Sergeant Corrects Deputies After Listening to Citizen

[Music] welcome to audit the audits where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers the right to privacy witnessing a crime and private property and comes to us from the battosize channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve in the original two-part series posted on december 31 2016 youtuber and first amendment auditor philip turner was filming a traffic stop just off of interstate 35 in new brownfields texas when he was contacted by deputy cameron chelly of the como county sheriff's office that can you go stand back over where you were for me sir there's something wrong with being here yes sir there is i don't i don't want you to be in direct line with that vehicle i'd like for you to go back to where you were standing you can continue filming all you'd like but i don't want you right here am i in a ferry uh well technically now you're starting to pose into somebody else's private property with your video video in yes sir hey did they give you for missing a film inside their truck i don't need permission on public in public in somebody's vehicle i don't need permission no not to film us you're correct but to film inside somebody's vehicle that's an extension of their house and that is a private place so you do need somebody's permission to film inside their vehicle but is that a crime one of the deputies informs mr turner that he cannot film the inside of someone else's vehicle without their permission even if that vehicle is in a public place as we have discussed many times on ata the first amendment protects the right to film anyone and anything within plain view of the public eye because individuals have no expectation of privacy in public although the deputy claims that the vehicle is an extension of the owner's house and a private place the diminished expectation of privacy an individual has in an automobile is well established in court decisions in the 1976 case of south dakota versus opera the u.s supreme court concluded that quote the expectation of privacy with respect to one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office first the operand decision pointed to the fact that quote automobiles unlike homes are subjected to pervasive and continuing governmental regulation and controls including periodic inspection and licensing requirements as an everyday occurrence police stop and examine vehicles when license plates or inspection stickers have expired or if other violations such as exhaust fumes or excessive noise are noted or if headlights or other safety equipment are not in proper working order the court also concluded that quote the expectation of privacy as to automobiles is further diminished by the obviously public nature of automobile travel citing its plurality opinion in the 1974 case of cardwell versus lewis which held that quote one has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one's residence or as the repository of personal effects it travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view therefore the deputy's assertion that mr turner cannot film inside a vehicle in a public place without the owner's permission does not align with supreme court precedent on the issue uh if they decided yes who's they the two we got in the back of our cars if they don't want you filming or they you didn't get permission from them you can't be filming inside their cars oh you guys got the door open look all i'm asking you to do is go stand back over where you were even if i was back there i could still see inside the car so go stand back over there it's simple as that because right now now that i'm having to come over here and ask you to move again now you're interfering with our investigation because instead of me being nothing focused over here i got to focus on you so if you could just go stand over there i can call a supervisor if you'd like to speak to a supervisor yeah go ahead and call a supervisor you can make any complaints you'd like but i'm all i'm asking you to do is go stand back over there where you were just go ahead and call a supervisor okay do me a favor go stand back over there for me island i don't see what's wrong being here i'm asking you to go stand back where you were there was not an issue where you're standing where you were standing now there's an issue where you're at right because i'm filming inside the truck right yes sir you can film us all you want we don't care we want you to do it from a safe distance so if you could go back to where you were that'd be greatly appreciated all right if if the issue is with me filming here inside the truck i won't film inside the truck if you could go stand back where you were please there's not an issue with you filming us there's an issue with you getting any closer to the scene i'm not getting any closer than here okay do not move from here all right any closer premiere we're gonna have any any more issues okay i already told you i'm not moving from here and that's it thank you i encourage you to film thank you he's going to be over here talking just a little bit he's here he's actually all right you got a business card or anything a business card not on me i can get you one out of my car in a little bit all right cool all right hang tight for me do you have your information your driver's license what's that do you have your driver's license or your name for what because now you're a witness to this crime that we're doing what crime is that the crime that we got these people in the back of these cars for i don't know what crime they committed you don't have to know but okay well how do i know what they did though i don't know what they did okay they broke the law they're in possession of narcotics that's why they're in the back of our cars okay now you're telling me that okay yeah so do you have your name in denver no or driver's license no so you're gonna refuse to be listed as a witness since you sat here and videotaped the entire scene if you need a copy of the video i can give you a copy of the video well yeah but we're also going to need to identify you in our report that you were here videoing so when we come to get a copy of that video we can get that all right let me talk to your supplies he said that he wouldn't want to give us our name his name or date of birth until he talked to our supervisor and you're probably gonna end up going to jail because right now you're