Officers REFUSED To Investigate This Crime

[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions today's episode will be somewhat different from our normal format it is rare to have the opportunity to examine a police interaction from both the citizen and the officer's perspective and interactions like the one featured here today offer a chance to consider the logic and legality of both parties on a level playing field instead of focusing on certain points of this encounter this episode will take a deep dive into all of the major legal and factual elements at play and attempt to add context to the perspectives of both sides this episode covers a variety of legal topics and is brought to us by both the pinnal police department's channel and bay area transparency's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on october 30th 2020 the youtuber and first amendment auditor known as bay area transparency who i will refer to as mr bay was recording retired police vehicles that were sitting in a public parking lot in the city of pinol california mr bay had covered himself in dirt and was wearing clothing that was intended to make him appear homeless in an attempt to test whether his appearance would cause citizens or officers to react differently to his conduct eventually a citizen called the police and officers from the pinol police department made contact with mr bay after mr bay posted the interaction to youtube the pinhole police department released an edited version of body cam footage along with a statement from chief of police neil gang mr bay then posted a video of himself reacting to the video and statement from the pinhole pd in this episode of ata we will combine elements from all three of these videos to explore the legal nuance at play mr bay started recording as he was making his way to the parking lot once he got inside the parking lot and began filming the police cars he noticed a citizen watching him alright guys so i got a neighbor over here who's been looking at me i came and sat down um i'm not like i'm creeping around i'm just walking around and i'm just go looking at signs and police cars and so on but she's definitely sitting there watching me and looking at me i can guarantee that she's going to call the police on me and say i look suspicious or something just because of the way i look after noticing the citizen mr bay decided to briefly sit between two of the police cars before walking around the lot and eventually sitting on a curb beside one of the patrol cars the pinhole police department's response video begins with an appeal to transparency and the 911 call that prompted the interaction police department help me assist you yeah there's somebody messing with the old police cars over by the school what school uh that christian school you're talking about st joseph yeah saint joseph okay can you tell what the person looks like he's got a white mask on leaning down underneath the cars he's doing something to the cars the old police cars police cars this is over by st joseph yeah is he like right along the fence line of st joseph's or a long pair or at the street police car it looks like he's doing something to the rear tire okay and the car that he's actually tampering is at one of the marked units where it's got you know like it says police department and stuff on it it's one of the old ones with the dust on them walking around that parking lot for a while the response video then shows an article from the new york daily news about a new york city officer who was involved in a fender bender crash because the brake lines on his patrol vehicle had been cut the article also highlights another possible sabotage attempt that had occurred a month earlier we will discuss the relevance of this article later in this episode the video continues with officer b duggan making contact with mr bay and the department makes the claim that mr bay was initially observed between two marked police vehicles before deciding to get up and walk away however mr bay proves that this claim is not true in his response video as you can see in the screenshot there are two trees and a light pole behind the vehicles that mr bay is walking from mr bay's original recording shows him walking past both of the trees as he passed in front of the officer which would place him sitting here when he was initially contacted although this is a relatively minor discrepancy it is strange that the department either recklessly misjudged mr bay's location in the body cam footage or intentionally distorted the facts of the encounter but as you will see this is not the only questionable claim made in this video can i help you out hey stop for a second hey i need you to stop sir i need you to stop why are you not why are you not going to stop because yes because you're being detained right now because you're possibly tampering with our cars that's why we got a call that you're over here possibly messing with them so i need to make sure that that's not actually happening does that sound reasonable no it doesn't no why not w5 i'm out with them why does that not sound reasonable here the video notes that the location where this interaction took place is approximately 25 feet from the entrance to a nearby school in mr bay's response to the department's video he questions the relevance of the school's location and dismisses the department's acknowledgment of the fact as fluff meant to discredit and incriminate him while the exact motive for highlighting the school's location is unclear it appears as though the department is insinuating that mr bay's proximity to the school was a cause for concern and possibly additional grounds for detainment there are two supreme court cases that have established the notion that the location of a police interaction is a relevant factor in determining whether a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists the 1972 supreme court case of adams versus williams established the concept of high crime areas but did little to define the phrase or describe any of its attributes this case was the first to directly acknowledge that the characteristics of an officer's surroundings play a role in their determination of reasonable suspicion in the 2000 