Officers Sued For $151,000 Over Detention Of Realtor

[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 911 probable cause and investigatory negligence and is brought to us by general generals channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve let's dive right in and audit the interaction on November 17th 2018 realtor Gerry Isum and prospective home buyer Anthony Edwards were viewing a home in the West Prince Hill subdivision in Cincinnati Ohio after entering the residence using the lockbox that mr. Isum had access to the neighbor across the street retired Cincinnati Police Officer Thomas Brannigan called 911 for sale but it's not an open house today and I just seen two male black subjects forced the front door open after receiving the call the dispatcher put out a notice for officers to respond to a breaking and entering B&E one zero nine three morado drive to males forced entry into the front door and a further at this time 1093 Murata drive 32:21 before approaching the residence officers made contact with mr. Branigan to confirm what he had witnessed officers then attempt to make contact with mr. Isum and mr. Edwards this is the body-cam of officer Rosa Valentino note that officer Valentino has already drawn her weapon although no immediate threat has presented itself and she has no reason to believe that either mr. item or mr. Edwards has a weapon or is armed in any way officer Valentino is the only officer on the scene that ever draws her weapon during this interaction at this point officers have been informed that mr. Isum is a realtor and that he and mr. Edwards have an appointment to see the house in the 2014 case of Navarrete V California the Supreme Court held that information offered in the form of a tip can be used to support reasonable suspicion and justify an investigatory stop the court firmly rejected the argument that reasonable cause for an investigative stop can only be based on the officers personal observation rather than on information supplied by another person the court favored the reliability of certain citizens and circumstances over others and pointed to factors that could contribute to the authenticity of information offered by 9-1-1 callers the court held that statements about an event made soon after perceiving that event are especially trustworthy because they leave open only a small amount of time for deliberate or conscious misrepresentation a similar rationale applies to a statement relating to a startling event made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused unsurprisingly 9-1-1 calls that would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay have often been admitted on those grounds given that mr. Branigan is a retired officer who has received proper police training and is also familiar with the area it is likely that a court would consider his information more reliable than an average citizens and declare that mr. Brannigan's observations justified an investigatory stop officer Valentino decides to handcuff mr. Isum until they can confirm the nature of their business on the property despite already being told why the men were there noticed that the officers only needed mr. Brannigan's testimony as justification to suspect mr. Isum and mr. Edwards of committing a crime but mr. Isum and mr. Edwards testimony that they belong there is not enough to dispel the officer suspicions the officers are assuming that mr. Isom and mr. Edwards are guilty and expect them to prove their innocence rather than responding to a call in an attempt to ascertain what actually happened i have made a video that discusses the guilty until proven innocent doctrine in more detail which i will link in the info card above it is clear that mr. Brannigan's opinion of what happened here dictated the actions of the officers and that the officers demonstrated a complete disregard for the alibis of mr. isome and mr. Edwards ranking the observations of mr. Brannigan far above the credentials and reasonable explanation offered by mr. Isum and mr. Edwards [Applause] until this point mr. Isum had been the only one in handcuffs it wasn't until the officers grew tired of mr. Edwards verbal protest that they decide he is enough of a threat and that they have enough evidence to place him into handcuffs [Music] [Music] although mr. Brannigan's 9-1-1 call did offer the officers reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory detention it did not grant the officers the probable cause needed to conduct a search of mr. items pockets the doctrine of the terry frisk grants officers the authority to conduct a pat-down search of individuals they suspect may be armed and dangerous but the terry frisk is extremely limited in its scope and only applies to the exterior of an individual an officer cannot automatically frisk everyone lawfully stopped under the Terry doctrine in addition to reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot the officer must also be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous officer safety alone will not justify a frisk the officer must be able to articulate why officer safety was an issue and exactly what risk or danger to the officer or others existed officer Valentino began her search by going directly into the pockets of mr. Isum without probable cause to do so do you have the key to the water box Hey [Applause] [Applause] [Music] it is not until a full search of the residence and further consultation with Sergeant Titus Fillmore is completed the officer knocks instructs Officer Valentino to remove the handcuffs from mr. Isum and mr. Edwards [Music] it is important to note that officers negligently allowed mr. Branigan to freely roam the scene instead of securing the location to conduct an investigation after releasing mr. Isum and mr. Edwards the officers left the scene without making an arrest or investigating further on July 15th 2019 mr. Isum and mr. Edwards filed a lawsuit naming the city of Cincinnati as well as officer Valentino officer Knox and officer Pete the complaint alleged that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the two men and that the city failed to properly train its officers on the constitutional rights of individuals approximately three days after the complaint was filed the city of Cincinnati agreed to pay mr. Isum and mr. Edwards a total of a hundred and fifty-one thousand dollars as well as issue an official apology and implement implicit bias training for all city employees over all officers Valentino Knox and Pete get an F for detaining mr. Isham and mr. Edwards without considering the legitimacy of their alibi conducting an illegal search of the two men and negligently conducting an investigation by allowing mr. Brannigan to remain on the scene far too often do law enforcement officers abandon the objective obligations of an investigation in favor of the information that they received first especially if it came from a retired police officer an investigation hinges on the acquisition of clues and the equal consideration of all aspects of the Aereo in question the streamlining of police duties and the improper training of officers has created a divide between the philosophical nature of law enforcement and its practical application on the streets many officers simply want to get their job done and move on to the next call which often results in negligent investigations and improper policing perhaps the greatest failure of the officers involved in this interaction was the utter disregard for the fundamental principles of law enforcement mr. Edwards gets an A - and mr. Isum gets an a-plus although both men composed themselves relatively well during this encounter mr. isome was extremely collected and to remain silent as much as possible mr. Edwards was fairly calm for being unexpectedly held at gunpoint but he was certainly more vocal about his disdain for the officer's actions and chose not to invoke his right to remain silent this type of behavior can often lead to further instigation and sometimes can result in a loss of life or lawsuit due to the reckless nature of emotionally charged speech it is always best to remain silent as much as possible within reason I commend mr. Isum and mr. Edwards for taking legal action against the officers and the city and for ultimately being an agent of change in regards to the implicit bias training undergone by the public employees of Cincinnati let us know if there's an interaction or legal topic you would like us to cover in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to Like and subscribe for more police interaction content [Music]

