Michigan Police Sergeant Doesn't Know The Law

[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what in the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers the absurd results doctrine personal effects and obstructing justice and is brought to us by shared ignorance's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve in a video posted on october 8 2020 it appears that the owner of the shared ignorance youtube channel who i will refer to as mr shared was confronted by officer pete stochi and sergeant richard baysor of the genesee township pd while riding his motorcycle in a school parking lot after hours in genesee township michigan while officer stochi initially approached mr shared on his own the footage begins just after sergeant baysor arrives on the scene is that a is that a felony or a misdemeanor on camera okay answer my questions okay you're gonna you're gonna provide me your identification am i legally obligated to detain right now yeah what crime am i being detained for i need to know what crime was your bag over here you're literally i'm littering you put the bag over there but yet you're not saying nothing about it oh are you going to de-escalate this sir he pulled me over and asked me what i'm doing here and if i go to school here no i don't go to school here but then he this he asked me why i'm why i'm leaving i said uh i'm just riding around the parking lot now he's asking me questions saying i'm littering and i'm being detained and i'm being detained over there you can't even answer a question i don't i'm not legally obligated to answer your questions what's your name and your badge number is that what you tell the judge yeah that's what i tell the judge when you deactivate you need to stay away from me first it's six feet what do you tell the judge it's i don't i don't have to tell the judge i'm i'm i'm a private citizen here you're are you the sergeant i am a surgeon thank you okay thank you for de-escalating this okay what's your name back sergeant-baser i'm with the genesee township police department thank you for being professional all right is this your video hold on i don't i don't request any searches or seizures of my property i don't have to answer your questions i'm not illegally obligated to answer your questions the officers accused mr shared of littering by placing his bag down and walking away from it and mr shared correctly informs the officers that he is under no legal obligation to answer their questions section 324.8901 of the michigan complied laws defines litter as quote rubbish refuse waste material garbage awful paper glass cans bottles trash debris or other foreign substances end quote as well as abandoned vehicles vessels off-road vehicles and snowmobiles applying this definition of litter section 324.8902 of the michigan complied law states that a person shall not knowingly deposit place throw or leave litter on public property or water other than property designated and set aside for such purposes while attempting to interpret this statute it's important to keep in mind section 8.3a of the michigan complied laws which requires the quote all words and phrases shall be construed and understood according to the common and approved usage of the language under a plain reading of these statutes it is arguable that mr shared's actions did constitute littering as he placed his backpack which is a foreign substance on public property however section 8.3 of the michigan complied laws allows an exception to the common language rule of statutory construction when quote such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature a court might also stray from the common meaning of the statutory language under the absurd results doctrine which allows a departure from the plain meaning of the statute when a literal reading would produce absurd results but case law is inconsistent about whether the doctrine is recognized in michigan in the 2012 case of johnson vs recca the supreme court of michigan acknowledged that the justices disagreed about the absurd results doctrine but then went on to say that to properly invoke the doctrine a court must determine that it is quote quite impossible that the legislature could have intended the plain meaning while the construction of the littering law that prohibits temporarily placing objects on the ground in a public place could certainly lead to absurd results such as forbidding individuals from placing their bags beside them while sitting on a park bench or setting down an infant carrier while changing a diaper and it seems unlikely that this is the type of behavior the legislature intended to outlaw michigan law is not clear as to whether a judge can accept this as a justification to interpret the statute differently unfortunately there are no readily available court decisions construing michigan's littering laws and given the uncertain state of the absurd results doctrine in michigan precedent it is difficult to predict how a court would interpret the statute as applied to mr shared's actions i come here and i practice riding my motorcycle i take my bag off and put it right there so i'm not riding on me all i did was pull up check my tire pressure put my bag down and he came up to me asking questions saying i was being detained that's a that's an illegal entertainment crazy world that we live in right now people that leave bags around that we're at a school where there's kids and practicing football he's and that's understandable but uh suspicion is not a crime okay just the same as if if somebody was driving a motorcycle and you're in your neighborhood okay go ahead somebody was driving a motorcycle in your neighborhood and they dropped a bag that was near their home when you are near your home when you want us to at least check them out 100 100 right but it was the way he did it it was the way he did it was very unprofessional and aggressive and he was treating me like i'm a criminal like i did something wrong he said so he didn't start off being defensive why are you wire i don't i don't expect this bag it over there i don't forfeit my bag for sending it over there drove it away like i just got done saying you get there if you left it there and drove away from it you lose an expectation of privacy for it officer stachy searched mr sherrod's bag over his protests while sergeant basoor attempted to justify the search by arguing that mr shared lost his expectation