Officers Deny Access To Courtroom

[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 attending court proceedings suspicious activity and public property and is brought to us by north dakota news now's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on august 23 2019 north dakota resident derek collier was leaving a local grocery store when he was asked to show his receipt mr collier refused and the employees called the minot police department to have him removed from the property officer josh lunt responded to the call and trespassed mr collier from the store this interaction sparked mr collier's interest in law and he began regularly attending court proceedings in minot to learn more about the legal process eventually mr collier's curiosity led him to attending hearings in neighboring cities and in early february of 2020 mr collier drove to the nearby town of williston to tour their city building and attempt to watch any court proceedings taking place upon arriving in the lobby of the building mr collier made contact with deputy royce crone who was an officer of the williams county sheriff's office but is in charge of the building's security mr collier asked deputy crone if there were any court proceedings taking place and the deputy told him that there were none mr collier continued into the building and began wandering the halls and exploring areas of the building that were open to the public a few minutes later mr collier was confronted by deputy crone who informed him that he was growing suspicious of his activity and told him that he had 10 minutes to exit the building mr collier then continued to the third floor of the building where he discovered a court proceeding taking place and decided to observe the trial deputy crone then made a call to 911 you don't have any officers available to assist me in checking the guy out yet yeah i do i've got a really big boy up here and he's really acting kind of strange just walking around the whole place but i feel better confront him if i had a little backup if i will someone over there right now thank you once officers brett flesness and michael licciardi arrived on the scene the three went to the courtroom to make contact with mr collier how are you doing good are you so what's your business here today oh i'm going to look at court just like i court yeah that's what i'm doing sitting in there okay yeah this is a court that's got nothing to do with you it doesn't matter this is a simple trial it doesn't so why are you doing it how come you were walking around yeah yeah so you're just wandering around sitting in a courtroom where you don't know anything that's going on why can't you huh what amendment is that the fourth amendment and you're going to be you're going to be civil because if you're not did i was in there was i in there i'm just telling you i'm telling you i'm telling you what's going on although the first amendment does not explicitly mention the right to attend criminal proceedings the supreme court has upheld this notion in the past in the 1980 supreme court case of richmond newspapers inc versus virginia the court held that the first amendment generally prohibits closing criminal trial proceedings to the public however the court also recognized that this right is not absolute and some limitations may apply under certain circumstances this conclusion led the court to develop a two-prong test to determine when the right of access should be granted for a particular proceeding first a court should consider whether the process or place at issue has historically been opened to the public and the press the court generally recognizes that the quote tradition of accessibility implies the favorable judgment of experiences and it is noted in several opinions that certain proceedings that were public in england and colonial america should remain so today second the court has looked at quote whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question the right to access a courtroom may be overcome by showing that closing the proceeding preserves a higher interest to the parties involved and that the closure is narrowly tailored to serve that interest before a trial can be closed to the public a trial court must exhaust all reasonable alternatives to the closure and make specific findings detailing the need for it all that said the supreme court has not ruled on the public's right to access civil trials but several state and lower federal courts have recognized that the openness of civil trials is also necessary to promote free participation and communication within a democratic society despite the ruling of lower state and federal courts civil proceedings may be closed for a variety of reasons including the need to protect the party's privacy confidential business information or trade secrets it is important to note that the supreme court has not recognized a right of public access to juvenile proceedings which have traditionally been closed to the public some state courts however have allowed access to certain juvenile proceedings particularly if the defendant is charged with murder or another serious felony it should also be noted that although the supreme court has not yet directly addressed the issue of recording inside a courtroom most federal district and circuit courts have held that the first amendment right of access does not extend to audio-visual devices inside the courtroom because the court proceeding that mr collier is attempting to attend is a civil trial public access could be limited if necessary however it appears as though the trial was open considering that the door to the courtroom was propped open officer crone also did not contact mr collier because he was attending court but because he considered mr collier's actions suspicious let's walk around this corner around the corner i got no problem with you being in there but if you're starting from there we're going to be back and you're