Informed Sergeant Swiftly Corrects Officer

[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 reasonable suspicion obstruction of legal process and lawful orders and is brought to us by the rowdy podcast channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve before we dive into the interaction i want to give a big thanks to the sponsor of this episode news voice in a society that is becoming increasingly more digitized more and more news organizations are being bought out by large corporations competing to dominate the news industry this is a process known as media consolidation and has the potential to affect what information the public is made aware of and the contextual narratives surrounding that information news voice is a revolutionary new app that offers its users access to all the information you need to draw your own conclusions about the news the news voice app works by aggregating stories from all over the world and compiling them into one easy to use platform every story shows multiple sources each tagged with their political bias and perspective news voice allows you to create a custom news feed so that you can see the stories that matter to you the most and even allows you to take part by adding sources and stories you find relevant the news voice app is available on both ios and android and is completely free you can support ata by downloading news voice using the link in the description and experience a new take on the news thanks again to news voice for sponsoring this episode sometime around may 17 2020 podcaster and first amendment auditor john mitchell was filming the outside of the st louis park police department in st louis park minnesota when he was contacted by officer todd heinz of the slppd hello what's going on not much just walking around videotaping the police department's not a good idea why you guys are friendly people we are but why are we doing this why wouldn't we because it's a security issue for us is it it is i don't think so it is it's called our property it is public property but when you start recording our perimeter and our gates and what our activities are it's a concern to us i've only been here for about 15 minutes right we had officers that drove by and saw you pulling out of here walking out of here and said that you were recording them as they left i did yeah and that's an issue why are we doing that i don't have to have a reason you don't have a reason i don't have to have one okay do you have a driver's license i can see i don't what is your name i'm not gonna give that to you you're not gonna give it to me no why would i give it to you i haven't done anything wrong well you're recording our property you're recording our building sure and it's a security issue for us am i being detained you are okay until i can get you identified what's your reasonable because i want to make a particular suspicion something that's a problem for our law enforcement community so in order to detain somebody you have to have a law that you're investigating correct so which law are do you suspect me of breaking contrary to popular belief law enforcement officers do not need to suspect that a specific crime is has or about to take place in order to acquire reasonable suspicion in the infamous supreme court case of terry vs ohio the court noted that reasonable suspicion requires quote specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant an intrusion the supreme court went on to establish a two-step analysis for stop-and-frisk situations first if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion to believe that crime is afoot based on their observations and rational inferences drawn from them their training and their experience the officer may stop the suspect second if the crime the officer believes is occurring is a violent one or if the officer otherwise has reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect is armed and dangerous the officer may perform a frisk as mentioned many times on this channel reasonable suspicion requires a compounding of facts that suggest that some criminal activity is present in order to justify a stop by a police officer and legal activities can amount to reasonable suspicion when accompanied by other suspicious factors in the 1968 supreme court case of cibron versus new york the court held that quote the inference that persons who talk to narcotics addicts are engaged in the criminal trafficking narcotics is simply not the sort of reasonable inference required to support an intrusion by the police upon an individual's personal security and this conclusion easily translates to this interaction mr mitchell is exercising a constitutionally protected right within a traditional public forum and the inference that persons who film a public building from a public sidewalk in broad daylight are engaged in breaching the security of that building is simply not the sort of reasonable inference required to support an intrusion by the police upon an individual's personal security although officer hines has a suspicion that does not mean that his suspicion has rose to the level required to effectuate a detainment of mr mitchell are you looking to create a problem here for us no not at all i'm being polite and cordial i'm being playing cordial too so i'm asking you a little bit over so we can identify you i don't need to and be on our way why would i need to identify myself because i'm asking you to identify yourself what's your name in badge my name is todd heinz my badge number is 200. okay your name and badge recording you just like you're recording okay good so okay well i mean i'd like to be on my way to go i mean you have to have refusing to identify yourself well there's no need to 39-16 are you a supervisor i know okay you just called for a supervisor i did there you go thank you i appreciate that yeah you better i'm not i don't have any ill will i'm not here to hurt anybody i'm not armed with identifying yourself i don't need to you don't need to no it's my right to not oh so you're looking to create problems what you're doing no you're just accusing me of that absolutely because you're refusing to identify yourself that's not against the law it's obstructing legal process if we have a reason to ask you minnesota is one of 26 states which do not have stop and identify statutes written into their laws subsection 1 of minnesota statute states that whoever intentionally obstructs hinders or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process civil or criminal or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense is guilty of obstructing legal process the key phrase of the statute in reference to this interaction is the lawful execution as stated earlier in this episode officer hines did not retain the legal authority to compel mr mitchell to present his identification which renders the command to produce id unlawful and essentially negates the validity of a charge against mr mitchell under code 609.50 officer hines is attempting to use the authority