case of illinois vs wardlow the supreme court expanded upon the adams case and held that quote officers are not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation courts generally consider the totality of circumstances when examining cases involving police interactions and it is likely that a court would not ignore the fact that vulnerable children were nearby in this situation the fact that mr bae was so close to a school while aimlessly videotaping may have been a legitimate factor for making contact with him and it is likely that a court would find the school's location relevant to the stop as a whole it is i plan on keeping it on i don't know what the issue is here okay why are you out by our cars i mean what's the problem the video offers a definition for reasonable suspicion and goes on to list the five factors that these officers use to justify the detainment of mr bay before we examine each of these points it is important to note that the amount of factors needed to establish reasonable suspicion is highly circumstantial and the supreme court has routinely stated that there are no rigid guidelines for developing reasonable suspicion going back to the ward low case we discussed earlier the court concluded that being in a high crime area and running from police was enough evidence to be detained for further investigation the court reasoned that unprovoked running in an attempt to avoid officers is not suspicious in and of itself but when coupled with the fact that it was done in a high crime area it does warrant an investigation the ward low case suggests that as little as two factors are needed to establish enough suspicion to detain an individual so let's take a look at the list of factors the pinhole police department has presented in their video and tried to determine whether each factor would be relevant in the development of reasonable suspicion the first two points are related the department did receive a call and the officers did make contact with a suspect matching the description that the caller had given in the 1990 supreme court case of alabama versus white the court examined whether an anonymous tip given to police officers was enough evidence to conduct a stop the court determined that so long as the tip can be corroborated to some degree such as by an officer's observation then it can serve as reasonable suspicion ten years later in the 2000 supreme court case of florida versus jl the court emphasized the notion that anonymous tips must possess a moderate level of reliability including quote predictive information that offers police a quote means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility simply providing an anonymous tip is not enough to effectuate a detainment but if some of the information provided in the tip can be validated then it may serve as grounds for a detainment given that mr bay was crouched down near one of the old patrol vehicles when officer duggan arrived on the scene and he matched the description that the caller provided it is possible that a court would find that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain mr bay based on these two factors alone mr bay has already proven the next factor to be false the fourth factor refers to the article mentioned at the beginning of the video it is important to note that this story was reported by several major news outlets from all over the country and it appears to have been a relatively isolated incident in a separate incident on july 17 2020 a 24 year old man named jeremy trapp was arrested after being filmed cutting the brake lines to a police van and apprehended on the scene then on october 7th 2020 two officers were involved in a minor crash as a result of their vans break lines being cut which is what this article is reporting i was unable to locate any supreme court cases which dealt directly with the notion of a nationally recognized event as a basis for developing reasonable suspicion however as mentioned in a previous episode of ata an officer's experience is assigned significant value inside a courtroom in the 2020 case of kansas vs globber the supreme court struck down the notion that police officers may only draw from their training and experience as a member of law enforcement to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists the court cautioned that such a ruling would quote place the burden on police officers to justify their inferences by referring to training materials or experience and it would foreclose their ability to rely on common sense obtained outside of their work duties the court went on to note that the officer in question combined facts with common sense judgments to form a reasonable suspicion that a specific individual was potentially engaged in specific criminal activity but also clarified that the scope of the glover case is narrow and that the presence of additional facts might dispel reasonable suspicion considering that reasonable suspicion is not a rigid concept and the suspiciousness of one action is not always equal to the suspiciousness of another it is possible that a court would consider the information contained in this article a factor for reasonable suspicion it is highly unlikely that the knowledge of a nationally recognized event would constitute justification for an investigation standing alone but when combined with factors that corroborate that suspicion a court may conclude that the officer's knowledge of the event was relevant it could be argued that just as in the glover case officer duggan combined the known facts of the 911 report and the description given by the caller with his observations and personal knowledge of the news story to formulate reasonable suspicion on the contrary it is equally possible that a court would find that an event that is nationally recognized but not nationally perpetrated bears no relevance to a police interaction on the other side of the country in mr bay's reaction video he dismisses the article as nonsense and it is easy to draw the conclusion that this article is intended to prime the viewer into a certain narrative regarding mr bay's behavior it is difficult to draw any conclusions on the validity of this claim without a court ruling on the issue but