Pastor Gets Cop Sued After Having Innocent Man Arrested

[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 freedom of speech public nuisance and identifications and is brought to us by lackluster's youtube channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on the morning of april 18 2021 titus hartford stood in front of the calvary chapel in chattanooga tennessee and held up a sign that read the apostle paul taught the opposite of what jesus taught while the congregation drove past and into the church parking lot to attend sunday service as mr hartford stood on a public sidewalk next to the church parking lot entrance he greeted a parking lot attendant and informed him of why he was there good morning good morning doing well what is the purpose of that i'm trying to i'm trying to lead people to jesus by correcting some of the oppositions to his teachings i can't really get kicked off of public property so i reckon i'll just stay here in the safe zone well i'm in the middle of i mean this is not the time to do it this oh but later um tonight this evening now it's the only time convenient for me well then i guess the truth hey buddy hey what's going on how are you hey man how are you today i'm doing well what's your name i'm garrett i'm choosing i'm choosing not to reveal that at this time that's okay i was just wanna introduce myself what can i help you with today man um just help me get my message out you know it's great that you have your theological and doctrinal belief but do you really think this is the best place to try to get that message out why because this is a church that's popular which teaches the word of god where he changes people's lives so why would you maybe there's people who want to go forward in their relationship with jesus yeah man you know i know you're smart enough to where i see that you're standing on private uh on public property it's the sidewalk but man can we not just agree today maybe not to have this happen well i have our congregation i'm a shepherd right so a higher link oh no i'm called by god brother um so um we don't read highly here the reason you don't teach the teachings of jesus is because you flee when you see all the wolves coming in here i don't flee from anything but i'm standing here in front of a person i feel might be a wolf so i'm going to ask you very kindly very kindly just for the consideration of god almighty and and the congregation that comes here church can we just put this thing away today no and then go and maybe i'm invoking my constitutional right mr delaney asks mr hartford to put the sign away and leave but mr hartford refuses and states that he's invoking his constitutional rights traditionally quintessential public forums such as streets sidewalks and parks have enjoyed strong first amendment protections against government interference with speech as the supreme court explained in the 1983 case of perry education association versus perry local educators association quote in places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed however this does not mean that the government can never regulate speech in public forums and in certain instances the right to free expression can be restricted in traditional public forums including sidewalks while legislation restricting speech based on its content is rarely constitutional such a law can be upheld if quote its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end the supreme court calls this test strict scrutiny and it is the highest standard that the government must meet when arguing that a law restricting speech is constitutional states may also regulate the time place and manner of expression within traditional public forums if the regulations are content neutral and are quote narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and leave open ample alternative channels of communication this standard is less challenging to satisfy than strict scrutiny and is therefore known as intermediate scrutiny in the 1989 case of ward versus rock against racism the supreme court clarified the time place and manner restrictions do not need to be the least intrusive means of furthering the legitimate government interest at play unlike content-based regulations that must be the least speech-restrictive means available in order to survive strict scrutiny here a court would likely conclude that mr hartford was well within his first amendment rights to stand on a public sidewalk and hold up a sign expressing his religious views even when his sign was clearly directed at practitioners of a church with conflicting religious beliefs it is difficult to imagine a situation where the government could prohibit mr hartford from expressing his particular beliefs based on their content and as mr hartford carefully selected the time and location of his communication to target the calvary chapel congregation with his message any time place or manner restriction against mr hartford holding up his sign would most likely fail to leave ample alternative channels to reach his audience even if the government could identify a significant government interest that the regulation of his speech could advance yeah i know but there's also a thing to where there's a legal thing that says that you become legally if you become a public nuisance and we feel that it is i can call chattanooga and call the police there and they'll say that you can break the law arrest me uh you're making a scene right now aren't you sergeant am i correct to my