of code 609.50 to circumvent the state's lack of a failure to identify statutes and goes on to suggest that he is basing his reasonable suspicion on his opinion that mr mitchell is quote looking to create problems what's your reason i've asked you i just told you no but i asked you you're recording our property i have to identify myself correct and i have to identify myself by yourself if you have a reasonable articulable suspicion and what is that you're looking to create problems is what you're doing is that what i'm doing by just filming and exercising my first amendment right that is my opinion yes okay well the good thing is the law doesn't go off your opinion but it does when you're obstructing our requests you can't you you can request right but it's not a lawful order it is a lawful order at this point if you're if and as soon as my sergeant gets up here he's going to tell you the same thing okay okay 44 states the district of columbia and the federal government make it a crime to disobey the lawful orders of police officers but there is significant uncertainty about what makes an order lawful the language of each state's lawful order statutes varies and many higher courts including the supreme court have failed to address the distinction between lawful and unlawful commands in the 1973 new york trial court case of people versus jennings the court adopted the ambiguous notion that a lawful order is one that is designed to reasonably achieve its lawful objective but failed to elaborate further and new york's highest court has yet to set a precedent the oregon court of appeals declared that judges must evaluate the legality of an officer's instruction on a case-by-case basis with quote few if any bright line rules noting that an almost infinite variety of variables could come into play the court's reluctance to clarify the issue is not the only factor at play when discussing lawful commands for instance it is often difficult to distinguish orders which civilians must obey from requests which they need not obey the lack of clear law leaves citizens in the dark about their rights and obligations during police encounters and tips the balance of power in the officer's favor encouraging them to escalate altercations this notion was demonstrated in the 2015 arrest of sandra bland who refused to extinguish her cigarette after being ordered to do so by the officer conducting the traffic stop mrs bland also refused to comply with the officer's order to exit her vehicle and was subsequently arrested although there is clear precedent in regards to whether an officer may order a suspect out of their vehicle as per the 1977 supreme court case of pennsylvania versus mims the ambiguity surrounding the officer's order to extinguish a cigarette created a cloud of confusion and distrust between mrs bland and the officer which likely led to her questioning the legitimacy of his orders that were in fact lawful the distinction between lawful and unlawful commands is a thinly veiled line that often leads to arrest when challenged and even higher courts struggle with the nuance and implications of officer commands luckily for mr mitchell officer heinz decided to consult his superior before moving forward with the interaction who arrived on the scene moments later this gentleman's got a first amendment right he says to videotape our activities around the police department and he's refusing to identify himself so that we know who we're dealing with okay you don't want to identify yourself well i don't need to he said he doesn't suspect me of a crime or anything okay just i'm just asking no but no it's right what's that sergeant what was your name and badge number 239 thank you sir you have a good day the saint louis park officers left the scene and mr mitchell returned to his vehicle without further incident following the encounter mr mitchell told me that he decided not to file a complaint against officer hines but did call the department approximately one week after the incident and was assured that the sergeant would be addressing the issue with his officers overall officer heinz gets a c-minus for detaining mr mitchell for exercising a constitutionally protected activity accusing mr mitchell of nefarious conduct with no legitimate evidence and maintaining a hostile and condescending demeanor throughout the interaction officer heinz's linkedin profile shows that he has been with the st louis park police department for over 29 years and it is clear that he is still adjusting to the modern standards of policing that are forcing the industry to evolve and adapt to the expectations of its constituents it should be recognized that officer hines decided to contact a sergeant without mr mitchell requesting one but that does not excuse officer hein's decision to detain mr mitchell or his unprofessional candor this interaction highlights the reverberations of outdated policing that still resonates amongst the ranks of officers who are nearing the end of their law enforcement tenure and officer hines would do well to adapt the modern standards into his arsenal policing tactics mr mitchell gets an a for maintaining a calm and collected demeanor throughout the interaction challenging the legitimacy of officer heinz's assertions and exercising his constitutionally protected rights in a legitimate and professional way mr mitchell deserves recognition for crafting an auditing style that maintains a careful balance between reserving his rights and emphasizing a respectable presence it is rare to find auditors who are capable of exercising their rights without becoming emotionally charged and vulgar when challenged by members of law enforcement although mr mitchell chose not to file a formal complaint against officer hines i commend him for following up with the department to ensure that the officers were educated on the proper protocol when interacting with members of the public i encourage you all to give your support to mr mitchell's channel and check out the rowdy podcast you can find those links in the description below sergeant adam gets an a plus for assessing the situation with a measure of objectivity accurately concluding that mr mitchell's conduct was legal and allowing mr mitchell to go free without further incident i commend the sergeant for quickly bringing an end to the unnecessary encounter and respecting mr mitchell's rights sergeant adam's conduct demonstrates exactly how a first amendment audit should begin and end and his willingness to contradict the prerogatives of his fellow officers is honorable 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 be sure to like and subscribe for more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 2,337,849

Rating: 4.871491 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: 1W2Sq35xpoA

Length: 13min 40sec (820 seconds)

Published: Mon Aug 24 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/voidoid]

Original video

[u/Magjee]

Sergeant arrived on scene settled it and left in a minute

So easy