it is important to highlight that there is an argument to be made about the legal significance of this article the last factor involves the criminal history of the location and california courts have directly ruled on whether past crimes committed in a location can be a factor for reasonable suspicion in february of 2016 the california supreme court held that quote reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on factors unrelated to the defendant such as criminal activity in the area in the case of people versus casares later that same year the court clarified that more factors are needed beyond a location's criminal history to establish reasonable suspicion in the case of people versus cooper and reasoned that without more evidence quote a location's history of criminal activity would justify the detention of every person visiting that location although this factor standing alone would not meet the necessary standard for reasonable suspicion when complemented with the evidence presented by the 911's observations there is a high probability that the pinhole officers did have enough evidence to effectuate an investigative detainment of mr bay even with having reasonable suspicion established mr bay was under no legal obligation to identify himself or aid the officers as they conducted their investigation i have covered california's identification laws in a previous episode that i will link in the info card above but it should be noted that california is one of the few states that has no laws requiring citizens to show their id to police prior to arrest except while driving even when suspected of committing a crime california citizens are under no legal obligation to identify themselves however officers may still detain and investigate citizens if they have acquired reasonable suspicion dude that's part of what johnny member [Music] what's your name a badge number my name's right here my badge number's right there on my badge what's your name first name right last name here is that it sure yeah the video makes the point that there are no federal laws or departmental policies that require officers to verbally identify themselves as discussed many times on ata officers are generally not required by law to identify themselves to citizens and the video is correct in stating that the pinol police department has no policy that compels its officers to do so however there is an argument to be made that all officers should be required to identify themselves as attorney jeffrey krapko notes in his university of chicago law review article the 1995 supreme court case of wilson versus arkansas held that fourth amendment reasonableness depends in part on whether officers knock and announce their presence prior to entering a home to conduct a search given the long-standing common law endorsement of the practice of announcement and the wealth of founding era statutes and cases adopting the knock and announced principle we hold that the method of an officer's entry into a dwelling is among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure the court expanded upon the logic of the wilson case in the 2006 case hudson versus michigan and explained that the knock and announce rule protected three vital interests life and limb property and privacy the purpose of the knock and announce rule is threefold it protects human life and limb if an officer bursts into one's home many citizens will assume him to be a criminal and may reach for a weapon of their own second the rule protects private property if citizens are asked to open the door for law enforcement they will save themselves the expense of having to buy a new door or a new door frame and third the rule protects the privacy and dignity that may be destroyed by a sudden entrance as one of our prior cases put it quote the brief interlude between announcement and entry with a warrant may be the opportunity that an individual has to pull on clothes or get out of bed in mr krapko's article he goes on to point out that many plaintiffs have argued that the logic of the knock and announce rules should be extended to police officers conducting arrests in public the article contends that when an officer fails to identify himself all three of the interests that the knock and announce rule is designed to protect are implicated and thus the police should be required to identify themselves prior to conducting arrests in public as you can see there is a legal framework for the argument that members of law enforcement should be required to identify themselves but it is impossible to know if or when such a case would be considered currently the requirement for an officer to identify themselves is regulated at the state level and california penal code 830.10 does not require an officer to verbally announce their name or badge number although the officers are not legally obligated to verbally identify themselves to members of the public a departmental policy requiring them to do so would coincide with the pinhole police department's mission statement of quote the protection of life and property through exemplary customer service to the community in accordance with strict adherence to the law enforcement code of ethics a code which begins with quote as a law enforcement officer my fundamental duty is to serve the community and includes phrases such as quote i will enforce the law courteously and appropriately and quote i alone am responsible for my own standard of professional performance given that the panel police department is so dedicated to customer service and professionalism it is strange that the department has yet to adopt an officer identification policy that would promote transparency trust and accountability within their community amen so you're investigating me for walking around the public okay let me ask you a question so no let me ask you would you be expecting okay so turn around put your hands on your back i'm putting my phone in my thing and i'm gonna keep recording you guys no you can let me he can hang on hang on he can put it in his pocket he said i could put it in my pocket mr bay was placed into handcuffs and the video goes on to claim that he was detained for approximately five minutes as mr bay notes in his