Officers Serve Auditor with Restraining Order

[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 defamation protection orders and threats and is brought to us by real world police's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on june 24 2019 protester victor scott was holding a sign outside of an ace hardware store owned by charles grigg in pasco washington when he was approached by officer eric fox of the pasco police department who was there to serve mr scott with a restraining order issued after a previous altercation with mr grigg although the specific details about the dispute are unclear both mr greg and mr scott contend that the other assaulted them the body cam footage begins with officer fox approaching mr scott outside the store and announcing himself victor it's fox i just need to chat with you for a moment man that doesn't go very well well victor we've had two good talks in the last couple weeks and i also find out you're working with the department that have decided that they want to try and do and i'm not taking anything from your hands sir i know that and you can go ahead and walk with me you don't just take it oh i will i'm gonna walk with you that's fine that's fine but i'm not gonna take it from your hand so what this is it's a restraining order okay protecting charlie grigg from you he assaulted me and you guys are you guys are so is your ears staying on right there yeah yeah we're being recorded so he assaulted me okay and now you guys are protecting him you guys are you guys are making my freedom of speech under duress and yours and you guys are literally on my civil rights he came out and assaulted me with witnesses my children were here and witnessed it and you guys choose to put a restraining order on me so i wasn't there for that is that i mean no i know you weren't i'm sure you weren't but the funny thing is you guys want to put a restraining order on me i i don't want to restrain anybody from anything no this is this is from superior court this isn't from me i i have no clue where that's from and i haven't looked at the document yet and i don't mean that rudely and i'm not trying to be oh you're not being i'm i appreciate being a little more of a man than jason miller yeah i saw you don't like him so i don't like him so we can come back this way okay for a little bit i have my stuff over this way okay yeah let's not let's not get too far away from yourself absolutely i i'm just so you guys know you're also being recorded on three different devices audio also not just video okay you're being saved here right pocket and my left pocket okay it's audio okay so what this is it's a form you need to read it there's very important information what does that form say it says okay i'm gonna i'm gonna put it here okay grab it sir so that's not that's not a service sir you know it is legal service now because i can't grab that i have a backup you can pick that up for me maybe and you can discuss maybe hastert where you take this from you maybe then we can have something okay if i ask you will you take it will you get batman will you will you treat me with dignity so will you treat me with dignity i will gladly treat you with dignity you're not gonna trespass me once you hand that to me you're gonna allow me to get away from here right well you take no i'm not going to trespass you i'm not going to arrest you so like i said at the courthouse we don't want to arrest you i don't want to arrest you that's why i'm i want to advise you and inform you but this is slander so you guys are participating in slander i'm giving mr scott accuses the pasco pd of participating in quote-unquote slander by serving him the restraining order although the basis for this assertion is unclear like libel slander is a type of civil action that an individual can file against another for making false statements that harm their reputation also known as defamation although the distinction between libel and slander is not entirely clear-cut slander generally refers to oral defamation while libel refers to written defamation the specific requirements to make a defamation case may vary between states but the supreme court of washington held in the 1981 case of mark versus seattle times that quote a defamation plaintiff must show four essential elements falsity an unprivileged communication fault and damages while this does not appear to be an instance of defamation on the part of the pasco pd the sign mr scott was holding which asserts that pasco police officer jason miller quote beats the disabled could potentially be considered defamation unsurprisingly the courts have frequently been asked to draw legal boundaries based on the elements of defamation claims and the first amendment right to freedom of speech and in the 1964 landmark case of new york times co vs sullivan the supreme court did just that holding that quote the constitutional guarantees require a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not in reaching this decision the court reasoned that the level of fault required for someone to commit defamation against a public official should be higher than the standard for defamation claims against ordinary citizens in order to prevent public officials from using defamation lawsuits to silence their legitimate critics in the wake of this decision the supreme court of washington held in the 1969 case of tilton versus cole's publishing co quote while under certain circumstances police and firemen may be considered public officials within the new york times rule to come within the privilege a public official must have been defamed in respect to his official conduct given the strict standards for a public official to prove that an individual has defamed them as long as mr scott had some basis for his accusation against officer miller and the conduct occurred in the course of his official duties a court would likely determine that mr