Sergeant Orders Officer to Respect Citizen's Rights

[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 obstruction reasonable suspicion and hindering and is brought to us by police state new jersey's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve and as you watch this episode please keep in mind that all text that appears in the footage of the interaction was added by mr state before uploading the video on january 4 2019 the owner of the police state new jersey youtube channel who we will refer to as mr state was filming outside the richard c clement law enforcement center in toms river new jersey when he was approached by officer frank moskela of the toms river police department who began to question mr state about what he was doing it should be noted that all of the text that you will see appear on screen is from the original video how's it going what are we doing taking pictures working on a story for the township you're working on a story for the town well about the township for for me for you yes um it's a news story yeah you have id i always have idea okay can you provide that yeah you can do whatever you want but uh i just need to identify who you are no you don't yeah no you don't i do sir no you don't yes i do and what law is that well it came in as a suspicious person anytime you investigate as to somebody calling it about suspicious we need to at least identify who it is we spoke to you're not in trouble in any way you should perform okay then i don't need to give my day well you do what law is that to know who you are what law is that investigating a crime it's actually called obstruction if you fail to provide wrong temptation quote that statute quote obstruction apparently you don't officer muscala tells mr state that he could be charged with obstruction for refusing to provide his identification as requested according to section 2c 29-1 of the new jersey code quote a person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight intimidation force violence or physical interference or obstacle or by means of any independently unlawful act new jersey courts have interpreted this statute in a limited manner that only prohibits conduct that involves any of the specifically identified actions but in turn they have taken a broader view of what constitutes lawfully performing an official function for example in the 2006 case of state versus crawley the supreme court of new jersey held that quote a defendant may be convicted of obstruction when he flees from an investigatory stop despite a later finding that the police action was unconstitutional when a police officer is acting in good faith and under color of his authority a person must obey the officer's order to stop similarly in the 2007 case of state versus williams the same court concluded that quote under new jersey's obstruction statute when a police officer commands a person to stop or as in this case orders him to place his hands on his head for a pat down search that person has no right to take flight or otherwise obstruct the officer in the performance of his duty however because new jersey does not have a stop and identify statute simply refusing to provide your name or identification to an officer cannot constitute obstruction because doing so is not a quote unquote independently unlawful act in the 2020 case of bryant vs camden county police department the superior court of the new jersey appellate division determined that an individual could not be convicted for refusing to turn over his identification to a police officer explaining that quote the confrontation was not initiated on the belief bryant was suspected of violating a motor vehicle law so he had the right to refuse to turn over his identification we do not envision a prudent person would believe there was a reasonable basis to arrest bryant for obstruction for merely not turning over his identification bryant committed no unlawful act to impede the investigation to rule otherwise gives law enforcement without a reasonable basis the right to demand that a person provide identification and charge that person under the obstruction statute for not complying given the case law on this statute a court would almost certainly determine that mr state did not violate the obstruction statute by refusing to provide his id but it is possible that an individual could be convicted of obstruction if they responded to an unlawful but good faith request for identification with flight intimidation force violence physical interference or another unlawful act sir look i'm not looking i have to commit an unlawful act and prevent you from performing your unlawful duty to be in violation of obstruction apparently right now so what's the unlawful act right now it's uh it came in as a suspicion okay and what statute is is suspicious has nothing to do with it yes it does what's the law determine what's going on i'm taking pictures in public who you are you're telling me you're doing something that's fine but i need to verify who you are so in the event that something turns into something i at least can say all right i went out and i spoke with this person you're making this more difficult than it needs to be no you are not really you can come out and say good morning sir how are you doing taking pictures enjoying your first amendment right to take pictures in public what was the first thing that i said to you today what are you doing i said no i said how are you sir okay how are you did i not say that to you you didn't so you just asked me what did i do and i already told you what i said all right how are you and i said what are we doing and you told me what you're doing and that's fine and i explained to you why i need documentation from you just to verify who you are okay but you don't need to verify who i am i unfortunately do you no i have the right to privacy in public you do to a certain degree yeah and this is within that degree yes yes but again if we're investigating it for suspicious because somebody called it in it's not like we just doesn't matter if somebody called it in yes it does okay so if you're outside on your property mowing