response video the detainment actually lasted approximately 16 minutes in mr bay's original post he was detained at the 4 minute 20 second mark when officer duggan informed him that he was not free to go and he was released at the 20-minute 50-second mark this may appear to be a slight discrepancy but the length of a detention is a relevant factor in determining its lawfulness in the 1985 supreme court case of united states versus sharp the court declared that when determining whether a detention was too long to be justified as an investigative stop it is quote appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant the court acknowledged that at some point a detainment does become a de facto arrest and cited the 1983 case of united states versus place to recognize that quote the brevity of the invasion of the individual's fourth amendment interests is an important factor in determining whether the seizure is so minimally intrusive as to be justifiable on reasonable suspicion it appears as though the court's perspective is that so long as an officer is acting lawfully and reasonably an investigatory detention may be as long as necessary to complete a legitimate law enforcement objective whether or not a court would consider a police interaction unlawfully long is highly dependent upon the circumstances surrounding the encounter and the varied opinions of different courts have been showcased on this very channel in an episode from july 31st 2019 a citizen was detained for approximately nine minutes and went on to secure a seventy 75 000 settlement after challenging the stop an episode from october 10 2019 features a realtor and his client winning a 151 thousand dollar settlement after being detained for less than five minutes the circumstantial variables surrounding a detention can dramatically impact the legality of any police interaction and the duration of a stop is an important detail to acknowledge and record accurately a court could very well consider the length of mr based attention to be a pertinent factor in determining the fourth amendment implications of this stop and it is difficult to understand how or why the department included this discrepancy in their public response is this your goal is to get arrested oh my goal is to be left alone i don't know what you guys want we're trying to tell you i'm asking you now i can't walk through cars what's your name badge number robert hey robert what is it 216. yes sir you're looking at it you you a piece of trash you are huh i can tell just my top body cam on [Music] now that i have authority over you guys and i know how long i was detained for are you know what a bane the bane act is [Music] you know what 148g is of the penal code do you guys know what that is [Music] the video offers an accurate definition for the bain act and california penal code 148 subsection g and states that neither of them apply in this encounter as mentioned in the video the bane act is designed to protect citizens from threats intimidation or coercion and attempts to interfere with their state or federal statutory or constitutional rights the act provides civil penalties for perpetrators remedies for victims of hate crime violence restraining orders and injunctive relief and several other key measures aimed at combating misconduct if a court were to deem that the pinhole officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop mr bay then the bain act would be relevant to this interaction but as discussed earlier in this episode it is very probable that the officers were within their authority to detain mr bay which would render the bane act irrelevant as described in the video the video is also correct that subsection g of california penal code 148 does not apply in mr bay's interaction because he was not stopped for recording anything and the subsection only applies to persons taking a photograph or making an audio or video recording in mr bay's reaction video he claims that he only mentioned the laws to demonstrate to the officers that he had some legal knowledge and when i spoke to mr bae he informed me that he often pretends to know less about the laws than he actually does to test the officers he encounters his use of this tactic can be verified by the many audits that he has uploaded to his youtube channel but regardless of mr bay's intent the pinhole police department's statement remains true is that reasonable suspicion you idiot are you that much of an idiot look at your stripes how long have you been on the force are you that stupid the public records requests you can do at a later time so because right now our records people aren't there hang on but this is the uh i don't need to be this is the complaint form yeah give it to me so just to let you know you are going to need to put your identification on there negative you don't have to follow you don't have to put your identification for a complaint take the complaint okay and what's the complaint go ahead and give me the complaint well what's the complaint for look here he goes guys here he goes you see this you see this that's what the complaints are for i've been about 45 minutes what's going on with that now give me the complaint for him and more it's none of your business what the complaints about the complaints about i'm out with him in the walkway towards the back lot here we go guys sean the service we get can i have the complaint for him please so i can oh you said please there you go thank you because i said please now i have to say the video claims that the officer's decision to withhold the complaint form was an attempt to protect the vehicle and license plate information of the civilian staff members but this assertion is both legally and factually questionable as mentioned many times on ata courts have traditionally accepted the notion that government officials are subject to being recorded with certain time place and manner restrictions and the public thoroughfares of public buildings have been generally recognized as an appropriate location for exercising constitutional rights otherwise known as a traditional public forum although the supreme court has not directly addressed the issue multiple higher courts have ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in