Officer Loses It and Costs the City Thousands

[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 traffic stops reasonable suspicion and citations and is brought to us by arkansas online and nea reports channels be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on december 28 2016 officer matthew mercado of the walnut ridge police department pulled over burlington northern santa fe railway company employee adam findlay while he was working in an unmarked truck on railroad property in walnut ridge arkansas the footage from officer mercado's body cam which he turned on after the traffic stop was initiated shows that mr finley was wearing a bnsf railway logo jacket and that he provided officer mercado with his employee id badge and driver's license the first 30 seconds of the body cam footage did not capture audio and has been omitted from this episode you have anything concealed any weapons or anything like that okay well what's with the attitude nothing no you have an attitude and what's your problem i don't have no problem yes you do good i can pull you over if i want that's fine because i have a right to uh ask you what yeah okay didn't look like you were working sit back for me some too you get up on me again we're gonna have problems i'm glad you think this is a joke sir i'll work there what were you doing over there and why aren't you in a modern vehicle but i didn't see you doing the work over there [Music] mr finley steps toward officer mercado in an attempt to open the back door of his truck to show the officer his work supplies but as mr finley steps forward officer mercado aggressively shoves him backwards and places him into handcuffs did i tell you about getting upon me i i wouldn't i was just trying to deal with something that i could do that i worked for him what did i tell you about getting up on me i'm sorry i didn't know you want to be tomorrow you gotta shut your mouth [Music] come here [Music] you lost your [Music] you didn't even let me [Music] i'm out here by myself i don't know if you've got a gun in there and then i walk up on you and you jump me all verbally i'm 37 sir okay we're the same man the man why would you talk to another grown man like the way you did i just asked you why you pulled me over i was gonna tell you you know by law we have to tell you why we're pulling you over because i can't impede on your civil liberties officer mercado claims that he is lawfully obligated to tell mr finley why he stopped him however while police officers must have reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop they do not have to inform citizens of why they have been stopped during the traffic stop although it may be a police department's policy to do so in fact the supreme court has repeatedly held that a police officer's subjective reasons for initiating a traffic stop should not be taken into account when determining the reasonableness of a stop for fourth amendment purposes for example in the 1973 case of united states vs robinson the court held that a traffic violation arrest was valid despite the fact that it was quote a mere pretext for a narcotics search and in the 1978 case of scott vs united states the court explained that quote subjective intent alone does not make otherwise lawful conduct illegal or unconstitutional after summarizing these cases as well as other relevant precedent the court concluded in the 1996 case of ren vs united states that quote we think these cases foreclose any argument that the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops depends on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved subjective intentions play no role in ordinary probable cause fourth amendment analysis additionally in the 2014 case of hein versus north carolina the court expanded this principle to uphold a traffic stop where the officer was mistaken about whether driving with one brake light out violated the law holding that reasonable suspicion can quote rest on a mistaken understanding of the scope of illegal prohibition and that quote because the officer's mistake about the brake light law was reasonable the stop in this case was lawful under the fourth amendment in other words not only are officers not required to inform citizens of the reason for a traffic stop a stop will still be considered constitutional as long as there is an objectively reasonable suspicion to justify it even if the officer did not initiate the stop for that reason or is mistaken about what the law actually prohibits but you didn't let me you become hostile and aggressive yes you did i just said why you pulled me over so it's how you say things sorry you should be but you're getting ready to go to jail is there anything in here i need to know about for what uh for one didn't i tell you not to get up on me like that that's the talk stood there sir no you got up on me sir i told you don't get up on me is there anything in this vehicle you need to know about i need to know about yeah i need my phone you don't need it right now i've got something to do i didn't you got to sit right there that's what you got to do adam my name is matthew and this is all being recorded i'm going to let you go but do you understand i could get you for object obstruction for government operations just listen to me now assaulting a peace officer i should take you to jail right now all right let me tell you something when you come in contact with an officer let them tell you why don't just start what are you doing don't be confused i'm going to alleviate all the confusion now you put yourself in my shoe sir you're a police officer yes sir that's my property right there i'm supposed to watch are you in a marked vehicle that says railroad and where's your plates from so now could you see where i'd be suspicious of what you were doing over there officer mercado explains that he was suspicious of mr finley because he was driving an unmarked truck on railroad property if mr finley was not an employee his presence on railroad property could violate section 5-39-203 of the arkansas code which states that an individual commits criminal trespass if they purposely enter or remain unlawfully in or upon the premises owned or leased by another person or a critical infrastructure which according to section 5-38-101 of the arkansas code includes railroad property that is quote either completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is designed to exclude persons without permission to be in the facility or otherwise is clearly marked with signs that are reasonably likely to be seen by another person that indicate entry or unauthorized access is forbidden without facility authorization even though mr finley was authorized to be on the property in the scope of his employment because there was no obvious indication from his vehicle that mr findley was a railway employee it is likely that officer mercado had the necessary reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop as the supreme court explained in the ren case quote a search or seizure may be permissible even though the justification for the action includes a reasonable factual mistake an officer might for example stop a motorist for traveling alone in a high occupancy vehicle lane only to discover upon approaching the car that two children are slumped over asleep in the back seat the driver has not violated the law but neither has the officer violated the fourth amendment given this standard if officer finley was mistaken as to whether mr finley was a railroad employee stopping him to investigate the situation would likely be constitutional however the court would probably conclude that once it became clear that mr finley was a railroad employee his continued detention was not justified and then when i made contact with you you're aggressive and hostile with me verbally [Music] and well i mean i didn't mean anything turn around officer mercado