my my understanding sir of the law if he and i are having a problem with people and we're causing a upright in a scene in front of people is that would you mind if i talk to him uh yeah you're welcome to talk to him but you ain't gonna get nowhere no no i mean i'm ready to have a bible study well then come on inside and talk to me just get your bible let's go well i i i don't want to play into your hand because i know what happens when i go in there then i become uh i know exactly who you are bro you don't think i remember who you are can't we just go inside and have a civil conversation you and i that we're not out here making a forward uh well when i get done doing what i'm doing i'll call you or email you just leave me your contact information and we'll go from there no this is not working well for me okay well i'm sorry you should have uh put your house on more solid ground listen man can you give me that did you just not let me go to that place i'm asking you guys there's no reason no no no preach from the rooftops well number one you're on the street corner okay it was right well and your message is going to fall into your heart okay it might but it also might fall on some good ground and and bring forth nobody here is paying any attention to your side okay i think i'm making a big uh demonstration did you see that i'm tired number one you don't have my permission to film me so don't kill me anymore i can film you all i want i said no sir okay hey don't touch my stuff get off my property i'm not on your property get off my property dude i'm not on your property listen man leave hey sargent you call it district car i think we have a public uh problem here right now with me and him thank you sir thank you you should get a better job man just walk away mr delaney claims that mr hartford is being a public nuisance by standing on the sidewalk with his sign and although some states recognize a criminal offense known as public nuisance tennessee is not one of them rather under tennessee law nuisance cases typically involve a property owner using their land in such a way that it annoys or disturbs another property owner's free use of their property or which renders its ordinary use or physical occupation uncomfortable although section 29-3-101 of the tennessee code also states that criminal gangs that engage in certain activities may also constitute a nuisance although the statute does include as a nuisance quote any place in or upon which quarreling drunkenness fighting breaches of the peace are carried on or permitted this certainly would not apply to an individual holding a sign on a public sidewalk as the nuisance must be a place and not a person mr delaney also states that mr hartford is causing a scene which would be more akin to a charge of disorderly conduct under tennessee law section 39-17-305 of the tennessee code makes it a criminal misdemeanor for an individual to engage in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior refuse to obey an official order to disperse issue to maintain public safety and dangerous proximity to a fire hazard or other emergency or create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose in order to be convicted of disorderly conduct under this statute an individual must engage in this conduct in a public place and intend to cause public annoyance or alarm or the individual must make unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities here a court would likely conclude that mr hartford was not engaging in the sort of activity that would rise to the level of disorderly conduct as he appeared calm and was not yelling at people blocking the sidewalk making loud noises using obscene gestures or signs or directing fighting words at anyone including the police officers and he was not in any proximity to a fire hazard or other emergency okay you shouldn't touch people's belongings that don't belong to you listen hey man leave me your contact information we'll study the bible we've had this conversation before bro okay well contact me we'll study the bible hey how are you doing name and badge number please name and badger number elliott 1099 what's your bit what's your where's your id bro uh that's irrelevant have i committed a crime yeah you're trespassing you're refusing to leave man uh i'm on public property this is the sidewalk program this is a sidewalk i need your idea you're gonna go to jail um this is a sidewalk i don't know what you're talking about dude i need your help okay okay maybe that was your idea or you're gonna go to jail um i'm not gonna give you my id i have no reason to turn behind your back i'm on the sidewalk so i don't see why i'm being arrested this is not a stopping id state officer james elliot who was a member of the cavalry chapel claims that mr hartford is trespassing on church property and then places him under arrest when he refuses to provide his identification section 39-14-405 of the tennessee code states that quote a person commits criminal trespass if the person enters or remains on property or any portion of property without the consent of the owner because it is clear from the footage that mr hartford was on a public sidewalk throughout the encounter and not on church property a court would almost certainly conclude that mr hartford was not trespassing at the time officer elliott approached him as the fact that the adjacent property owner didn't like his presence in front of their church is insufficient to sustain a conviction under