a license plate that is openly displayed to the public and i have covered this topic in more detail in the episode linked above mr bae would have been well within his rights to film anyone he could see from the sidewalk regardless of whether or not they were staff members of the facility not only are the legal implications of this claim debatable but there are legitimate questions to be raised about its factual accuracy as well the department claims that the two individuals in the background of this encounter are civilian staff members and when zoomed in it appears as though there is a taller figure wearing a white shirt and a hat and a shorter figure that is wearing darker clothing the second part of mr bay's original video features this interaction from mr bay's perspective and he continued recording for several minutes after speaking with the officer once officer duggan surrendered the complaint form mr bay followed him for a moment taunting him until he went into a gated area mr bay then exited the plaza through the way he came where he encountered two individuals and two police officers one of the officers appears to sign a document and give it back to the two individuals before they part ways in mr bay's video he claims that these two individuals were citizens waiting for a ticket to be signed by an officer or something to that effect they came right out to to sign their ticket when compared side by side it does appear as though these are the same individuals that the department claims the officer was protecting but it is impossible to speculate on whether or not they are actually employees of the city without knowing their identities you are free to draw your own conclusions about mr base footage and the factual integrity of the department's claim but whether or not those individuals were government employees it is clear that officer duggan did not accomplish his mission of keeping them from being recorded the video ends with this message from the department and chief gang's official statement shared many of the same sentiments the statement began by addressing the nationwide calls for police reform and emphasized that we are all hoping for positive change in our community the chief goes on to admit that his officers are not perfect and clarify that out of their respect for transparency and honesty the department created their video response quote with the intention of clarifying the laws and regulations that we as police are required to act on while simultaneously providing our community members with the relevant information they need to make informed decisions regarding incidents such as this the statement continues by recognizing this incident as an opportunity to grow and notes that the department has hired a nationally recognized expert to conduct further de-escalation training and fully intends to expand that training to the entire organization chief gang ends his statement by declaring that the department's goal is to transform police and community relations through transparency trust and respect and the chief offers to speak to mr bay directly to quote take advantage of this opportunity to help us evolve by participating in our procedural justice process mr bay told me that he never contacted chief gang but he did receive an email from him with an invitation to have a meeting mr bay responded to that email with the public records request he had submitted for the pinol police department's conduct policy the 911 call that prompted the encounter and all body and dash camera footage regarding the incident according to mr bay as of the writing of this episode his public records request has not been fulfilled mr bay said that he intends to file a complaint once he can gather evidence from his records requests but that he did not believe that he had grounds to sue the officers or the department overall officer duggan and the pinol police department get a c because although the officers were likely within their authority to handcuff and detain mr bay they exercised poor discretion and lazy investigative tactics in doing so and demonstrated an utter disregard for professionalism by reluctantly handing over a complaint form and refusing to fulfill mr bay's public records requests there is no doubt that this interaction could have been resolved more quickly if mr bay had simply answered officer duggan's questions but mr bay was under no legal obligation to aid the officers in their investigation against him instead of checking the cars for evidence of tampering officer duggan essentially built his investigation on whether or not mr bay would answer his questions and at one point in the interaction he insinuates that if mr bay had nothing to hide then he wouldn't force officer duggan to conduct an investigation so if you're not if you're not up to no good then why can't you just talk to me and tell me what you were doing by our cars instead of having me go over there have to have to figure out what's going on if you did anything conducting an investigation should be the flagship mission for any investigatory detainment and whether or not mr bay was handcuffed or identified the officers had the same degree of evidence at their disposal for determining the legality of his actions checking to see if the vehicles had been tampered with would have revealed much more about mr bay's conduct than interrogating him while he is invoking his right to silence and just as mr bay could have shortened the duration of the stop by surrendering his fifth amendment rights the officers could have shortened their investigation by examining the physical evidence at hand another element of mr based attention that the department's video failed to showcase was when one of the officers implied that mr bay was handcuffed for mouthing off dude i have a shoulder issue you idiot then you shouldn't mouth off to the cop mouth so i'm getting tough now because i'm mouthed off neglecting to consider the physical evidence of an alleged crime before deciding to handcuff an individual for refusing to answer questions while being accused of said crime is not exactly representative of the type of discretionary decision making that honors the mission of exemplary customer