Officer Fails To Intimidate Witness

[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 four statements identification laws and officer ethics and is brought to us by Janet O'Brien's Spratlys channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve before we dive into the interaction I would like to invite you all to check out the audit the audit patreon page where I will be launching a new podcast series very soon I will be sitting down to have in-depth conversations with key figures within the auditing and law enforcement communities about the state of policing free speech constitutional awareness and much more so if that is something you may be interested in hop on over to patreon comm slash audits the audits or click on the link in the description and join our exclusive community now let's dive right in and audit the interaction on a September evening in 2017 Texas resident Janet Spradley was on her way home when she spotted a motorist driving erratically somewhere near San Antonio mrs. Spradley dialed 911 following the driver eventually an officer located the driver and mrs. Spradley turned off of the road so that the officers could take over as she turned around another officer was approaching and mrs. Bradley motion to the officer directing him to the erratic driver mrs. Bradley continued on her way and pulled over at a nearby gas station when mrs. Bradley exited the gas station she was confronted by officer Gibson of the San Antonio Police Department all I wanted to do was record all I want to do was just let y'all know that there was somebody driving that was intoxicated and that's all I went to do and I'm gonna talk to no cops and then have my name on any reports or anything officers do not have the authority to force a witness to give a statement but prosecutors do retain that power once the case has entered the courtroom mrs. Bradley had made it abundantly clear that she did not wish to provide a statement to the officer and this interaction should have ended the moment mrs. Bradley relayed that to the officer are you sure myself think yeah you familiar would tell you missus oh okay ma'am again I'm trying to explain the easy right here okay so chapter 38 instructing governmental operations that a failure to identify the person commits an offense if he intentionally is now community listen I am reading it to you okay if he intentionally refuses to give his name residents of address or date of birth to a peace officer who is lawfully arrest of the person and is requesting information or a person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false fictitious residence okay so right here under three officer requests the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense okay Texas is one of the few states that requires a suspect or citizen to be placed under arrest before they are lawfully obligated to identify themselves to police officers the statute that officer Gibson is referring to is Texas Penal Code 38.0 to which states exactly what the officer just read however officer Gibson's interpretation of that code is far from accurate in order for the code to be enforceable to any degree the person committing the offense must be under arrest mrs. Bradley has committed no crimes and is not subject to the enforcement of this code furthermore subsection B 3 of the code only applies to arrestees who have intentionally given a false or fictitious name residence address or date of birth to a peace officer officer Gibson is attempting to interpret the law as giving him the authority to force witnesses to give a statement to police but the law is actually designed to hold witnesses accountable for their testimony if they choose to give a statement to the police mrs. Bradley did not give any information to officer Gibson that would apply to the language of code 38.0 - and mrs. Bradley is not lawfully required to give a statement officer Gibson under the authority of Code 38.0 - or any other law oh I saw he was waving okay but I'm not want my name on in that he told the lady I'll talk to it the other sketch that I didn't want to talk to no pops it doesn't matter what my vehicle is I'll let the lady dispatch know that I don't want to talk to no cops because why I don't want to I don't want to talk to you I don't have anything to do with anything I was just being a good citizen and letting I know that somebody was driving a weaving I know this shouldn't be happening at all this should not be happening I had not committed a crime I have not committed any offense I have not done anything wrong if officer Gibson is suggesting that he suspects mrs. Bradley of committing a crime under code 38.0 - then that would entitle mrs. Bradley to the right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment which defeats the officers goal of this entire interaction mrs. Bradley is not legally obligated to speak to officer Gibson at all even if she had committed a crime the Fifth Amendment dictates that citizens may not be forced to incriminate themselves and if officer Gibson were to arrest or cite mrs. Bradley for not providing a statement to officers than any statement that mrs. Bradley could provide would become incriminating by its very nature because it would prove that mrs. Bradley had violated officer Gibson's misrepresentation of code 38.0 - even if officer Gibson had managed to get mrs. Bradley to cooperate it is highly unlikely that her statements would be admissible in court because mrs. Bradley would have given those statements under duress and Weavin that's