Officers Mess With The Wrong Lady - $500,000 Lawsuit

[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 mobility devices the americans with disabilities act and scooter laws and comes to us from the oregonians channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve before we dive into the interaction i want to give a big thanks to the sponsor of this episode skillshare skillshare is an online learning community built by and for real working creatives where millions come together to take the next step in their creative journey skillshare offers thousands of dynamic classes that appeal to everyone from the beginners and dabblers to the pros and masters each skillshare class includes a combination of video lessons and class projects that are tailored to fit your schedule and skill level with skillshare you have unlimited access to a wealth of practical knowledge that translates to real-world growth and understanding for example zack hartley's class on the fundamentals of the stock market gave me more insight into all the crazy things happening on wall street lately a skillshare membership is already super affordable but right now the first 1 000 people to use the link in my description will get a free trial of skillshare premium you have absolutely nothing to lose so click on the link in the description and empower your personal growth today thanks again to skillshare for sponsoring this episode shortly after midnight on november 19 2018 two city of brookings police officers stopped 49 year old jennifer gaiman as she traveled home from a night of karaoke with her friends in brookings organ ms gaiman who has been diagnosed with best disease with macular degeneration of both eyes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease asthma lumbar degeneration causing lower back pain and symptoms and peripheral neuropathy was riding her three-wheeled mobility scooter on the sidewalk when the officer stopped her i just want to go home why are you stopping i'm gonna explain it to you in a second we're stopping you because you're on the sidewalk with it yeah you rode through a crosswalk it's a legal thing on a sidewalk look it up it's a mobile scooter it's a label okay okay it's an electronic scooter yeah it's a mobile scooter okay do you understand what that means it's my mobile scooter it's how i get around i don't have a car okay okay it's like i yeah it's like iris yeah because i'm getting pissed off because i want to go home you guys are pulling me off for no reason it's like irons it's like iris you know ira the blue guy with the guys right it's exactly like his except it's got two seats that's all it is white exactly you deny that it's electronics it's not an electronic shooter and i can ride it on the sidewalk is it gas powered no it's not gas i'm cold you're not free to leave yeah i am no you're not here i am because you legally cannot stop me you're lawfully detained right now you are literally on a lawful trial you see those red and blue lights for what though are you going to let me explain it yeah because you don't have a reason to you guys are legally you're taking you're taking my disability act and you're throwing under in the garbage this is my disability scooter this is how i get around and you know that you've seen me many times around this town riding it okay are you gonna let him explain to you why you're actually on a lawful traffic stop okay so we stopped you because it was actually looked up before okay you can't ride this in a crosswalk on the sidewalk are you kidding me while ms gaiman and the officers debate whether her scooter is an electronic scooter or a mobile scooter under organ law both types of scooters are considered a quote motor-assisted scooter section 801.348 of the oregon revised statutes defines a motor-assisted scooter as a vehicle that is designed to be operated on the ground with not more than four wheels as a foot support or seat for the operator's use can be propelled by motor or human propulsion is equipped with a power source that is incapable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of greater than 24 miles per hour on level ground and if the power source is electric has a power output of not more than 1000 watts under this definition both a two-wheeled standing electric scooter and a three-wheeled scooter with a seat like ms gaiman's would qualify as motor assisted scooters section 814.524 of the oregon revised statutes prohibits individuals from operating a motor-assisted scooter on a sidewalk except to enter or leave adjacent property but ms gaiman argues that because she uses the scooter as a mobility device she is allowed to ride it on the sidewalk under section 35.137 of title ii of the americans with disabilities act a state or local government is required to quote make reasonable modifications in its policies practices or procedures to permit the use of other power-driven mobility devices by individuals with mobility disabilities while this sounds straightforward enough case law is unsettled about whether this title of the ada applies to public sidewalks section 35.10 of title 2 states that it applies to quote all services programs and activities provided or made available by public entities in the 2002 case of barton versus city of sacramento the federal ninth circuit court of appeals determined that because quote the focus of the inquiry is not so much on whether a particular public function can technically be characterized as a service program or activity but whether it is a normal function of a governmental entity maintaining the accessibility of public sidewalks for individuals with disabilities falls within the scope of title ii however the fifth circuit court of appeals came to the opposite conclusion in the 2010 case of frame versus city of arlington holding that sidewalks curbs and parking lots are not title ii services programs or activities because the us supreme court has yet to resolve this circuit split and oregon is in the ninth circuit a court evaluating ms gaiman situation would likely agree that the sidewalk was covered by title ii of the ada and could therefore conclude that allowing ms gaiman to use her scooter on the sidewalk was a reasonable modification to oregon law so with a mobile scooter sit right around here all these old people can't write them on the sidewalk nope not according to the oregon department of transportation i'll look it up for you just so you can show know that i'm not messing with you and he's not okay so i'll let everybody know that you guys have bad laws in this town and that people that have disabilities no you know what that's disabilities okay these people ride these scooters for disability you wanna hiding in the streets they get hit by a car you're kidding me i don't make the rules yeah well grab some information do you do you have an id on you i don't need to give you my id you do you were lawfully detained you've been explaining that you will provide your name or identification the officers demand that ms gaiman provide her name or identification because she is being lawfully detained while the organ does not have a stop and identified law that requires individuals to identify themselves if police officers have a reasonable suspicion that they are involved in criminal activity oregon law does require that individuals provide identification during a traffic stop under section 807.570 of the oregon revised statutes it is a class c misdemeanor for an individual to fail to present and deliver a driver's license driver permit or out-of-state license to a police officer when requested by the police officer upon being lawfully stopped or detained when driving a vehicle although section 801.5 of the oregon revised statutes defines a vehicle as quote any device in upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway and includes vehicles that are propelled or powered by any means which would include ms gaiman's scooter section 807.570 clarifies that quote it is a defense to any charge under this section that the person so charged produce a license driver permit or out of state license that had been issued to the person and was valid at the time of violation of this section the inclusion of this defense shows that this code is intended to prevent individuals from driving without a valid license and not to criminalize a citizen's refusal to identify themselves while title ii of the ada requires the city to make reasonable modifications to accommodate ms gaiman's mobility scooter section 35.137 does allow a public entity to ask an individual using a power driven mobility device to quote provide a credible