Lawsuit For Seatbelt Ticket Ended In $200,000

[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 miranda rights fleeing and eluding and terry frisks and is brought to us by the betosize channel but was originally covered by the pensacola news journal be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on january 27 2020 31 year old mental health counselor taryn black was on his way to meet with a client for a therapy session when officer noah dufour of the pensacola police department in pensacola florida attempted to stop mr black for not wearing a seat belt after officer dufour turned on his lights and issued commands for mr black to stop over an intercom mr black continued driving for approximately one minute before pulling over get out of the vehicle now step out of the vehicle get on your knees get on your knees put your hands on top of your head i'm at work put your hands together you're clapping [Music] do you have any objection to me searching right now man uh yes sir you do yeah okay do you have any identification on you um okay i'm officer dude for the pensacola police department yes sir reason i'm stopping you today is because your seatbelt is long okay i gave you multiple chances to stop your vehicle all right well i was trying to get to a place that i felt confident okay okay because i'm at work right now this is your vehicle yes sir and i'm at work right now you're at work yes sir okay i got my badge on and everything okay all right for my 15 years i'm going to pat you down just to make sure you don't have any weapons on you okay yeah i was just stopping wait until i got to a place to where i feel comfortable i'm at work right now i'm going to go see a client right now who me i'm at work right now you're at work right now yeah i'm a counselor you're a counselor yeah but who's your do you have a client nearby or what's going on yeah okay before we ask any questions you must understand your rights you have the right to remain silent anything you say can be used against you in court you have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask any questions and to have them with you during questioning you cannot afford a lawyer won't be appointed for you free of charge before any questioning if you wish it's had to answer questions now without a lawyer president you'll still have the right to stop answering any time until you talk to warrior although miranda rights do not play a major role in this interaction this is a prime opportunity to discuss this highly requested topic for many years the fifth amendment self-incrimination clause was traditionally understood only to protect americans against formal types of compulsion to confess such as threats of contempt of court however in the 1966 supreme court case of miranda vs arizona the court established a new precedent regarding the fifth amendment's protections in the case the court held that a prosecutor may not use statements made in response to interrogation and police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning and that the defendant not only understood these rights but voluntarily waived them this ruling led to what is now known as miranda rights which refers to the formal warning that officers must issue the suspects in police custody before they are interrogated or questioned contrary to popular belief a citizen may be detained or arrested without having been read the miranda warning and the warning only applies when an officer questions a suspect about a particular offense or suspected criminal activity in the 1984 supreme court case of burkhamer versus mccarty the court expanded the miranda ruling to include protections for anyone in police custody as it had previously only been applied to serious offenses and in the 2010 supreme court case a berghuis vs tompkins the court added the stipulation that citizens must actually state that they wish to invoke their right to remain silent or else their subsequent voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them the court clarified that the mere act of remaining silent is insufficient to imply the suspect has invoked their rights and citizens must verbalize the notion that they are invoking their right to remain silent this ruling is particularly relevant to interrogation scenarios as one must state that they no longer wish to speak with officers in accordance with their fifth amendment protections or police may continue to interrogate them invoking your fifth amendment right to remain silent is a powerful tool in any police interaction however it is not a solution for every possible circumstance surrounding police encounters mr black voluntarily waived his right to remain silent and chose to engage with officer dufour to defend his actions mr black's choice to speak with officer dufour may serve him well in the courtroom as it offers the court a legitimate explanation for his decision to not immediately pull over and absolves the court from drawing its own conclusions about mr black's intentions so you're cool with talking to me yeah okay so you have no idea on you right now yeah it's in my car it's in your car okay do you have my uh my work id on me do you have any objection to me searching your vehicle right now oh yeah you do yeah why because for one um there's no smell of marijuana or that's i've known i've never mentioned any drugs number two um i think you know to stop it's based on i don't even know why you stopped me right now i i explained my stop to you okay oh yeah i mean i object to the search i mean i'm at work you know i was leaving walgreens and i'm headed to see a client do a session why why did you why did you flee from me i didn't flee you never stop i just i was waiting until i got to a place where i feel comfortable you never stop so that's the only thing that i'm saying i i didn't i'm i'm literally at work right now like i i could have stopped at any moment i got my work badge on me and everything the language of florida's fleeing or eluding statute is relatively stringent and often difficult to defend against with few exceptions florida statute 316.1935 states that it is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle having knowledge that he or she has been ordered to stop such vehicle by a dually authorized law enforcement officer willfully to refuse or fail to stop the vehicle in compliance with such order or having stopped in knowing compliance with such order willfully to flee in an attempt to elude the officer subsection 2 of the code states that any person who willfully flees or attempts to elude a law enforcement officer in an authorized law enforcement patrol vehicle with agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle with siren and lights activated commits a felony of the third degree the wording of code 316.1935 implies that citizens must stop immediately upon an officer's signal and florida's fourth district court of appeals affirmed this notion in the 2013 case of state versus crier in the case the court held that although the officers chasing mr cryer were attempting to effectuate an illegal arrest and mr cryer did not increase his speed or break any traffic laws during the five-minute pursuit he was still guilty of fleeing