it see if I ever call anything in again I don't want to have anything to do with it I don't have to have anything to do with it call your supervisor out here please I want a supervisor out here I don't want to talk to you I don't have to listen to you he's home okay although witnesses are vital assets to law enforcement officers it is not their responsibility to ensure that a thorough investigation is carried out as mentioned earlier in this episode most people are under no legal obligation to report a crime whether they knew about it in advance witnessed its commission or found out about it after the fact however there are some exceptions worth noting for example in California citizens can be charged with a crime if they aided or abetted in its commission but did not actually commit the crime themselves section 31 of the California Penal Code describes the phrase aiding and abetting as meaning that a citizen assisted another person in committing a crime prosecutors can charge an individual as an aider and abettor if they knew about the perpetrators illegal plan intentionally encouraged and/or facilitated that plan and aided promoted or instigated in the crimes commission California also has mandatory reporting laws on the books which dictate that certain individuals such as police officers teachers and doctors are required to report instances where they have a reasonable suspicion that child abuse or neglect has occurred many other states have similar laws but none of them require individuals to report crimes that they had no part in themselves mrs. Bradley did her due diligence by reporting the crime to the police and making sure that the officers were able to locate the suspect officer Gibson does not have the authority or the ethical superiority to compel mrs. Bradley to do anything more than what she had already done well then I'm sorry if he gets away with possibly I'm sorry I don't want to have anything to do with it no I'm not gonna be a witness to anything no I don't have anything to do with it it's not my fault I did what I was supposed to do is a good citizen and that's it it's not my fault that he's home already I told the lady dispatcher I do not want to have anything to do in the pub I want to talk to her I don't want to talk to you I don't have to and you have no right to ask my ID or anything I have not committed a crime I have not committed a crime if you hadn't found me what would you even if you hadn't found me then what you wouldn't have a witness anyway okay okay and okay exactly so what do you need me now for okay thank you thank you mrs. Bradley was allowed to go free and officer Gibson left the scene without further incident overall officer Gibson gets an F for misrepresenting the language of code 38.2 attempting to force mrs. Bradley to give a statement and focusing his attention on securing an arrest rather than building a legitimate case for statements are not reliable sources of information due to the psychological context in which they are formed people will say whatever they have to say to secure their safety and freedom and forcing a citizen to make a statement against their will is a waste of time and valuable resources and only serves to build a case that will be torn to shreds inside a courtroom officer Gibson was so preoccupied with securing the erratic drivers arrest that he did not consider how his actions would reflect in the courtroom although the officers were not able to secure an arrest that night mrs. Bradley did provide them with vital information that they could use to make contact with the driver and determine the cause of their behaviors instead of thanking mrs. Bradley for what she did do officer Gibson chose to threaten her for what she didn't do effectively severing an increasingly vital relationship between the local Police Department and a concerned citizen mrs. Bradley gets an A for remaining calm disputing the legitimacy of the officers claims and remaining vigilant about her constitutional rights despite being threatened with arrest recitation mrs. Bradley likely walked away from this encounter with nothing more than a distrust of the SAPD and as she admitted in the video officer Gibson's tactics will discourage her from calling 911 in the future it is extremely important for members of law enforcement to establish trust and a productive repertoire with members of their community and officer Gibson's actions produced the opposite effect mrs. Bradley's relentless disputes and constitutional awareness served her well during this encounter and I commend her for her ability to remain calm but tenacious throughout the interaction 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]

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,789,144

Rating: 4.8995266 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: SAtToN90-os

Length: 11min 53sec (713 seconds)

Published: Thu Jun 04 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/PraetorianOfficial]

Skip the audit of the audit (which wasn't even an audit) and just click on the original link. It's a lot shorter and completely self-explanatory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n2xEJLPEtA

[u/SleezyD944]

This incident is new to me.

Only criticism I have regarding the overview of the encounter is I would argue the cops actions created an unlawful detention.

[u/MaestroAtl]

“I’m trying to explain” - copsplaining bs

[u/Siak_ni_Puraw]

San Angelo, TX

[u/Fearless-Collar]

Awesome video

Great job at explaining in a very calm and thorough manner.