remain silent as much as possible but also within reason the right to silence was designed to prevent individuals from incriminating themselves and successfully invoking that right requires a functional balance between disseminating necessary information to police officers and not answering potentially incriminating questions asked by police officers although you are well within your rights to remain completely silent during most police interactions outside of identifying yourself it may not always be in your best interest to do so silence often says more than words and it is extremely important to bear in mind how your actions will be viewed inside of a courtroom after interaction has taken place failing to announce your intention to exercise your rights leave the court open to interpreting what your intentions may have been this was the case for Iowa based auditor Daniel Robbins who was arrested for photographing a police station from a public sidewalk and lost the subsequent lawsuit because he failed to articulate that he was exercising his rights leaving the court to draw its own conclusions about his intentions I will link my coverage of mr. Robbins his interaction in the info card above if mr. beter stet had simply announced that he was exercising his First Amendment right to record in public it could have de-escalated the encounter and served him well later in the courtroom and autograph in my okay that's fine I mean if that's all you were doing but if you're videotaping and taking pictures of people inside there that's a different story if you're going on their property acting in a disorderly manner that's that's uh that's your problem to deal with officer Holland eventually returns with what appears to be a staff member of the facility and informs mr. Peter stet that he is under arrest for disorderly conduct sergeant Stewart escorts mr. Peter sets of the patrol car and then something amazing happens so he's walking by videotaping the building what what that's I know it's not illegal to do that okay but timeout that's not illegal to do that so he's not acting in a disorderly manner if he's out on the sidewalk walking by a videotape on the outside of the building that's the problem we have but how are they they're disturbed he's walking on the sidewalk videotaping well he wasn't I mean other than not obeying you which is a no-no which I mean that is what it is but as far as walking by with a video camera I mean I'm not that's that's not something that even though there you could be bothered by a lot of things Sam after sergeant Stewart intervenes officer Holland uncuffed mr. Peter stead and after a calm conversation with the sergeant he is released and the officers leave the scene without further incident overall officer Holland gets a c-minus because although she may have been within her authority to detain mr. beter stet she essentially admitted to soliciting a complaint from a staff member of the facility and fully intended on making an arrest officers soliciting charges is a relatively common problem that is often difficult to prove it is not uncommon for officers to solicit a charge so that they can arrest someone and go on about their day rather than taking the time to examine all sides of a conflict anyone who has interacted with police can attest to that notion officer Holland fell into the typical routine of restoring peace at the expense of administering justice but luckily she was corrected by sergeant Stewart sergeant Stewart gets an a-plus for engaging with mr. beter stet in a challenging but cordial conversation and for questioning officer Holland's tactics and ordering her to release mr. beat her staff it is increasingly rare to see an officer display a relatively thorough knowledge of constitutional protections but it is even rarer to see a supervisory officer object to the charges brought by a fellow officer on those grounds I commend sergeant Stewart for having the proper knowledge and awareness to dispute officer Holland's assertions and ensure that peace was restored and justice was equitably served well-informed officers deserve to be in supervisory positions and sergeant Stewart demonstrated great policing during this encounter mr. beter stet gets a b-plus because while it could be argued that he was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity mr. beter stets decision to record a retirement facility raises serious ethical questions there is no progress to be made within the constitutional awareness movement by recording the Lutheran home and alarming the residents of an elderly home only serves to make the movement look bad as a whole many of the homes residents are likely mentally unstable and pointing a camera at such an establishment is obnoxious and disrespectful and while mr. beter stet failed to properly exercise his Fifth Amendment right to silence he did remain calm and collected throughout the encounter and ultimately was not charged with a crime mr. beter stet would also do well to re-examine the Terry case and gain a deeper understanding of reasonable suspicion entertainment mr. beter stet did a good job overall and as his legal knowledge grows so too will his auditing ability and ethical awareness I look forward to seeing the Auditor he will become and I highly encourage you all to support his channel the link is in the description 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 Like and subscribe for more police interaction content [Music]

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 8,586,286

Rating: 4.8383632 out of 5

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: eNCjwTDjLA4

Length: 13min 23sec (803 seconds)

Published: Thu May 07 2020