Officers Arrest Blind Veteran

[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 HIPAA laws recording in public buildings and trespassing on public property and is brought to us by blind justices channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve let's dive right in and audit the audit on February 4th 2020 the visually impaired auditor who has identified as Mike Nelson in this local news article entered the Guilford County Health Department in the city of High Point just outside of Greensboro North Carolina mr. Nelson was seeking information about the mental and reproductive health services available from the department when he was contacted by officer Robertson of Guilford County security who are you well you can't you can't give people orders unless you identify yourself yes I can okay well you're in order to run valid we'll see okay officer Roberson refuses to identify himself to mr. Nelson and attempts to kick him out of the building for recording [Music] at one point officer Robertson decides to turn mr. Nelson's camera to face the opposite direction without permission [Music] what your law who are you touching my camera's actually illegal no no but you touched it without much you're telling me to leave again yep okay who are you no are you wearing are you wearing a names paper anything no you're not okay see I can't see it can you tell me what it says no you can't tell me what's good no I absolutely do sir you you actually touched my property that I'm fine I want to report that but I'm I need to know your name we at least tell me who you work for like hurry are you Sheriff's Department okay at least tell me who you work for after several minutes of unproductive bickering between officer Robertson and mr. Nelson the building's manager intervenes there's no video recorder we have clients here that are here for medical reasons yeah and you're violating their you know the HIPAA applies to the medical personnel the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 or HIPAA is a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient's consent or knowledge within the hip act the US Department of Health and Human Services issued the HIPAA Privacy Rule to implement the requirements of HIPAA the Privacy Rule standards address the use and disclosure of individual's health information by individuals and organizations known as covered entities these entities include health care providers health plans health care clearing houses and business associates and does not include the general public however citizens may still have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside a Health Department facility in the 1976 Supreme Court case of Katz versus United States Justice John Marshall Harlan established a two-prong reasonable expectation of privacy test which has become the privacy legal standard over the years the test considers whether an individual has exhibited an actual subjective expectation of privacy and whether the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable like all legal precedents rules relating to the doctrine of expectation of privacy are subject to interpretation and whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists is fact specific and determined on a case-by-case basis reasonable expectations of reasonable people locations the nature of the objects or data and many other factors must be considered while mr. Nelson may not be subject to HIPAA violations he may still be violating other citizens reasonable expectation of privacy by recording inside the facility after a brief debate with mrs. Leslie captain Dougherty and other officers of the North State security group arrived on the scene and order mr. Nelson to stop recording are you his supervisor no I'm not okay can you identify him for me because I need a name to go with complaint or their name please okay somebody read me something you need to turn your recording device off please as this is device understand jewelers the device is recording if you don't turn your devices on your recording device not your system either at this event okay if you don't turn the recorder at all is there an agent coordinator you need to leave this is stop recording you need to leave the building in the 1983 Supreme Court case of Perry Education Association versus Perry local educators association justice Byron are white explained that there were three categories of government property for purposes of access for expressive activities traditional public forums limited public forums and non-public forums in the courts forum based approach the government can impose reasonable time place and manner restrictions on speech in all three categories of property but has limited ability to impose content-based restrictions on traditional or designated public forums when determining whether a government property should be classified as a designated public forum the courts examine the property's policy and practice and whether the property is a reasonable place for expressive activities because the buildings ban is strictly on the act of recording and not mr. Nelson's expression of Rights the Guilford County Health Department's no recording policy is likely valid however in a statement issued after this interaction mr. Nelson claimed that he uses his camera and phone as assistive devices and records his encounters so that his spouse can help him navigate the areas he goes to subsection 4 of 29 US Code 3002 defines an assistive technology device as any item a piece of equipment or product system that is used to increase maintain or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities it appears as though mr. Nelson's cell phone recordings could be considered an assistive technology device but the courts would have to balance the disability accommodations mr. Nelson is entitled to with the public's reasonable expectation of privacy within a Health Department facility okay I'll ask you plenty well there's a there's a crime committed and I need to identify the person that violated that yeah they don't in the building you're gonna be around you're gonna be a risk that's right now okay not ask you to leave and you're not leaving the county building so that all on a second-degree trespass okay you're on the prowl you're gonna leave I'm trying to clarify what's going on so second-degree trespasses if you're on the property of another and you're without permission or you're or asked to leave