of privacy in the bag by leaving it unattended the fourth amendment protects quote the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures in the 1997 case of united states versus chadwick the u.s supreme court determined that individuals possess an important privacy interest in the contents of personal luggage that is protected by the fourth amendment the court reasoned that quote by placing personal effects inside a double-locked foot locker respondents manifested an expectation that the contents would remain free from public examination no less than one who locks the doors of his home against intruders one who safeguards his personal possessions in this manner is due the protection of the fourth amendment warrant clause however courts have determined that an individual can lose their expectation of privacy in their effects by abandoning them in the 2002 case of people versus taylor the michigan court of appeals concluded that quote the search and seizure of property that has been abandoned is presumptively reasonable because the owner no longer has an expectation of privacy in the abandoned property the proof required to substantiate abandonment should reasonably lead to an exclusive inference of throwing away whether an owner abandoned his property is an ultimate fact that turns on a combination of act and intent in this situation it is clear that mr cher did not intend to abandon or throw away the bag and therefore it is likely that a court would find he maintained an expectation of privacy in his backpack particularly because he remained nearby while the bag was placed on the ground even if a court concluded that mr shared forfeited his expectation of privacy by leaving his bag in a public place the fourth amendment would still protect his bag from unreasonable searches and seizures in the 2012 case of united states versus jones the u.s supreme court concluded that because the fourth amendment protects an individual's property interests any search where quote the government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area is subject to constitutional scrutiny citing to the jones decision the michigan court of appeals held in the 2020 case of people versus tim's that quote in a criminal case a search or a seizure conducted without a warrant is generally unreasonable unless under the circumstances both probable cause and an exception to the requirement of a judicial warrant exists because there is no exception to the warrant requirement for effects temporarily placed on public property it is highly likely that a court would conclude officer stachy violated mr shared's fourth amendment rights by searching his backpack no that's that is not correct you're telling me i can't send my bag down to practice riding my motorcycle but you jumped to a conclusion went right to the defense right no i'm not legally obligated to tell him anything i don't even know who you are you don't have to know who i am okay if he deems suspicious to check suspicion is not a crime you're operating a do you have an identification do you have an identification and i don't answer questions i'm not answering any questions that was very unprofessional of him it was very aggressive i'm glad you you de-escalated i don't know what he would have done if you didn't de-escalate that okay all right we're good we're good what do you mean we're good i'm gonna you want something else yeah your card i want your card i want your card i want your card i'll make sure you get it i got it right here thank you i'll give it to him they don't have a legal obligation to know we need to know who you are okay if you say no i'm not telling you who i am and we're investigating something that we deem to be suspicious now you're obstructing we could have took that extra step and said you're demanded and we're demanding that we see a license from me but he didn't you can't detain someone without a crime though no suspicion is not a a simple detainment is separate from an arrest are you in handcuffs well you could argue in handcuffs no sir have you been told you've been placed under arrest no sir okay so all he's doing is talking with you to deem whether or not something was suspicious and yes at school after hours when there's no other people around and you leave a bag around yeah that that can be certainly indeed suspicious and we want to make sure that our kids are safe here and in doing so we're doing our job yes sir okay so yeah he is going to check it out and i expect to ask my officer to do that okay okay all right and um who do i speak to about this as far as like uh you're talking to me all right and you're saying that my my rights weren't violated at all in any way if you weren't sitting in the back of his car and this is a personal contact okay and he wants to know who you are he could have went down the road of obstruction but he didn't that's a secondary charge obstruction you have to have you haven't been charged with anything yet right so how can he charge me with obstruction because we don't know who we are sergeant basor tells mr shared that he could have been charged with obstructing because he refused to identify himself despite the fact that michigan law does not require him to do so while many states have established stop and identify statutes that require individuals to provide their names to officers in certain situations neither michigan nor genesee township have passed laws requiring identification under any circumstances in a concurring opinion for the 2019 case of people vs barrera the michigan court of appeals concluded that although police officers are free to ask a person for identification without implicating the fourth amendment michigan has not adopted a requirement that a detained person identify himself in the course of an investigatory stop and noted that quote the defendant's refusal to identify himself to officers was not itself in violation of any law and therefore did not provide the officers with probable cause to arrest him on that basis even in states that have passed stop and identify statutes officers cannot ask for identification without a reasonable basis for believing the individual was involved in criminal activity in the 1979 case of brown versus texas the u.s supreme court reversed a criminal conviction under texas's identification law concluding that the application of the statute quote to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the