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 5,957,199

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: 9xTEElgU4oA

Length: 15min 13sec (913 seconds)

Published: Thu Oct 10 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/AutoModerator]

Please do not advocate for harm to come to those featured in the story, video or link submitted, or anyone else. By doing so, you are putting this sub at risk and there is a 100% chance that it will result in you being banned from this sub.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/[deleted]]

[removed]

[u/PoopyCoke]

It's funny that Americans spend more time then anyone else talking about all the rights they have while at the same time have their rights ignored all the time. It's like the constitutional rights only purpose is to get some money from the police (if you were lucky enough to survive the encounter) instead of actually protecting anyone.

[u/TheseVirginEars]

“Cops aren’t racist!”

Ok bud

[u/baldlilfat2]

Should be 1.5 million

[u/Der_Absender]

"This type of behaviour [vocalizing disdain] can often lead to further instegation and sometimes can result loss of in a live"

Freedom of speech?

More a duty to remain silent.

[u/ThumpyDumpkins]

Cops don't care because it's not their money and they faced no personal consequences.

[u/Sowderman]

The people need to start withholding funds to the State when this happens. Every time there's one of these payouts, there needs to be a community driven effort to halt all spending within the county. Oh you just had a payout of 100k because you shot some kid in his backyard with a super soaker? Walmart gets no customers for a month. Had to give a family a million dollars because you killed a guy at a traffic stop without provocation? Everyone withdraws their money from the banks at one time.

[u/outoftowner2]

It's pretty clear what this really is. The retired cop looked out his window and said "Holy fuck. A black guy might be buying that house across the street. I'll put a stop to that shit."