your lawn and somebody said you're suspicious and the police come by you have to give them your id to verify that you live there yeah no you don't yes it's your property well you're entitled to think whatever you want i'm entitled to follow the law officer moscala argues that mr state needs to provide his id because he was reported as a quote unquote suspicious person however as we discussed earlier in this episode new jersey does not have a stop and identify statute so the only time a police officer can demand that an individual show their identification is when they have been stopped while driving a motor vehicle or when the officer is issuing a court summons additionally even states that do have stop and identify statutes cannot require individuals to identify themselves for simply being considered a quote-unquote suspicious person in the 1979 case of brown versus texas the supreme court invalidated a conviction based on a texas stop and identify statute because the officer lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct when he demanded id rather the officer testified that he stopped the defendant because the situation quote looked suspicious and the court concluded that it violated the fourth amendment to detain him and require him to identify himself under these circumstances however in the 2004 case of hybal versus sixth judicial district court of nevada the supreme court upheld an obstruction conviction under a stop and identified law that required a suspect to disclose their name during a valid terry stop that was supported by a reasonable articulable suspicion that the suspect was engaged in criminal activity in the 1989 case of united states versus socolo the supreme court explained that for a terry stop to be valid quote the officer must be able to articulate something more than an in-kuwait and unparticularized suspicion or hunch the fourth amendment requires some minimal level of objective justification for making the stop this means that officers cannot conduct terry stops on individuals simply because they are reported as suspicious or engaged in unusual behavior rather an officer must be able to point to specific facts that created a suspicion of criminal activity in this situation and in mr state's hypothetical scenario involving an individual mowing their own lawn it seems clear that there would not be sufficient evidence for an officer to support the particularized reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that is necessary to conduct a terry stop and even if there was enough evidence to support reasonable suspicion under new jersey law they could not be arrested for refusing to identify themselves which is okay and again i'm if we're investigating this because somebody called in as a suspicious person we just need to verify who you are and identify who you are and what's what statute is suspicious what law am i breaking again i'm not i already went over this with you i don't need to go and you haven't justified yourself yet i do and listen again if you fail to provide your documentation you can be placed under arrest for you think so oh i know so you know so i'm going to ask you again can you please provide your documentation otherwise you are going to be placed under arrest for obstruction i do not have identification on me so then you lied to me because when i first asked you if you had a uh identification on you you told me yes i do oh i have fingerprints and retinas no that's that's incorrect i ask you do you have documentation do you have identification yeah you can go back into your video recorder and you can verify you have id i always have id okay can you provide that yeah okay so who are you then because we're going to have to verify who you are here's the other problem now you lied to me so now i have a concern as to whether you're being truthful and honest with me do you understand okay well you're not being truthful honest with me because you haven't quoted the law yet then i'm real quiet to show you i didn't already explain to you what i need supervisor if you fail to there's actually a supervisor right there okay okay and i don't need to have a supervisor anyway because i asked you for who you are well i'm asking for a supervisor you are and i did not lie about who i am what happens if you fail to provide documentation now if i find out you're lying to me now you can be charged with hindering do we have a sergeant giving failed documentation when officer moskela claims that mr state could be charged with hindering if he lied to the officer about whether or not he had identification on his person this is not consistent with how courts have interpreted new jersey's hindering statute under section 2c 29-3 of the new jersey statutes quote a person commits an offense if with purpose to hinder his own detention apprehension investigation prosecution conviction or punishment he gives false information to a law enforcement officer although it is arguable that a lie about whether an individual has an id in their possession could be considered an attempt to hinder their own investigation according to the model jury instructions for the hindering statute for an individual to be found guilty the state must prove that they knew they could or might be charged with a certain criminal offense and lied in order to hinder any stage of the investigation or prosecution of that offense applying this statute a court would likely conclude that even if mr state had lied about having identification he was not guilty of hindering because there was no criminal offence he could have been charged with however under different circumstances an individual could be charged with hindering for lying about having identification on their person or making other false statements to the police with the intent to avoid arrest or punishment for a crime for example in the 2013 case of state vs odd the superior court of the new jersey appellate division upheld a hindering conviction against an individual who when asked for his name and identifying information while being arrested for another offense provided a fictitious name a social security number