Officers Caught Blatantly Breaking the Law on Camera

[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 trespassing officer identifications and police stations and is brought to us by the bay state examiner channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on september 5th 2014 the founder of independent media source the bay state examiner who we will refer to as ms bay was attending a police accountability march in lynn massachusetts when she noticed an undercover police officer following the protest in an unmarked vehicle when ms bay approached the vehicle and requested the officer's name and badge number the officer allegedly hit her with his vehicle on september 8th ms bay entered the back lot of the lynn police station and captured video footage of the vehicle she was allegedly struck by and after being kicked out of the lot by an unidentified officer ms bay entered the lynn police department building to file a complaint regarding the incident i'm sorry to bother again oh hey uh what's the lawful reason for the request because you're on private property uh i'm on private property and you get to see my in the back lot you were on private property you asked me you took your time i need your ids ids can i have yours i don't have one of you no all right go to the chief we are sure that's what we're here for yeah uh can we speak to the chief this officer has invited us to speak with him can you make an appointment for us with the team no that's not my job okay so you guys don't have ids on you can you please tell me who this officer is he refuses to provide uh id upon request well i think he's asking you for id because you're a trespasser around the back of that building right trespassing on public property the officers informed ms bay that she was trespassing when she entered the back lot of the police station to find the vehicle that had been involved in the incident there are only two entrances to the lot they are both posted with signage that marks the lot as a secured area with no trespassing and authorized personnel only signs according to section 120 of chapter 266 of the massachusetts general laws an individual commits criminal trespass when they enter or remain in or upon the buildings or improved or enclosed land of another after having been forbidden to do so by the person who has lawful control of said premises whether directly or by notice posted thereon in the 1969 case of commonwealth versus eggleston the supreme judicial court of massachusetts determined that this statute applied to city property holding that a building owned by a municipality is included in the phrase buildings of another and upholding a conviction for trespassing in the office of the local draft board despite the defendant's first amendment claims in reaching this conclusion the court reasoned that quote the city had both a right and a duty to protect the building and its functions against any self-proclaimed need for an individual entry which could not so far as appears benefit the public use in any respect the fact that all government property is not open to the public is well established by supreme court case law but it also is reasonable under a common sense standard for example some government buildings contain offices for government employees who could not carry out their duties efficiently if the public was free to enter at any time in the same way not every part of a police station is open to the public it would clearly be problematic if someone off the street could walk into an interview room while officers were interrogating a suspect or if the public had access to secure evidence lockers in this case it also makes sense to limit the public's access to the police vehicles parked in the department's private lot for the protection of the vehicles and the officers driving them given the case law that supports trespassing convictions on government property it seems likely that a court would agree with the officers that ms bay was trespassing when she entered the parking lot particularly because both entrances to the lot were clearly posted with no trespassing signs well it's only public property because it's posted not to be back there that's what's brought up with the signs what signs are going to use i didn't see any sense either show the shine you're welcome back then take a look okay oh after i'm sorry all right well we need your ids now i'm not interested in showing that at this con no i'm not yeah all right so you guys are refusing all right then won't you just leave there you can go do we want to check that yeah i was going to say you've invited us to speak with the truth oh right so maybe you should call him and make an appointment with him got it okay okay we can do that and you might have both of your names and questions is that you oh 76 okay 76. thank you very much sir but it was not very difficult appreciate it and you're leaving right no i haven't made my report yet you made your report well actually first of all i'd like to make a complaint about this gentleman here second of all what's the complaint your refusal to identify yourself uh is against the law okay literally um i'm sure you know if you ever have an appointment with the chief you're talking you'll get my information well i'm sure i will here the officers refuse to identify themselves with officer 76 refusing to show his id card for a second time and ms bay claims that it is illegal for officers to refuse to identify themselves under massachusetts law while police officers typically do not have a legal obligation to identify themselves massachusetts is one of the few states that have passed such a requirement according to chapter 41 section 98 d of the massachusetts general laws quote each city or town shall issue to every full-time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing the officer's photograph and identifying information such identification cards shall be carried on the officer's person and shall be exhibited upon lawful requests for purposes of identification while other states have not passed a similar id card requirement section 830.10 of the california pedal code states that quote any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge nameplate or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer despite the lack of statewide legislation local laws may also require officers to identify themselves for example the new york city council recently passed the right to know act which took effect in october 2018 and requires officers to provide citizens with their name rank command and badge or shield number during specific interactions such as terry stops even if the citizen does not request this information officers are also required to offer a business card that lists their name and shield number when the encounter has been completed many individual police departments have also instituted policies that require officers to identify themselves upon request but it is important to bear in mind that citizens usually have no recourse beyond filing a complaint with the department if an officer violates such a policy however in this situation it is clear that the officers violated massachusetts law by refusing to carry identification cards and provide them upon a lawful request from a citizen but uh in the meantime i'd like to make a complaint are you saying that i can't do that not with us not with you who do i make a question the chief's the best guy the chief's the best guy okay so make an appointment okay what's up with that what is it that you're looking for uh well i found the car that hit me on friday i was reporting it earlier um it's outback okay and what are you doing going in private property and police cast what private property the property that's parked out back there posted is no trespassing authorized personnel only i didn't see that well it's posted all over the entrances to that parking lot interesting it is interesting but it is also posted okay [Music] mcdermott tells ms bay that she is trespassing and creating a disturbance inside the lobby and