witnessing a crime well i asked to talk to a supervisor he's here so why can't i speak with them the deputies request that mr turner provide his driver's license or his name and date of birth and when he refuses they inform him that he could be arrested for failing to identify himself because he was a witness to a crime under section 38.02 of the texas penal code an individual can be charged with the crime of failure to identify for intentionally giving a false or fictitious name residence address or date of birth to a peace officer who has good cause to believe the individual is a witness to a criminal offense therefore mr turner could not be arrested under this statute for merely refusing to provide this information altogether however some states do criminalize a witness's refusal to give personal information when requested by a police officer for example section 2921.29 of the ohio revised code makes it a fourth degree misdemeanor for an individual who is in a public place to refuse to disclose their name address or date of birth when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects the individual witnessed certain types of felonies however the statute clarifies that quote nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name address or date of birth nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name address or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed because of the constitutional right to remain silent individuals are generally not required to assist police officers in conducting investigations and witnesses are not required to submit to questioning unless lawfully subpoenaed however witnesses who possess significant information necessary to resolve a criminal prosecution who are referred to as material witnesses can be arrested or otherwise detained in order to secure their testimony in the 1953 case of stein vs new york the supreme court concluded that quote interrogation of those who know something about the facts is the chief means to solution of crime the duty to disclose knowledge of crime rests upon all citizens it is so vital that one known to be innocent may be detained in the absence of baal as a material witness many states including texas only allow witnesses to be arrested if they fail to appear after receiving a subpoena to testify in a criminal case however under federal law witnesses can be arrested even if they do not violate a subpoena section 3144 of title 18 of the u.s code states the quote if it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person the statute also requires that witnesses are given the same type of bail hearing given to criminal defendants to determine whether they should be released released on bail or held in jail before the trial according to bureau of justice statistics 5594 material witnesses were arrested in 2016 which constituted 3.7 percent of total federal arrests for the year it is highly unlikely that mr turner would be considered a material witness by a court but it would still be possible for the officers to arrest mr turner in good faith depending on the jurisdictional relationships between the department the state of texas and the federal government because you're refusing to give your information you'll be going to jail for failure to identify as you're a witness to a crime sorry so i need to give you my id to speak to your supervisor is that what you're telling me no okay i didn't want to surprise you why do you need to speak because i requested that because i requested to speak to him and he's here okay so what's your point he's here i need to speak with him he's got you've got no parties to see you right but you want to speak to our supervisor you can speak to him okay yeah but you'll be in handcuffs it'll be at the jail is that what you want to do i need to speak to your supervisor is that what you want i need to speak to your surprise why don't you understand it you put yourself in this situation right here you see that you're on your property private right now or public you're on private property right now okay what is that what does that look like do you have permission to be here did the owners trespass me well he actually this guy he didn't want you here this guy actually did where tell us he wanted you to leave the deputies informed mr turner who was standing just outside a fence surrounding the entrance to a camping world rv sales lot that he is filming on private property and that the owner would like him to leave although the first amendment protects the right to free speech in public places including filming police interactions it does not require private property owners to accommodate speech by others the first amendment states that congress shall make no law infringing upon the freedoms of speech and although the supreme court determined in the 1925 case of gitlow vs new york that first amendment freedom of speech is also protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment from state government restrictions the courts have repeatedly determined that it is impossible for a purely private party to violate the first amendment the first amendment only protects against government restrictions on speech this concept which is referred to as the state action doctrine means that private citizens do not have public constitutional obligations and that the property owner was not required by the first amendment to allow mr turner to film on his property however mr turner did not violate texas law by filming the interaction section 30.05 of the texas penal code states that an individual commits the offense of criminal trespass if the individual enters or remains on or in property of another without effective consent and either had noticed that the entry was forbidden or received notice to depart but failed to do so the statute defines notice as oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building indicating that entry is forbidden the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property or the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption because mr turner was filming outside of the fence and there were no signs indicating that he could not stand there he did not have notice that entry was forbidden when he began to film and until the deputies told mr turner that the owner wanted him to leave he had not received notice to depart it is highly unlikely that mr turner could be legitimately arrested for criminal trespass under