"Scientist" Gets Arrested at Mount Rushmore as Crowd Cheers

[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 prior restraints the seizure of evidence and miranda rights and is brought to us by wits it gets its 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 policy genius summer is coming to a close and there's never been a better time to take care of all those responsibilities you've been putting on hold and getting life insurance done now if you have anyone who relies on your financial support whether it's a child aging parent or even a business partner you need life insurance and policy genius makes it super easy to compare quotes from over a dozen top insurers all in one place in minutes you can work out how much life insurance coverage you need and compare personalized quotes to find your best price and the license experts at policy genius are there to help you navigate every step of the shopping and buying process you could save 1300 or more per year on life insurance by using policy genius to compare policies eligible applicants can get covered in as little as a week thanks to an award-winning policy option that swaps the standard medical exam requirement for a simple phone call this exclusive policy was recently rated number one by forbes higher than options from ladder ethos and bestow with unparalleled customer service it's no wonder that policy genius has earned thousands of five star reviews across trustpilot and google head over to policygenius.com audit the audit to get started right now thanks again to policy genius for sponsoring this episode on august 4th 2021 youtuber activist and flat earth advocate austin whitsett live streamed himself voicing his beliefs into a loudspeaker on the grand view terrace at mount rushmore in pennington county south dakota before beginning his speech mr whitsett informs his audience that he has already had altercations with park rangers in the area for the very same conduct approximately 22 minutes into his speech two park rangers approach mr whitsett and order him to disband his speech hello sir how are you what's up man how are you doing now i'm doing good all right so we're just coming back yeah i want to give you every opportunity we have the permanent paperwork if you'd like to apply for a permit we have your regulations showing you that this is not an approved area would you like to move no okay all right well so what's the what's the decibel so well now i'm citing you for engaging in activity well let me see do you do you know how the law works so what i'm asking i'm going to need your id i don't have to give you my idea are you detaining me yeah yes you are okay for what what's suspicion of what kind if you fail to identify yourself you're going to be detained so you to to detain me you have to actually identify i just have to cite you no so i'm citing you with 36 cfr 1.6 which says what for failing to engage or failing to get a permit for an activity can i see this can i see the ordinance yes the rangers inform mr whitsett that he is violating section 1.6 of title 36 of the code of federal regulations by demonstrating without a permit an attempt to provide him with a copy of the permit application this section of the code states that the official in charge of a national park quote may issue a permit to authorize an otherwise prohibited or restricted activity or impose a public use limit and prohibits quote engaging in an activity subject to a permit requirement imposed pursuant to this section without obtaining a permit additionally section 2.51 of title 36 of the code of federal regulations governs when the national parks allow individuals to participate in quote-unquote demonstrations such as quote picketing speech-making marching holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances which is reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers the regulation allows groups of fewer than 26 individuals to demonstrate in certain locations that the park is designated as available for demonstrations without a permit but groups of 26 or more are required to obtain a permit groups of 25 or fewer must also obtain a permit to demonstrate outside these designated areas in a national park the mount rushmore national memorial has designated six locations where individuals or groups are allowed to exercise their first amendment rights through a demonstration for example the amphitheater just below the terrace where mr whitsett was speaking is a designated free speech zone where he could have demonstrated without a permit however the grand view terrace where mr whitsett was speaking is not a designated demonstration area so as the rangers explained he could not legally demonstrate there without a permit this restriction on speech through a permit requirement which is known as a prior restraint would likely be constitutional in this context as we have discussed many times on ata the amount of protection that speech receives from the first amendment varies depending on the location where an individual is speaking with speech in traditional public forums receiving the most protection and speech in non-public forums receiving the least in the 2010 case of boardlee vs u.s department of the interior the u.s court of appeals for the dc circuit rejected the argument that mount rushmore was a traditional public forum stating that quote mount rushmore does not become a public forum merely by being called a national park any more than it would be transformed into a non-public forum if it were labeled a museum the dispositive question is not what the forum is called but what purpose it serves either by tradition or specific designation therefore a reasonable content neutral restriction such as the permit requirement would likely be justified by the national park service's interests in quote avoiding interference with the park's activities and the operation of park facilities and preserving peace and tranquility in the parks however it is important to note that the bordly court also decided that a park's first amendment zones were quote designated public forums which means that any restrictions in those areas would be subject to a higher level of scrutiny in fact the court in this case actually concluded that a prior version of section 2.51 of title 36 of the code of federal regulations that did not allow small groups to demonstrate in these areas without a permit was an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech what's up do you have an id am i being detained yes okay so suspicion of what crime you are engaging in an activity that requires a permit can i see the law of this let's go over here why are you trying to move me away from my camera to sight it you're being really weird now you can just show it to me right now here there's a whole bunch of information here don't touch me though so so um to detain me you have to articulate suspicion of card yes it ordinance engaging engaging in an activity requiring a permit okay so specifically which part of what we're doing requires the permanent audio device okay so what's the decibel banner you can't have it at all so can i see the wall he's trying to explain this i want to see the law so what i'm going to need is your id i'm going to need you to give me your name and date of birth state of your honor i need to see the law are you are you not listening what we're going to do i'm going to if you fail to identify yourself i'm going to arrest you for refusing to identify yourself number two i'm going to confiscate all this as evidence after mr whitsett refuses to identify himself the rangers threatened to arrest him for failure to identify and to confiscate his video equipment u.s park rangers are federal law enforcement officers which means they are generally authorized to enforce both federal laws and the laws of the state where the park is located additionally section 102701 of title 54 of the united states code permits rangers to conduct investigations of offenses against the united states committed in the national park system while the rangers were certainly acting within their investigative authority by requesting that mr whitsett identify himself they could not lawfully arrest him for refusing to do so as neither the federal laws nor south dakota's state laws criminalize failure to