uncuffs mr finley and after threatening to tase mr finley and take him to jail the two eventually shook hands and went their separate ways without further incident later that day mr finley met with walnut ridge police chief chris kirksey and sergeant matt cook to discuss officer mercato's conduct and file a formal complaint what's your name my name is chief prisker what's another fellow's name that's this corridor would be officer matthew mccarthy yeah what i saw is you want to keep a six foot distance well he should have stepped back away from me because i couldn't go anywhere sir you seen it from what i saw he's lucky he didn't go to jail who had him [Music] construction of justice what'd he do he interfered with the law enforcement officers investigation [Music] [Music] have you written a citation vote for obstructing the governmental operation and refusal to submit to arrest so you will be written those citations right now when mr finley attempts to file a complaint with the walnut ridge pd about officer mercato's behavior he is interrogated by officer matt cook and chief chris kirksey and eventually issued citations for obstructing government operations and refusing to submit to arrest even though officer mercado originally chose not to write any tickets following the encounter there are no legal limitations that prevent officers from issuing citations or arresting individuals after they originally decided not to and in cases involving criminal offenses rather than mere traffic violations officers often wait to arrest an individual to file charges in order to investigate further however while there is no legal issue with the delay in issuing the citations the validity of the charges themselves is highly suspect according to section 5-54-102 of the arkansas code the offense of obstructing governmental operations occurs if an individual quote knowingly obstructs impairs or hinders the performance of any governmental function which section 5-54-101 defines as quote any activity that a public servant is legally authorized to undertake on behalf of any governmental unit he or she serves the statute also clarifies that quote this section does not apply to refusal to submit to arrest any means of avoiding compliance with the law not involving affirmative interference with a governmental function or obstruction impairment or hindrance of what a person reasonably believes is a public servant's unlawful action similarly under section 5-54-103 of the arkansas code an individual commits the offense of resisting arrest if they quote knowingly resist a person known to be a law enforcement officer affecting an arrest as used in this subsection resists means using or threatening to use physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person while it is unclear which of mr finley's actions were alleged to be obstructing and resisting none of the behavior that was captured in the body cam footage appears to rise to the level of either of these offenses this will be taken into account [Music] you'll be going to court oh okay okay that's fine so this will be taken into account there'll be an internal investigation but from what was seen on camera and i talked to the prosecuting attorney just now about the phone with it he told me to have you written those citations okay driver's license so i'm getting a ticket for something yeah exactly [Applause] after being issued the citations mr finley chose to fight the charges and on april 3 2017 he was acquitted of all charges by the district court of lawrence county arkansas on april 5th 2018 mr findlay filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city officer mercado officer cook and chief kirksey the case was settled later that month with mr findlay receiving a 57 500 settlement this incident also sparked another lawsuit from fort smith arkansas residents william whitfield hyman and natalie hyman after their posts on the walnut ridge pd's facebook page that included links to this body camera footage were deleted the hymen's lawsuit alleged that this violated the first amendment and the case was eventually settled overall officer mercado gets an f for physically and verbally assaulting mr findlay maliciously abusing officer discretion and for overstepping the bounds of his authority throughout the entirety of the interaction nothing that officer mercado did during this interaction was reasonable or informed by logic or law and although the body cam footage does not include whatever mr finley said that offended officer mercado his conduct was unprofessional and unethical regardless as mentioned on many episodes of ata officers are often subjected to unflattering expressions of free speech and that is not a license to unlawfully detain and investigate an individual and it is certainly not a license to physically assault innocent citizens who inquire about the reason for being stopped much of officer mercado's conduct was nothing short of criminal and it is abundantly clear that he is not fit to serve in law enforcement chief kirksy and the walnut ridge police department also get an f for immediately discouraging and dismissing mr finley's claims misconstruing the facts of the encounter in an effort to justify officer mercato's misconduct and for issuing mr finley's citations for crimes he did not commit it should be noted that officer mercato had only been employed by the walnut ridge police department for 11 days before stopping mr finley and it is difficult to understand why a police chief would so adamantly defend the actions of a rookie officer who committed such blatant acts of misconduct instead of assessing the encounter objectively and taking mr finley's concerns seriously the chief crafted an alternate narrative based on a misrepresentation of the facts in an effort to defend officer mercado's misconduct not only did the department stand by officer mercado's actions but they also acted in retaliation on his behalf by issuing mr finley bogus citations the walnut ridge police department and city leaders handled this encounter extremely poorly and chief kirksey's actions were the catalyst for the city's eventual settlement this interaction highlights the difficulties that citizens often face while attempting to file complaints against members of law enforcement and the financial consequences that bird and municipalities who allow their officers to commit misconduct mr finley gets an a plus for remaining calm and collected throughout the interaction making a legitimate effort to dispel officer mercado's suspicions and for following up this encounter with the proper legal action not every police encounter warrants an invocation of fourth amendment protections and it would be unreasonable to expect every citizen involved in a police interaction to challenge the authority of law enforcement mr finley went to great lengths to prove his innocence to the officer and it is difficult to fault him for being so forthcoming when he needed to get back to work mr finley's ability to remain calm during officer mercado's attacks was remarkable and very few individuals possess that level of emotional constitution the fact that mr findlay managed to have all the charges dropped and a settlement reached despite having been discouraged and intimidated by the police chief is a testament to his character and i commend mr finley for having the courage to challenge the charges 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 check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,123,857

Rating: 4.9490309 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: LEitSm1KsiA

Length: 16min 14sec (974 seconds)

Published: Mon Sep 06 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/david_chi]

Dude later sued the city - got $57K. Follow up story here about how this incident ultimately cost him his marriage and how the city continued to try and cover their asses to avoid bad PR.