going to be going to jail didn't you understand that i answered you understand what i said do you understand what i said i asked do you understand what i said i asked you if there was court today and you told me this is a civil charge it doesn't matter what it is you can go see it it's not your business it's public so why did you go to every office why can't i huh what's the big deal why can't i why because people don't normally do that they don't come in here and go to everybody's places walk all over the place for no reason at all i'm not most people i'm going in there and i asked you if there was a court today and you told me no right because i like to go in minot a lot and and this is our building it's our building okay let's not okay i'm gonna step in here okay okay we got security here right we've had security concerns in the past okay that's what we have you're right it is public okay but when you're going from room to room that's unusual okay which is why he's checking on you and that's that's okay now listen because that's suspicious activity we're investigating that's what we're here okay now because i do have to identify yourself because we're investigating a suspicious act in a government building okay so if you ask for identification you do have to provide it okay okay and why i don't understand like i go in there and you pull me out when i'm legally okay we're checking to see what's going on although north dakota is a stop and identify state an officer must still obtain reasonable suspicion before demanding a citizen to produce identification i have covered the topic of reasonable suspicion in many of my other videos so i will not spend too much time on it in this episode but it is important to understand that a location's history and context does play a role in the acquisition of reasonable suspicion for example the supreme court has routinely ruled that a history of criminal activity in certain areas can contribute to an officer's justification for reasonable suspicion in the 2000 supreme court case of illinois vs wardlow the court acknowledged the relevancy of a high crime area in regards to reasonable suspicion and decided that quote the determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on common sense judgments and inferences about human behavior and that the fourth amendment quote accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people in the case william wardlow was in an area known for narcotics trafficking and upon spotting nearby officers began running from them although the officers did nothing to provoke his flight the court held that being in a high crime area in and of itself is not suspicious but the location in combination with mr wardlow's unprovoked attempt to flee from the officers did meet the minimum standards required to stop and detain him the logic applied in the ward low case boils down to whether the actions of an individual are suspicious given the context of the location they are in for example if mr wardlow had run from officers in an area that joggers often frequent instead of an area associated with the trafficking of narcotics then his actions would have been much less suspicious given that mr collier aimlessly wandered the halls of the city building before entering the courtroom and that the officer mentioned having security issues in the past it is entirely possible that a court would consider his actions suspicious enough to warrant an intrusion by the officers and this interaction could have ended after mr collier willingly presented his identification and a reasonable explanation for his actions but it did not you mean you don't have the same options of what's suspicious what's delicious that means you pull me out of court when i'm in there watching not being loud sir i let you talk no you're not going to shush me i'm in there watching courtney you have me come out here so they can run my id i'm in court and i'm sitting and being civil not making any noise and i asked you downstairs was the court today you told me no and then you're like well it's not in your business it's public so it is my business i can go in there and i can watch yes it's my turn you came in the building all right you're just walking around you're going to every office yeah for no reason at all all right we have security concerns in here people just don't walk around i'm not most people i'm talking now remember it's my turn most people don't talk don't walk around and go to every office and checking out everything that is not a normal thing to be done that is suspicious to me that's why these gentlemen are here all right this is a civil trial you have no reason really to be in there there's no reason there's going to be anything okay watching here don't give me an attitude whenever i ask you something then you're going in there my security concern is that you might start something in there i've got a full plate full of water you're sitting there being still and quiet so that your security strength goes right out the window that's why we're checking on you okay i just don't understand why i don't understand what your problem is you're in my building this is our building this is a public building not your building public it's not your building it is not your building it's my building it's not your building yes it is no it's not i'm security here it's my ability it's not you're responsible for this building okay and when i came in on anybody that's suspicious and i'm not suspicious you are suspicious treat me like a criminal when i'm not when they come back and nothing is doing my record let's go let's go let's go let's go public right now all right let's go as mentioned previously in many episodes of ata it is possible to be trespassed from public buildings and the courts generally consider the property of a state or municipality to be the property of another for the purposes of trespassing in the 1966 supreme court case of adderley