fourth amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct accordingly appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself while the department of homeland security considers an unattended backpack to be suspicious activity that could indicate terrorism or terrorism-related crime under the totality of the circumstances it seems likely that a court would conclude that officer stachy did not have a reasonable suspicion that mr shared was engaged in criminal activity particularly given the fact that he remained in the vicinity of the bag instead of fleeing as one typically would if the bag contained explosives or other dangerous materials as to whether mr shared could be charged with obstruction the relevant provisions of section 750.479 of the michigan complied laws defined the offense as knowingly and willfully obstructing an officer acting in the performance of his or her duties or obstructing an officer enforcing an ordinance law rule order or resolution of the common council of a city board of trustees the common council or village council of an incorporated village or a township board of a township the statute also clarifies that obstructing quote includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with the lawful command because mr shared in no way physically interfered with the officers and their command to identify himself was not supported by a stop and identify statute it is highly likely a judge would find that mr shared was not guilty of obstructing he hasn't done anything wrong and neither have you and we're gonna leave it at that he illegally searched my bag and took my id and he id me i have a right to privacy as his private citizen so i'm not being detained right nobody said you're being detained right now you can walk away well he's detained he's what he said he said i was being she still weren't detained handcuffs you weren't putting anything he was just trying to figure out what's going on right but i was being detained for mr shared requested sergeant basour's business card and reasserted that he was not legally obligated to provide his name in these circumstances as sergeant baysor got in his vehicle and drove away mr shared also requested the name of his lieutenant it is unclear whether mr shared followed up with the genesee township pd or filed a complaint or if he is pursuing legal action based on this encounter overall officer stachy gets an f for misusing the authority of michigan's littering laws conducting what appeared to be an illegal search of mr shared's bag and for failing to employ any measure of de-escalation according to officer stachi's logic the moment a citizen walks away from their vehicle in a parking lot it becomes subject to search and seizure and that idea blatantly contradicts the current interpretation of the fourth amendment as mentioned before intent is a factor in determining whether an item has been abandoned and mr shared did not intend to leave his bag in the parking lot this fact alone negates the validity of this stop to a large degree officer stachy's assertion that mr shared's conduct constituted a violation of the littering code is clearly not the type of behavior the code intended to regulate and the officer's willingness to dishonor the spirit of the code to justify a detainment and search speaks for itself all of the information that was needed to determine the suspiciousness of mr shared's behavior could have been collected through observation and consensual encounter but due to officer stachi's condescending and dismissive attitude this stop only served to leave a citizen feeling violated and wary of future police encounters sergeant basor also gets an f because although he did make an uninspiring attempt to de-escalate the situation he did so by attempting to justify the clearly questionable conduct of his officer dismissing mr shared's concerns about his civilian rights and accusing mr shared of obstructing an investigation sergeant basour's blind loyalty to officer statue was on full display during this interaction and his assertion that mr shared could be arrested for obstruction was baseless and could be interpreted as an intimidation tactic instead of simply listening to mr shared's concerns and directing him to the proper channels to file a complaint sergeant basor chose to engage in a debate about the legality of officer stachi's conduct with the alleged victim not only did the sergeant potentially discourage mr shared from filing a complaint but he also encouraged officer sachi to continue exhibiting his bullish behavior this interaction highlights the importance of good leadership within a department and the actions of lower level supervisors like sergeants are often representative of the perspectives held by the entire chain of command that may or may not be the case for the genesee township police department but there is no denying that sergeant basor could have handled this interaction with more professionalism and regard for mr shared's concerns mr shared gets an a minus because although he did struggle to properly articulate some of his points he challenged the legitimacy of the stop made a legitimate effort to dispel the officer's suspicions and invoked his right to remain silent despite being threatened with arrest knowing the exact verbiage and vocabulary of legal concepts is not nearly as important as wielding the rights granted by those concepts effectively it is obvious that mr shared is not extremely well versed in the law but he did know enough to begin recording invoke his right to silence and determine that the search of his bag may have been illegal mr shared protested his detainment without becoming physically combative or vulgar and he maintained an adequate balance between complying with the demands of the officers and upholding his constitutional rights i commend mr sherrod for having the courage to invoke his constitutional rights and the awareness to do so tactfully be sure to check out the shared ignorance channel and let them know that i sent you you can find a link in the description below let us know if there's 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 the ata patreon page for more police interaction [Music] content you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,657,944

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: 6wsDmZo9UMI

Length: 18min 7sec (1087 seconds)

Published: Thu Feb 11 2021