scott's sign did not constitute actionable defamation against officer miller okay i'm handing you a piece of paper with [Applause] the one up on the very corner right in the very far corner of the building and there's also one underneath the eave i got you yeah there's also one right on top see point in right in the very top right i gotcha yeah he tells you officer spitzer he's got no cameras because he physically assaulted me okay i'm gonna show i'm not gonna thank you sir thank you i haven't read it yet so you can't ask me to leave but you have to give me a decent amount of time the officer serves mr scott a temporary anti-harassment protection order that mr greig has obtained against him in the district court of washington for franklin county which includes notice of a scheduled hearing regarding the protection order a protection order is a type of restraining order that is used by a court to protect an individual against domestic violence assault harassment or stalking in this situation mr scott has been issued a temporary anti-harassment order under section 10.14.080 of the revised code of washington which allows one individual referred to as the petitioner to receive an ex-party temporary anti-harassment protection order against another individual referred to as the respondent by filing an affidavit that shows reasonable proof of unlawful harassment and that great or irreparable harm will result if a temporary anti-harassment protection order is not granted section 10.14.0 of the revised code of washington defines unlawful harassment as quote a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms a noise harasses or is detrimental to such person and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose under this statute an individual can receive an anti-harassment protection order against another for up to 14 days without notice being provided to the petitioner and without the petitioner having an opportunity to defend themselves if a temporary anti-harassment protection order is granted a copy of the order and a notice of hearing must be personally served to the respondent the court will then hold a hearing within the 14-day time frame that the temporary protection order is in effect and if the court finds that unlawful harassment exists a civil anti-harassment protection order prohibiting unlawful harassment for up to one year will be issued if the court finds that unlawful harassment is likely to resume when the order expires the court can issue a longer protection order or even a permanent anti-harassment protection order because this is a civil protection order the standard of proof is different from a criminal trial where the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual committed a crime in this case the petitioner only needs to prove that unlawful harassment exists by a preponderance of the evidence which means that the court must decide that it is more likely than not or more than 50 percent likely that the harassment is occurring if the court grants any type of anti-harassment order it can prohibit the respondent from making any attempts to contact the petitioner or keep the petitioner under surveillance and require the respondent to stay a stated distance from the petitioner's residence and workplace in this case the temporary protection order mr grigg has received against mr scott requires him to be one thousand feet from mr greg his residence and his place of employment so upon receiving the protection order mr scott became legally obligated to leave the store parking lots i after he came into me repeatedly three times closer than we are at this current moment yeah with his fist back and his teeth glared at me like he was pissed i could tell you his dental hygiene i can tell you he needs to he's got some some plaque around his teeth and his gums are receding yeah i can literally tell you that there's a testicle that's testifying that's fine but what i'm saying is after three times repeatedly coming in on me he knocked he physically knocked my sign down and swung his shoulder across and blew me backwards right in next to that light pole right there i was just on the back side of it and knocked me backwards and then said that he i was assaulted so he said oh you just assaulted me and i said if you don't stay back from me i will defend myself i did say that that's not a threat that's called an if then statement if this then that because of that and that every human right has that every human being has that right as mr scott describes his encounter with mr greg he claims that he did not make any threats but rather that he used an if then statement to inform mr greg that he would defend himself if mr grigg did not keep his distance under u.s constitutional law statements to others that are considered quote unquote true threats are not protected by the first amendment in the 2003 case of virginia versus black the u.s supreme court held that quote the first amendment permits a state to ban true threats which encompasses those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals in line with this grant of authority section 9a.46.0 of the revised code of washington states the quote a person is guilty of harassment if without lawful authority the person knowingly threatens to cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person although this statute criminalizes making threats of bodily injury it only prohibits making such a statement when an individual does not have the lawful authority to do so in the 1988 case of state vs smith the supreme court of washington determined that quote threats of bodily injury lawfully may be made when circumstances justify violent action in self-defense the use of force against another including causing injury is privileged when necessary to protect persons or property an individual who is privileged to cause injury undeniably is privileged to threaten to do so under section 