assurance that the mobility device is required because of the person's disability a public entity must accept a valid state-issued disability parking placard or card or other state issued proof of disability as a credible assurance that the use of the other power driven mobility device is for the individual's mobility issues section 35.137 also states that quote in lieu of a valid state-issued disability parking placard or card or state-issued proof of disability a public entity shall accept as a credible assurance a verbal representation not contradicted by observable fact that the other power driven mobility device is being used for a mobility disability while the officers were permitted to stop ms gaiman to inquire about her use of the scooter if a court found that allowing her to drive the scooter on the sidewalk was a required reasonable modification it would likely conclude that she had provided sufficient assurance of her disability because i want to get home it's cold and you guys are done with me and you might see me writing this many times and you know it there's my id i've never seen you write in the series you have can i please get my id back no you will get it back once we're once we finish you asked me to show you what the rules were no i just want to go i can look them up myself i'm cold and i want to go shower no you are not free to go right now you're not free to go until we were finished and i can't look at that because i can't see your phone okay so in oregon since this is a electronic scooter you're not allowed to have passengers on it that's one rule you are required to wear a helmet you are you are not allowed right on sidewalks you are not allowed to ride it in crosswalks all right the officer states that when operating her scooter ms gaiman is not allowed to ride it in crosswalks or carry passengers and that she must wear a helmet while section 814.528 of the organ revised statutes prohibits operating a motor assisted scooter in a crosswalk requiring that the operator walk the motor assisted scooter in a crosswalk it provides a clear exception for individuals with disabilities stating quote this section does not apply to a person with a disability operating a motor-assisted scooter in a crosswalk although ms gaiman's disability did permit her to ride her mobility scooter in a crosswalk the officer's other assertions appear to have more merit section 814.530 of the organ revised statutes prohibits operating a motor-assisted scooter while carrying another person and section 814.534 requires motor assisted scooter operators to wear protective headgear on a highway or on premises open to the public while there is an exception to the helmet requirement if quote wearing the headgear would violate a religious belief or practice of the person there is no exemption for people with disabilities the relationship between title ii of the ada and these laws is complicated and while the city is required to make reasonable modifications to its rules to allow ms gaiman to use her scooter the ada doesn't permit her to operate the scooter in whatever way she wishes generally there must be a nexus between an individual's disability and the requested modification and it is difficult to imagine how an exemption from wearing a helmet or carrying a passenger would be necessary based on ms gaiman's disability unfortunately there is no case law on this matter in particular but i believe it would be a stretch for a judge to conclude that ms gaiman was exempt from these laws because of her disability when ms gaiman asks for her id back the officers inform her that the stop is not over yet and over the course of the next 15 minutes the officers write ms gaiman multiple citations i don't need your job you're not doing your job though you're not serving protecting because [Applause] so if you try to reach and grab something out of my hand again you're gonna go to jail tonight after issuing the citations the officers informed ms gaiman that she was not permitted to ride her scooter home which was one or two miles away because she was not wearing a helmet but ms gaiman rode the scooter home anyway the officers followed ms gaiman home in their patrol cars with their lights and sirens on and arrested her in her garage for attempting to elude police and interfering with an officer criminal charges were brought against ms gaiman in curry county and on may 8 2019 a jury convicted ms gaiman of attempting to elude a police officer which is a class c felony a judge sentenced her to five days in jail and 18 months of probation but ms gaiman appealed the conviction as of this episode her appeal is currently pending with oral arguments scheduled for february 25th 2021. on march 17 2020 ms gaiman filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the district of oregon ms gaiman's complaint alleges that she was unlawfully detained and arrested without probable cause in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments and that she was discriminated against based on her disability in violation of title 2 of the americans with disabilities act and also asserts causes of action for assault battery intentional infliction of emotional distress and false arrest the complaint requests five hundred thousand dollars in compensatory damages and punitive damages in a quote fair and reasonable amount to be proven at trial as of the date of this episode ms gaiman's lawsuit is still pending and a telephonic pre-trial conference is scheduled for march 8 2021. overall the brookings police department officers get a c-minus because although a majority of their conduct was within the bounds of their authority the officers exercised poor discretion ignored relevant facts of the encounter and neglected to consider the practical implications of their demands based on the conflicting circuit court opinions mentioned earlier it is likely that a judge would consider the brookings officers to have been acting in good faith when they initially stopped ms gaiman and therefore entitle them to qualified immunity however ms gaiman's claim of discrimination may prove challenging to defend against considering the manner in which the officers conducted this stop the officer's orders placed ms gaiman in a compromised situation where she may very well have been stranded and unable to get home instead of forcing ms gaiman to leave her scooter behind the officers could have offered her a ride home or followed her home to make sure that she didn't get injured while riding without a helmet not only are there serious ethical questions to be raised about this type of conduct but it also betrays the spirit of the law it is highly unlikely that any law was ever written with the intention to deprive a disabled individual of an assistive device and this interaction highlights the importance of exercising professional discretion and considering the real world results of enforcing the law ms gaiman also gets a c-minus because although she may have been a victim of police misconduct she likely broke the law by riding her scooter without a helmet and she did break the law by refusing to stop for the officers and leading them on a low speed pursuit it is difficult to fault ms gaiman for her attitude considering the context of the interaction but her decision to lead the officers on a chase was childish and highly illegal ms gaiman may have been in a situation where she had no other choice but to ride her scooter home but she could have made an effort to reason with the officers and call their decision making into question ms gaiman appeared to be operating under the misconception that once a citizen has been cited for a violation they cannot be cited again for the same violation and even though she may have been confused about the law that does not excuse her decision to continue driving her scooter for over a mile with the police in pursuit behind her as discussed on many episodes of ata it is not legal to resist or evade an arrest even if you believe the arrest to be unlawful and this interaction is a testament to that fact considering that ms gaiman was tried and convicted for doing so while i do commend ms gaiman for having the courage to challenge the officers and for following up this interaction with the proper legal action i also wholly disagree with her decision to engage in a chase with the officers and i cannot rightfully issue her a higher grade after blatantly breaking the law 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 subscribe to the ata patreon page for more police interaction content you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 743,851