from an officer under the language of code 316-1935 this ruling essentially solidifies the notion that citizens in florida must pull over the moment an officer turns on their lights or siren all that said there are a few legitimate defenses available to citizens who are charged under florida's fleeing or eluding statute for example code 316.1935 specifies that pursuing police vehicles must be marked with agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle and florida courts have dismissed cases where undercover vehicles were the primary vehicle of the pursuit certain emergency situations may also offer a defense to not stopping for an officer such as being in labor or any other dire need for medical attention however they must be thoroughly proven in order to be successful in an interview with the pensacola news journal mr black states that the reason he did not immediately stop was because he didn't want his client to witness his interaction with the officers and said quote it's not good for anyone to see their counselor get pulled over by the police whether or not this would be considered a legitimate defense to a court is debatable but courts are charged with the duty of examining the totality of circumstances surrounding any police interaction and it is possible that a court would consider mr black's assertions valid at work right now that gives you no excuse to stop when i'm trying to pull you up what i was saying is i wasn't fleeing i was just waiting to that's fleeing from law enforcement i did not that is fleeing from law enforcement i did not increase my speed that does not matter the only thing that i'm saying is this i was not playing i'm and i'm literally at work i love the moment that i initiated my lights and sirens and told you to stop you're required to stop for law enforcement the only thing i'm saying okay is this i did not flee i was waiting till i got to a point where i felt comfortable to stop literally have no i need your license your registration your insurance i have permission to enter your vehicle and grab those items can can i get it no sir you're detained right now you fled from law enforcement i didn't i'm literally you fled from law enforcement i'm not going to argue with you about that anymore can you grab your license registration or proof of insurance yes sir where is it at oh my god just in your currency no i got my license in my wallet and then i got my the rest of it is in my glove department i can grab it can he go grab it can i go grab it mr black is well within his rights to deny consent to search his vehicle in the absence of probable cause i have covered the topic of search and seizure in many of my other videos and i will not spend too much time on it in this episode however this does not fully remove the search powers of an officer after mr black denied the officer's consent to search his vehicle officer dufour returns to his patrol car and makes a call to sergeant briarton for consultation on whether a fleeing charge was applicable and whether or not he could conduct a search of mr black's vehicle the sergeant advises officer dufour not to charge mr black with fleeing and authorizes officer dufour to conduct a search of mr black's person and the immediate area of where he was sitting under the terry doctrine if an officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons then the officer may conduct a brief pat down of the individual and the area in their immediate reach the terry case specifically states that officers must have a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and it is difficult to understand what facts would lead officer dufour to believing that mr black posed a threat to the officers stay seated after releasing mr black from the handcuffs and issuing him a citation for not wearing a seat belt the pensacola officers allowed him to go free without further incident several months later mr black obtained legal representation and filed a lawsuit against the department claiming damages of 200 000 for emotional distress and severe physical mental and emotional harm mr black's attorney alistair mckenzie told the pensacola news journal that mr black was treated unjustly because of his race and the older model car he was driving mr black is due in court on october 16th for the seatbelt citation but maintains his innocence and plans to dispute the charge the pensacola police department has publicly stated that it cannot comment on the case citing the pending lawsuits overall officer dufour gets a b because although he conducted a questionable search of mr black's vehicle much of his conduct was within the bounds of his authority and he made an appropriate decision to call a supervisory officer for further consultation rather than taking the risk of making a mistake it is difficult to penalize officer dufour for following the letter of the law and much of the questionable conduct of this interaction is due to the actions of the legislative and judicial branches of florida's government this encounter highlights a clear disconnect between the enforceability of the law and its interest in preserving the safety and logical practicality of its constituents mr black's reasoning for why he did not instantly pull over seems reasonable but it clashes with the language of florida's fleeing statute and courts routinely interpret the law precisely as it was written rather than questioning its functionality and the implications associated with it laws are meant to be executed in service of the greater good of society but the nature of the american justice system often creates an environment that is conducive to abuse and semantically justified wrongdoings officer dufour's conduct alludes to grander issues facing american citizens and as mentioned earlier it is difficult to fault him for doing what high courts have justified in the past mr black gets an a because although his actions may or may not have violated code 316.1935 he maintained a calm and collected demeanor throughout the interaction legitimately refused to allow the officers to search his vehicle and followed up this encounter with the proper legal action mr black's decision to waive his right to remain silent served him well during this encounter and although the right to remain silent can be a powerful tool during police interactions mr black's encounter highlights the importance of invoking that right reasonably and responsibly mr black also navigated this encounter with a respectable degree of patience and awareness and balanced the officer's request for an explanation with maintaining his constitutional rights i commend mr black for remaining vigilant about his rights while also ensuring that he dispelled officer dufour's suspicions about his behavior and i hope mr black's actions can serve as an example for all citizens who interact with police in the future let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to cover in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to like and subscribe for more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 2,622,662

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: ejo5GDHWO8A

Length: 14min 45sec (885 seconds)

Published: Wed Jul 29 2020