orders her to leave despite the fact that she still had a legitimate complaint to file against the officer who refused to identify himself and that she informed the officers that she wanted to continue recording for news gathering purposes as we discussed earlier in this episode an individual can be charged with trespassing in public buildings including police stations in the 2020 case of commonwealth versus bradley the pennsylvania superior court affirmed an individual's conviction for trespassing in a police station lobby after they refused to leave when ordered the individual was filming in the lobby despite posted signs prohibiting filming and refused to stop filming or leave the building when requested to do so in upholding the trespassing conviction the court noted that although filming of police is an activity protected by the first amendment the right to record the police is not absolute citing the 2010 third circuit case of kelly vs burrow of carlisle the court explained that quote the right to videotape police is subject to reasonable time place and manner restrictions as long as they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information in this case the court concluded that the lobby filming ban was a reasonable time place and manner restriction that ensured the safety security and privacy of officers informants and victims and prevented interference with police activity however while both situations involved trespassing in police department lobbies there are some important distinctions between the two cases first in the bradley case the defendant's sole purpose in entering the building was to film whereas ms bay was attempting to file a complaint while also filming the encounter additionally the lynn police department did not have a no filming policy and ms bay was not asked to leave because she was filming although she was asked to leave despite her request to stay in film given the factual complexity of this interaction it is difficult to predict how a court would decide on the issues in this situation one possible interpretation of this interaction is that ms bae was asked to leave because she was requesting to file a complaint which could constitute illegal first amendment retaliation however the court could also conclude that ms bay's complaint had already been sufficiently received and that she was trespassing by refusing to leave when the officers requested that she do so all that can be said with certainty is that ms bay did not have an absolute right to film or remain in the building and that an individual can legally be convicted for trespassing in a police station lobby under certain circumstances uh well i'm still trying to report that a police car drove into me and i found it it's literally out back okay and the supervisor the officer in charge will be out with you when he gets there's information that he literally doesn't have because i didn't have it until right now when i went back the car so i would like to tell him that the car is back there that it's been repaired even though they didn't report uh well you know actually i'm filming this for news gathering purposes at this point okay i i've asked you several times now i'm telling you leave the police station okay that is an order yes is it under threat of arrest your business here is complete you thought the complaint has been documented you are creating a disturbance in the front lobby of the police station leave the police station is this under threat of arrest leave the police station or you yes right now it is under threat of arrest you are trespassing creating a disturbance in the lobby of the police you can't possibly be trespassing here all right um in that case uh i think i'm gonna leave them i think we're done okay well i'm going to leave under duress under threat of harassment whatever condition you want as long as you leave fairness a few days after her experience at the police station ms bay submitted a freedom of information act request to the lynn records department and was met with some resistance it is unclear whether the department ever responded to the request but as of september 26 2014 ms bay reported on her youtube channel that she had not received a response in 2016 ms bay stopped posting on her channel and abruptly announced that the bay state examiner was terminated with no explanation overall the lynn police department officers get an f for violating massachusetts law by refusing to identify themselves kicking ms bay out of the police station lobby and for not allowing ms bay to complete her original complaint or file a new complaint against the officers while it may be possible for a court to justify some of the conduct of the officers such as trespassing ms bay from the property that does not excuse the lynn officers from refusing to take ms bay's claims seriously and not allowing her to file a formal complaint ms bay made it abundantly clear that her business at the station was not concluded but the officers ignored her protests and demanded that she leave the property without a shred of consideration for the gravity of ms bay's claims if a random citizen had walked into the station to file a report about being hit by an unidentified driver it is highly unlikely that they would have been met with the same degree of callous indifference as ms bae was there are legitimate questions to be raised about the true intentions of the officers who removed her from the station the law should never be used as a means to discourage filing a complaint against a member of law enforcement and trespassing ms bay from the building without taking her complaint was nothing short of unprofessional and discourteous there are serious implications associated with refusing to identify as an officer in massachusetts and the lynn officer's refusal to allow msbay to file a complaint on that basis certainly appears to be retaliatory ultimately ms bay was not arrested or cited but she was threatened intimidated and discouraged from filing a complaint and it is difficult to justify the conduct of the lynn officers regardless of ms base alleged trespassing ms bay gets a b-minus because although she entered the private lot of the police station despite the posted signage she remained calm and collected throughout the interaction challenged the conduct of the officers peacefully and respectfully and made a legitimate effort to follow the proper chain of complaint there is little doubt that ms bae was not within her rights to enter the back parking lot of the lynn police station and it is difficult to believe that she didn't see the signs posted at the entrances to the lot at one point she claims that she has a right to be there because her tax dollars fund the building but as mentioned earlier this is not an accurate claim according to the supreme court if ms bay had decided to pursue legal action against the department based on the information she gathered while trespassing there is a good chance that her video footage would not be admitted into court because it was obtained illegally holding members of law enforcement accountable is no doubt mentally and emotionally taxing and although committing minor violations in the name of the greater good can be extremely appealing it is important to maintain a level of professionalism that supersedes the conduct of the officers in question being a victim of police misconduct is not a license to commit crimes and building a case against corrupt officers is already difficult enough without handing them evidence against yourself while i do commend ms bay for having the tenacity and conviction to gather her own evidence against the lynn officers i would also caution her to remain within the bounds of the law while doing so i highly encourage you all to give your support to the bay state examiner's channel you can find a link in the description below 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: 549,513

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: oFqZ03hJuhU

Length: 15min 30sec (930 seconds)

Published: Mon Sep 20 2021