service the department's response video is largely truthful but there are some suspicious distortions of the facts that draw into question the authenticity of the response as a whole misrepresenting relevant facts of the encounter is irresponsible and unprofessional no matter how slight the discrepancy may be it is difficult to discern whether this was done out of intention or incompetence but either way inaccurately reporting the facts of an encounter is contrary to the tenets of transparency trust and respect that chief gang alluded to in his statement and finally the department's claim that officer duggan was protecting civilian staff members by refusing to hand mr bay the complaint form was factually debatable and mr bay had just as much evidence to support his claims as the officers did again whether or not those individuals were civilian staff is for you to decide but mr bay was within his rights to film them regardless and the department's assertion that officer duggan's actions were meant to protect the publicly displayed information of government employees standing in a public place would likely crumble under the scrutiny of a court much of the negativity surrounding this encounter could have been avoided if the officers had taken the time to conduct a proper investigation and maintained a degree of professionalism when mr bay requested the complaint form but this interaction highlights the type of constitutional conundrums that members of law enforcement are expected to understand and react appropriately to there exists a certain burden for members of law enforcement to carry out their duties while always bearing in mind the best interest of every citizen within their community and as the quote unquote father of modern policing sir robert peel noted when establishing the widely recognized foundational principles of modern policing in 1829 quote the police are the public and the public are the police the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence mr bay gets an a minus because although he could have exercised his right to silence more effectively he peacefully challenged the legitimacy of the stop maintained a balance between invoking his constitutional rights and complying with the demands of the officers and followed up this interaction with the proper means of complaint although likely suspicious nothing mr bay did before or during this interaction was illegal and while i personally do not agree with the tactic of purposefully acting suspicious in an effort to solicit a police interaction there is nothing illegal about walking around in a public parking lot and sitting between old police vehicles mr bay readily admits that his emotions got the better of him during this encounter and he told me that his choice of words and the decision to insult the officers was mostly due to his anger from being handcuffed having the ability to remain professional in the face of police misconduct can be an invaluable asset within the courtroom and personally insulting a police officer will do nothing to further the legitimacy of your claims mr bay's inability to control his emotions only served to heighten the public scrutiny of his actions and offer the department an opportunity to legitimize their response many of mr bay's concerns regarding the department's response video were warranted and his decision to not pursue a lawsuit was equally valid there is a lot to be said about mr bay's auditing style but so long as an auditor's conduct is legal then a critique of their approach largely boils down to personal preference that being said the actions of one auditor have the potential to reverberate throughout the entire auditing community and being vulgar and disrespectful during an audit only invites the public at large to associate the auditing community with hostility and disorganization just like police officers first amendment auditors take on a certain level of personal and societal responsibility to know and understand the laws and rights they are invoking however the level of expectation associated with their knowledge of the law is not backed by state-of-the-art training programs and limitless access to experienced legal professionals and thus auditors should be expected to know more about the law than an average citizen but held to a lower standard of scrutiny than that of a police officer as mentioned on many episodes of ata if the members of the auditing community want to make real change then they must conduct themselves in a manner that inspires average americans to acknowledge that police misconduct is a national issue 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 the ata patreon page for more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,315,024

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: A3g-Uy6UX7o

Length: 33min 26sec (2006 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 15 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/DefendCharterRights]

At 19:56, BAT describes a couple California laws: the Bane Act and California Penal Code Section 148(g). But AtA concludes that it is "very probable" that the Bane Act is irrelevant in this situation. As well, AtA concludes California Penal Code Section 148(g) "does not apply" in this interaction.

At 21:40, AtA: "And when I spoke to Mr. Bay, he informed me that he often pretends to know less about the laws than he actually does to test the officers he encounters."

Maybe. Or maybe BAT is just using "test the officers" as an excuse for his misunderstanding of some laws.

However, if we take BAT's claim at face value, then what is the purpose of BAT's videos? Most auditors say they're attempting to test officers' familiarity with constitutional rights and educate those officers when their knowledge falls short. If BAT is doing that, then he should accurately educate them about the laws rather than provide incorrect explanations.

And if BAT is aware that he's providing misleading legal information during his encounters, then when he edits his videos he should correct the misinformation so he doesn't misinform the public or other auditors who might be watching. Providing bad information could get other auditors into trouble if they rely on that information.