these circumstances after the deputies informed mr turner that the owner of the property has requested that he leave the deputies then retrieve the camping world manager to deliver the message in person after awkwardly telling mr turner to leave the camping world manager steps back while mr turner and the sergeant have a discussion but this officer here was telling me that i had to move back over there i couldn't stand over there and i was asking him why he told me that i wasn't allowed to film inside the vehicle here but i mean that's that's that's their privacy too we got to get their consent to go in so it makes it any different for you well that's to go in yeah but i'm not going in i'm just i'm just observing initially the sergeant attempts to justify the actions of his deputies and mr turner was not given the opportunity to engage with the sergeant because their conversation was being interrupted by phone calls in between each call the deputies would try to convince mr turner to identify himself but eventually the sergeant hung up the phone long enough to have a conversation with mr turner you're not doing anything wrong and uh but here's the deal they got a point there i mean just this worst case scenario is that your camera would be a part of evidence but we're not going to go there because i have a camera i feel your camera's going so i don't need your camera now if something were to happen to where man we get into a shooting or something or a fight and somebody gets hurt then you know what i'm taking your camera because that's so easy so you gotta be careful with that a lot in the future okay when you're doing this because on that one i i'll tell you i don't know there was a shooting on sixth street that happened not too long ago and i helped ate it them catching the shooter and i have no problem with that after speaking with mr turner the sergeant realized that he was not a threat and was within his rights to film the traffic stop the sergeant allowed mr turner to go free without identifying himself but mr turner offered to exchange business cards and the sergeant obliged four days later mr turner visited the cuomo county sheriff's office to file a formal complaint against the officers and file a public records request for the body camera footage although the clerk working at the front desk was rude the officers were relatively cordial while mr turner filled out the necessary paperwork and the complaint was submitted without issue it is unclear whether mr turner sued the department or the deputies but i suspect that filing a formal complaint was as far as he intended to go overall the cumbeal county sheriff's deputies get an f for displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment misrepresenting the authority of code 38.02 and maintaining a hostile and condescending demeanor throughout the interaction invoking the authority of code 38.02 in an attempt to force a citizen or witness to identify themselves not only discourages other witnesses from coming forward in the future but it also has the potential to corrupt the evidence that may have been available from their testimony if a witness feels threatened by the officers then it is unlikely that their testimony will be reliable in court and their statements could potentially be dismissed altogether if the deputy's objective was to identify mr turner as a witness then the deputies should have de-escalated the situation and asked for mr turner's cooperation instead they accused him of trespassing illegally recording failing to identify himself in a host of other crimes it is clear that the driving force for this interaction was the egos of the deputies and their ignorance of the law and if the sergeant hadn't intervened then this interaction would likely have had a different outcome sergeant montenez gets an a minus because although he initially attempted to validate the conduct of the deputies and was operating under certain misconceptions about the law the sergeant engaged in a productive dialogue with mr turner realized that he was within his rights and allowed mr turner to go free without being forced to identify himself once the sergeant was able to engage in a dialogue with mr turner the tides began to turn in his favor sergeant montenez took the time to listen to mr turner and ultimately made the decision to allow him to go free i commend sergeant montenez for exercising professional discretion and for making an effort to listen to mr turner's concerns the sergeant's field experience and willingness to listen significantly contributed to the de-escalation of this encounter and this is one interaction where requesting a supervisor dramatically altered the outcome mr turner gets an a plus for remaining calm and collected throughout the entirety of the interaction displaying a thorough understanding of the relevant laws at play and following up this interaction with the proper means of complaint not every bad interaction with law enforcement will be worth the time and financial burden of a lawsuit and filing a complaint and documenting the incident may be enough to render the results that favor you and your community in this situation it is entirely possible that the deputies involved were retrained and now respect the right to record as a result of mr turner's complaint and although filing a complaint may not always render dramatic results it is worth doing in situations where a lawsuit is not an option if an officer were to be sued in the future then it is entirely possible that their complaint history would be a relevant factor in deciding such a case mr turner's ability to remain calm and focused while interacting with the police is impressive but considering that he has been conducting audits for over six years and is responsible for relatively major legislation regarding the right to record police in the 5th circuit district it comes as no surprise i commend mr turner for exercising his rights peacefully and professionally and engaging in a civil conversation with the sergeant mr turner is one of the most professional auditors in the community and i highly recommend taking a look at his channel you can find a link in the description below 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: 1,664,951

Rating: 4.910336 out of 5

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: mI2K9p4zsWk

Length: 17min 9sec (1029 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 08 2021