before leaving you're refused is that right as am i I'm saying that right well I just want to understand what you're threatening like if you're any nobody are you gonna leave sir I'm kind of clarify are you gonna leave yes or no absolutely yes I'm absolutely these go I'm just trying to clear you if you don't just as public employees do not work for any individual taxpayer public buildings do not belong to any individual member of the public and government buildings are generally considered the property of another for the purposes of trespass laws in the 2016 Texas Court of Appeals case of Wilson versus state the court held that government entities have the same rights as private property owners to control their properties so long as the entity's policies are not employed as a subterfuge for illegal discrimination North Carolina code 14 one five 9.13 states that a person commits second-degree trespassing if they remain on premises of another after being notified to leave by the owner by a person in charge of the premises of aweful occupant or another authorized person but banning an individual from public property is subject to certain legal guidelines a trespass should not be based on a person's decision to engage in conduct protected by the First Amendment such as protesting but the 2015 Idaho Court of Appeals case of penticoff ursus state held that individuals may be banned from a building for reasons unrelated to their expressive conduct banning a person from a building that houses essential government functions poses significant legal challenges but public officials may seek alternative means to banning an individual such as having them escorted while they are on the property the laws and legal nuance surrounding trespassing on public property vary from state to state and municipality to municipality and it is difficult to say whether a court would consider mr. Nelson's trespass valid wait so you are you gonna use violence against me I'm trying to clear my violin thanks take it taking away my freedom is absolutely fine sir are you gonna leave right now or not yes I'm trying to clear with what do you mean my chance bond you bagged a property property of another in mr. Nelson's post encounter statement he claims that officer boys of the north state security group grabbed him by the arm threw him to the ground and placed him into handcuffs the officers then dropped him onto a wheelchair injuring his neck and forcefully wheeled him into the county courthouse mr. Nelson says that he woke up five hours later in a hospital where he discovered that he had been picked up by EMTs outside of the local jail the original interaction began at approximately 4:40 p.m. and documents acquired from the city clerk state that he was released from jail at 7:02 p.m. while in the hospital mr. Nelson was diagnosed with a six millimeter bleed on the brain and many other less serious injuries mr. Nelson spent several hours in the hospital but was eventually discharged into his wife's care and is now stable in recovering mr. Nelson was charged with second degree trespassing and resisting an officer the blind justice Channel has been tirelessly seeking legal representation to fight mr. Nelson's charges and pursue civil suits over all officer Roberson gets an F for refusing to identify himself violating mr. Nelson's private property and taking advantage of mr. Nelson's disability at several points throughout this encounter officer Roberson acknowledges mr. Nelson's visual impairment and refuses to provide any reasonable proof of authority to issue orders any non impaired individual would have had the visual context clues necessary to ascertain the officer's name and agency but officer Roberson took advantage of mr. Nelson's condition and refused to offer the same degree of identification that he offers to any non visually impaired individual that he makes contact with it could be argued that officer Robertson's actions were ethically questionable and possibly discriminatory either way they were not the actions of a law enforcement professional an officer Roberson should be held accountable for his negligent behavior mrs. Leslie and the responding officers of the north state security group also get an F for asserting their administrative authority over mr. Nelson instead of attempting to make a peaceful compromise causing serious physical injury to a passively resisting citizen and completely disregarding mr. nel since claim to disability accommodation missus Leslie and the North Star officers were so concerned with enforcing their no recording policy that they refused to seriously consider mr. Nelson's condition and the assistive devices he uses and whether or not an exception should be made that decision is ultimately for a court to decide but the North Star officers ignored mr. Nelson's explanation for the recording altogether and escalated the interaction into a physical altercation resulting in the arrest and injury of mr. Nelson while I do not fault the officers for attempting to enforce the building's policy it is difficult to understand how a disabled veteran recording himself inside a government building resulted in a violent arrest jail and a brain injury mr. Nelson gets an a-minus because although there may be an exception for recording via his medically assistive devices a valid argument exists that those recordings could violate the public's reasonable expectation of privacy while inside a Health Department facility it could also be argued that the security officers and mrs. Leslie did retain the authority to stop mr. Nelson from recording because their policy was based on the act of recording itself and not the act of protesting or demonstrating there is a legitimate state interest in protecting the privacy of citizens conducting business within a Health Department facility and it is unlikely that a court would find the health department's no recording policy in violation of the First Amendment but given that mr. Nelson's phone could be considered an assistive device it makes for an interesting courtroom scenario be sure to follow blind justices channel for updates on mr. Nelson's condition and future legal battles 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]

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,298,752

Rating: 4.7968922 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: 7vIa_71hpGk

Length: 13min 56sec (836 seconds)

Published: Thu Feb 20 2020