identify however a court would most likely conclude that the rangers had probable cause to arrest mr whitsett for demonstrating without a permit and since the video equipment was used during the offence sees it as evidence in the 1959 case of draper versus united states the supreme court determined that if police officers have probable cause to arrest an individual without a warrant they may also search and seize related evidence during the arrest holding that the officer in the case quote had probable cause and reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was committing a violation of the laws of the united states at the time he arrested him the arrest was therefore lawful and the subsequent search and seizure having been made incident to that lawful arrest were likewise valid generally if the police seize an individual's non-contraband personal property as evidence for a criminal case the government can hold it until the conclusion of the case although in some situations some personal items may be recovered if they are not relevant to the prosecution therefore a court would likely uphold at least the initial seizure of the video equipment incident to mr whitsett's arrest that's called theft big tough guy so let me let me tell you what the law says so whenever you have to come give a warning as to someone making something illegal you have to cite the law and read what it says as what is prohibited engaging in activity requiring a permit so what part of it requires the permit your audio device and your ban so can i read the law is that an unrefounded request i do not i'm not required to print out and show you you are you are required to cite the ordinance and say what it says okay then i'll just research i'll look it up say the ordinance again keep your hands out of your pockets again buddy do you have any weapons save your ordinance again 36 cfr 1.6 36 cf for 1.6 this is hilarious i have to do your job for you no problem sir put your hands behind your back for what i'm going to take your phone put your hands behind your back are you kidding me nope wow you're under arrest i'm under arrest this is public property bro you had a chance i asked you just to show me the law man you keep interrupting i asked ask to see the law you're going to know what the law is when you get addressed to it are you kidding me right now no why can't i just do you know it's a you know it's illegal to not tell me what the law says and we've been trying you keep interrupting i've asked you 30 times and i'm trying to think okay we tell you what the law says then you need to you need to stop pretending mr whitsett claims that the rangers are legally required to verbally cite the law that they are issuing a citation for and the rangers disagree with his assertion contrary to popular belief as the supreme court held in the 2004 case of devin peck vs alford quote while it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody we have never held that to be constitutionally required however when an individual is arrested without a warrant they must quote promptly be brought before a neutral magistrate for a judicial determination of probable cause where they will learn what crime they are being charged with if they do not already know while law enforcement officers are not required to inform suspects of the crime they're being arrested for or recite the law they're suspected of violating the supreme court case of miranda vs arizona identified certain information that officers must provide when they arrest an individual in the landmark 1966 decision the court identified three rights commonly known today as miranda rights that arresting officers must inform suspects of before subjecting them to custodial interrogation first the court held that the suspect quote must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent additionally the court found that quote the warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court and that quote an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation an important aspect of the miranda rights discussion that is often overlooked is that these warnings are only required before the police interrogate an arrested suspect this means that if a suspect is interrogated in police custody without being given miranda warnings any incriminating statements they make during the interrogation cannot be admitted against them in court however there is no such remedy available if the arresting officer fails to mirandize an individual who was arrested but not interrogated you just need to stop running okay wow on the d you got tyrants dude after the rangers arrested mr whitsett the live stream continued for approximately two and a half more hours as the rangers escorted the videographer off the park seized the speaker and the sign as evidence and wrote the videographer a citation after he provided his id when mr whitsett was eventually released he and the videographer returned to the terrace and filmed mr whitsett as he once again expressed his beliefs this time speaking directly to the camera there were no further incidents with the rangers during this time overall the national park rangers get an a for actively working to de-escalate the situation maintaining a calm and collected demeanor and for remaining within the bounds of their authority throughout the interaction the park rangers were well within their authority to confront mr whitsett and order him to vacate the premises and although they appeared to misunderstand south dakota's lack of identification statutes the rangers had more than enough evidence to arrest mr whitsett nonetheless the rangers did their best to inform mr whitsett of which statute he was violating and offered him more than one opportunity to leave without issue they even printed out the codes and relevant permit forms and presented them to mr whitsett multiple times eventually the rangers were forced to arrest mr whitsett because he refused to provide the information necessary to issue a citation for the permit violation but they allowed the videographer to leave after providing his id and being issued a citation the rangers handled this stop with professionalism and did their best to call mr whitsett down i commend the rangers for their patience and civility and although their efforts to show mr whitsett the law were fruitless i respect their dedication nonetheless mr whitsett gets an f for unnecessarily escalating the encounter into an arrest maintaining a hostile and condescending demeanor throughout the interaction and for displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of free speech much of this interaction's escalation can likely be attributed to mr whitsett's failure to do his due diligence in regards to public forums and the first amendment and his willingness to double down on his own ignorance mr whitsett had all the necessary evidence at his disposal to prove that he was in fact in violation of federal regulations but he chose to ignore it and many members of law enforcement have been criticized for the same conduct on this very channel if mr whitsett had simply walked a few feet down to the amphitheater he could have avoided this interaction entirely and i find it difficult to believe that he had multiple interactions with members of law enforcement prior to this interaction and was never informed of where the free speech zones were located it is entirely possible that mr whitsett knowingly violated the permit law as a form of protest against free speech restrictions but there are certainly more productive locations to express that notion than a monument that many fellow citizens have spent time and effort traveling to mr whitsett demonstrated a complete disregard for the other individuals visiting the monument and lacked any serious understanding of the first amendment and the law in general being asked to speak at the same volume as everyone else in the room is not a form of censorship and this interaction highlights the notion that the limitations of free speech can be just as valuable as its protections 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 content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 937,674

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: HlLcrUkFACE

Length: 16min 14sec (974 seconds)

Published: Mon Aug 16 2021