the trespassing statute likewise a court would probably find that mr hartford could not be constitutionally arrested for refusing to identify himself in this context while section 7-3-505 of the tennessee code allows any police or peace officer of a metropolitan government to arrest an individual who does not produce or give identification when the officer asks for it for the purpose of issuing them a citation or civil warrant tennessee does not have a stop and identify statute that requires citizens to identify themselves during terry stops and even if it did officer elliott would have no articulable basis to argue that he had a reasonable suspicion that mr hartford was involved in criminal activity as mr hartford was simply exercising his first amendment rights on a public street tennessee's obstruction statute which is codified in section 39-16-6 of the tennessee code similarly does not allow officers to arrest an individual for refusing to identify themselves as the statute only makes it an offense for an individual to quote intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer from affecting a stop frisk halt arrest or search of any person by using force against the law enforcement officer or another mr hartford clearly could not be convicted of this offense for refusing to identify himself because he did not use any sort of force against officer elliot or anyone else and his actions did not prevent officer elliot from conducting a stop frisk halt arrest or search therefore a court would very likely hold that officer elliott could not legally arrest mr hartford for trespassing or for refusing to identify himself upon demands after arresting mr hartford officer eliot confiscated his camera and his sign and took him to jail where he was held long enough to miss two days of work mr harford was eventually charged with criminal trespass but the charge was ultimately dismissed after nearly a year on february 7th 2022 mr hartford filed a pro se federal lawsuit against officer elliott for deprivation of civil rights in his handwritten complaint mr hartford stated that he had pled guilty to a trespassing charge involving the same church in 2016 and that the district attorney for that case advised him that he was allowed to be on the sidewalk surrounding the church which is why he chose to stand there with his sign he also alleged that officer elliot claimed in his police report that mr hartford was standing in the church parking lot when he actually remained on the sidewalk throughout as of the date of this episode mr hartford's lawsuit is still pending overall officer elliot gets an f for misusing his authority as a police officer to censor mr hartford's speech arresting mr hartford for exercising his right to refuse to identify himself and allowing his biases as a member of calvary chapel to interfere with his duties as a police officer mr hartford was well within his first amendment rights to stand on a public sidewalk and hold a sign communicating a religious sentiment and officer elliot's interference with this expression was tantamount to unconstitutional government interference with the right to free speech officer elliot's connection with the cavalry chapel also makes his involvement in this situation questionable and regardless of the actual motivations for his actions to an outsider it would likely appear that he arrested mr hartford because the leaders of his church wanted him to or because he and his church disagreed with his religious views it is difficult to imagine that the church and officer elliot would have taken the same actions if mr hartford sign had expressed religious views that were in agreement with the church's teachings and this incident demonstrates how easily police misconduct can lead to government censorship of speech and ideas mr hartford gets an a plus for remaining calm and courteous throughout the encounter respectfully practicing his right to free expression tactfully refusing to identify himself when he was not required to do so and following up with appropriate legal action in addition to exercising the self-control necessary to remain respectful throughout his interactions with church leaders and officer elliot mr hartford demonstrated real courage by asserting his rights and refusing to relinquish them even when threatened with arrest it is clear that mr hartford's religious beliefs are important to him and i commend him for maintaining a clear head when his expression of those beliefs were wrongfully stifled it seems that mr hartford has a strong argument that officer elliot wrongfully arrested him and it will be interesting to see if he can succeed in his federal claims without legal representation 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 even more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,127,821

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: iJjLMPn1fUM

Length: 16min 46sec (1006 seconds)

Published: Mon May 02 2022

Reddit Comments

[u/a-mirror-bot]

The following alternative links are available:

Mirrors

• Mirror #1 (provided by /u/SaveAnything)

Note: this is a bot providing a directory service. If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.

---

^{source code | run your own mirror bot? let's integrate}

[u/Mobile-Abalone1013]

Love some Audit the Audit

[u/xxEVILxxMONKEYxx]

I love his channel!! Very informative. I know he always says that he isn’t giving legal advice, because he has to. But dude seems to always be spot on and unbiased.