9a.16.020 of the revised code of washington the use attempt or offer to use force against another is legally authorized quote whenever used by a party about to be injured or by another lawfully aiding him or her in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person or a malicious trespass or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession in case the force is not more than is necessary therefore a court would most likely find that mr scott's statement that he would defend himself was not a threat for the purposes of the washington harassment law however it's important to note that mr scott's contention that all if-then statements are protected as a human right is not an accurate statement of washington's law in the 2010 case of state versus cross division ii of the court of appeals of washington upheld a conviction under the harassment statute against an individual who told the police officer who was arresting him that he would cause him bodily injury quote if he wasn't in handcuffs referring to this statement as a quote unquote conditional threat the court held that quote neither the criminal statute nor applicable statutory definition requires that a threat to harm a person must be unconditional to support a harassment conviction under this standard many if then threats could still result in a conviction when the individual was not lawfully authorized to threaten bodily harm okay so and i want to listen to what you have to say but i also need to encourage you to read that because it does say that you have to stay 1 000 feet away from charlie greg his residence and his place of employment okay so now that's a pretty that's a pretty ballsy statement on the fact yeah yeah i would like that so i i i'm here officer spitzer my freedom of speech is being hindered because i'm assaulted while speaking freely a man that makes millions of dollars off the second amendment can't handle some freedom of speech and literally physically assaults me and now i'm the one served now the lack of the lack of the service that i'm getting from your department is exactly what i've been talking about from the beginning gregory two and three years ago with jones the lack of service to the lack of dignity this man because he owns a business and makes you guys money as taxes you're more willing to help him than me the citizen who was assaulted by him using my first amendment rights which says you you swear oath to upheld i don't know anything about an assault officer's pitcher read his report i also i sent him a little email i'll forward it on to you too you know i like them emails after a brief and relatively cordial conversation with mr scott the officers offered him a ride he accepted and everyone left the scene without further incident as you have probably gathered this is not mr scott's first encounter with the pasco police department and the real world police channel has posted multiple other videos featuring his encounters with law enforcement those interactions were not as peaceful and certainly add context to the behavior of mr scott and the officers overall the pasco police officers get an a-plus for actively working to de-escalate the encounter whenever possible maintaining a calm and collected demeanor and remaining within the bounds of their authority throughout the interaction de-escalation played a major role in the outcome of this encounter and the pasco officers maintained an excellent balance between allowing mr scott the voice's opinion and politely interjecting to drive the focus to the task at hand it is impossible to speculate on the legitimacy of the restraining order itself but the way the officers went about serving that order was commendable all of the officers were polite responsive and courteous and they accomplished the mission of their contact with mr scott as effectively as possible the officers also exercised their community caretaking function by offering mr scott a ride and simultaneously ensured that he was not on the property after being served this interaction highlights the dramatic impact that an officer being patient and friendly can have on the outcome of any interaction and i commend the pasco officers for handling this encounter with care and professionalism mr scott gets an a-minus because although his actions could be interpreted as inflammatory by design he remained within the bounds of his civil liberties engaged with the officers in a relatively productive dialogue and ultimately complied with the requests of the officers and accepted their aid while there are likely more productive channels to redress mr scott's grievances with the pasco pd and mr griggs mr scott was not trespassing at any point and his protest would likely be considered protected by the first amendment regardless of how offensive it was to mr griggs until mr scott was served with the restraining order he was well within his rights to stand on the sidewalk next to mr grigg's store and once he was served with the notice he peacefully complied with leaving the premises it is clear that mr scott has had a rocky past with the pasco pd and although he voiced an overall negative opinion of the department he did not take his frustrations out on these officers in particular the officers took their time to explain why they were there and mr scott was willing to listen so long as he could be heard in exchange mr scott's willingness to accept a ride from the officers demonstrates that he trusts these officers to some degree and the behavior displayed by the officers in this interaction will likely contribute to more positive encounters with mr scott in the future 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 more police interaction [Music] content you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 363,917

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: d9swdQmEmCY

Length: 16min 32sec (992 seconds)

Published: Thu May 27 2021