vs florida the court held that the united states constitution does not prohibit a state from controlling its own property as long as it does so in a non-discriminatory manner and the logic of the adderley ruling has been applied to many cases for example in the 1968 california court of appeals case of parish versus municipal court the court held that if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that such person has no apparent lawful business to pursue then they may be trespassed from public property the question of the first and fourteenth amendments being violated was addressed further in the 1970 federal district court case of hurley versus hinckley where the court held that physical presence in a building which is dedicated to specific public uses other than that of a public thoroughfare is not pure speech and not protected by the constitution and is thus a trespass not only have the courts historically granted the controlling parties of public buildings significantly way to dictate who may remain on the premises but have also given them the ability to determine whether a citizen's business on the premises is legitimate if a court were to determine that mr collier's actions were in fact suspicious that it is possible that the court would consider him to be trespassing all that said mr collier made his intentions clear from the moment he entered the building and if a court were to uphold his actions as suspicious it could render considerable implications on a citizen's first amendment right to attend public that time come hearings downstairs officers i'm done i just want to go in there i want to say well this is a category okay and it's public we know if you're out here for court and they don't want you here they can do that mr collier was led downstairs by the officers and was eventually forced to leave the building after going back and forth with the officers outside of the building mr collier eventually left the scene without further incident following the encounter mr collier filed a complaint against deputy crone with sheriff verlande cavandi and requested copies of the body cam footage and the 9-1-1 call upon contacting him a second time sheriff cavandi assured mr collier that he had spoken to deputy crone about the incident and corrected his conduct mr collier also contacted several attorneys regarding his interaction but was unable to secure legal representation overall deputy crone gets an f for maintaining a hostile and condescending demeanor throughout the interaction failing to employ any measure of de-escalation and allowing his ego to dictate his conduct deputy crone's antagonistic attitude was nothing short of unprofessional and although he may have had a legitimate reason for contacting mr collier there is no excuse for a member of law enforcement to engage in an ego battle with a citizen especially in a hallway outside of an active courtroom whether or not deputy crone's suspicion was warranted is debatable but his attitude and actions overshadow the validity of his stop and highlight his inability to exercise his authority objectively even if the deputy's suspicion was found to be valid by a court that would not substantiate his aggressive behavior or combative speech officers flesness and lichardi get a c-plus because although they blindly followed the logic of deputy crone upon responding to his call it could be argued that mr collier's actions were suspicious and that deputy crone did retain the authority to remove him from the building it is difficult to fault the officers for removing an individual from a building at the request of the building's authority figure and there is an ample amount of case law to justify their actions police officers are not judges and they are simply tasked with carrying out their duty to the best of their ability and allowing the courts to decide whether their actions were within the bounds of the law all that said officers are afforded a considerable degree of discretion when carrying out their duties and instead of attempting to find a solution that favored all parties involved the officers chose to restore peace at the expense of administering justice thus depriving mr collier of his first amendment right to attend a public trial the waters of law enforcement are often difficult to navigate and it is all too common that officers choose the quickest way to resolve an issue rather than the most equitable mr collier gets an a for remaining relatively calm in the face of deputy crone's accusations maintaining a balance between complying with the orders of the officers and voicing his concerns about the stop and following up this encounter with the proper legal action as mentioned earlier the legitimacy of deputy crohn's suspicion is debatable and if this interaction were to be challenged a court would have to weigh the validity of the deputy suspicion with mr collier's first amendment right to attend public trials as demonstrated in many episodes of ata it is extremely difficult to preserve your emotional stability when interacting with members of law enforcement but mr collier did a great job of defending his actions without becoming emotionally charged i commend mr collier for taking a genuine interest in the legal process and for managing to keep a level head throughout the interaction 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 like and subscribe for more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 790,671

Rating: 4.8711967 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: mPva8rS0co4

Length: 17min 21sec (1041 seconds)

Published: Mon Aug 31 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/BrooklynMan]

Was this guy actually doing anything wrong?

[u/rubinass3]

This should be labeled: r/youarebeingdetained

[u/WhyNotZoidberg112233]

Gotta love Audit the Audit. Exposing criminal cops all around the USA and keeping the largest gang in america in check. Love that channel.