Rating: 4.8000002 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: tHte2i8frT4

Length: 16min 30sec (990 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 22 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/lokedog1020]

So here’s the problem with this whole situation. Could they have ticketed her and IDed her based on some of the violations (no helmet and thinking she was on a vehicle unfit for sidewalks)? Perhaps - let the courts decide, but they weren’t concerned for anyone’s safety. Let’s be 100% clear here: She gave them attitude from the jump, and from that moment onward, their egos were determined to punish her for the lack of respect they walk around feeling that they deserve. Nothing more. Goddd cops are so fragile, it’s pathetic.

[u/readforit]

Never forget: If we let disabled people ride their scooters then the terrorists win!

[u/PM-Me-Electrical]

I would bet a lot of money that these “heroes” didn’t bother to tell their families about this at the dinner table, because there’s no way to tell this story without sounded like a psychotic douche-nozzle who harassed and arrested a disabled woman on a rascal scooter.

[u/Seldarin]

Sounds like the city needs to build tens of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure for handicapped people to move around on, since the police have judged them unfit for the sidewalks, and they're certainly not supposed to be traveling down the road.

Honestly, that might be the only way you see any real accountability for these festering nutsacks. Shredding the city's entire budget might be a big enough "sin" they can't just get a job in the next town over.

[u/velocibadgery]

Those cops are absolutely disgusting psychopaths with zero capability for empathy.

[u/charlesml3]

Prime examples of "the brave men and women of law enforcement."

[u/Freedom-Unhappy]

A major problem with police accountability is the fact that there are so many broadly-written and nanny-state laws on the books that everybody is constantly breaking some law.

Any police officer with half a brain would have let this one go, but instead the taxpayers now have to fund years of senseless litigation.

Because the officers did have legal grounds to stop and ultimately arrest her (despite it serving absolutely no public good), and because exercising good judgment is not a grounds for disciplining police officers in practice, nothing will change from this encounter.

[u/maw911]

The text version.... https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/03/disabled-brookings-woman-sues-police-for-citing-then-chasing-her-for-riding-mobility-scooter-on-sidewalk.html

[u/MarkJ-]

This is yet another situation involving government employees where you have to wonder where the adults were. No official involved stopped and said, "Maybe this is not such a hot idea." $500K is far too low, $5 million is about right.