and date of birth therefore under new jersey law lying to an officer can sometimes be grounds for a hindering charge but there are many situations where providing false information to an officer would not be considered hindering oh so what is your name and what is your information i'm not answering any questions personal information okay well then you're going to be placed under arrest for obstruction what law is that sir sergeant he doesn't need to explain it to you well he does actually he actually does hold on so let's find out can i just ask you what you're doing here yes sir i'm in public taking pictures of a public building expressing my first amendment right to freedom of press i'm here to actually file a complaint okay i guess right you have all those rights you just thank you well he appears to tell me that i don't know just just so you know there are areas of this building that are posted absolutely off-limits yep like the back of that parking lot there it says restricted battery can't go back there or video those areas absolutely other than that if you want to walk around with your camera you can walk around with your camera and i don't need to show idea to do that you're off the show id right now no sir all right sir how's that well that's not correct actually in that respect probably is it is it so your charge is wrong so your sergeant is wrong so you're sergeant here so we're also i was just threatened with arrest for not providing identification with the violation of fourth amendment all right sir but now we're clear on what's going on right is he are we all clear is he clear because i'm clear and you're clear everybody here is clear sir very good sir thank you what you're doing i appreciate your help you have a good day you do all right thank you very much thank you all right have a nice day officer you too sir i hope you learned something today after sergeant ruiz allowed mr state to leave he continued to film for several minutes before returning and asking officer moskelda for his name and badge number officer mosquela refused to provide this information but sergeant ruiz quickly stepped in to provide identifying information for officer moskela and himself on january 8 2019 toms river police chief mitch little addressed the incident on the department's facebook page stating that quote the matter is being investigated and addressed as any other incidents that have come to our attention any actions by members of this department found to be against law or policy will be corrected it is unclear what the results of the investigation were and whether any disciplinary action was taken against officer muscala overall officer moskela gets an f for misrepresenting new jersey's identification laws facelessly accusing mr state of violating multiple irrelevant statutes and for displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of reasonable suspicion and the first amendment it is clear from the video that officer musquella was operating under several misconceptions about new jersey statutes and the concept of reasonable suspicion and it is difficult to say whether this was due to a lack of training or an intentional effort to force mr state's compliance regardless of the root cause officer muscala's conduct and rationalizations were contrary to everything that he should have been taught during his tenure at the police academy there is no doubt that he was in dire need of more training before interacting with the public again it should also be noted that a use of force database operated by force.nj.com reported that officer muskela used force more often than the average officer in the state and that the individuals he arrested were also more likely to be injured than individuals arrested by other officers in the department considering this information with the conduct that he displayed during his interaction with mr state it is relatively safe to assume that officer muscala is a danger to the public at large and a significant liability to his department and the city of tom's river if officer muscala had arrested mr state then he likely would have been the subject of a serious lawsuit and there is certainly an argument to be made that the city of tom's river and the toms river police department for some degree of liability for failing to properly train him especially considering that officer maskela had already displayed a pattern of behavior that favored an unnecessarily higher volume of use of force incidents this interaction highlights the notion that there are many faults within the current structure of training for members of law enforcement and it is extremely difficult to understand how officer moskela graduated from the police academy with such a lack of basic knowledge regarding new jersey law and civilian rights mr state gets an a for remaining calm and collected throughout the interaction demonstrating a thorough understanding of the relevant new jersey statutes and the concept of reasonable suspicion and for challenging officer moskela's conduct without becoming rude or vulgar from the very beginning of the interaction mr state demonstrated a deeper understanding of new jersey's law and general legal precedence than officer moskela and he managed to articulate his points in a stern but respectful manner mr state also made a point to mention that he was exercising his first amendment rights during the encounter this is important because it not only offers a legitimate explanation for his quote-unquote suspicious behavior but it also directly implicates the protections offered by the first amendment in the event that his intentions were called into question by a court courts have concluded in the past that first amendment protections are not necessarily granted to filming that is for personal use or does not serve a significant public interest and verbalizing the notion that you're exercising your first amendment rights can be a major point of consideration for any case involving free speech i commend mr state for maintaining his composure in the face of officer mosqueela's threats and for displaying a clear understanding of civilian rights be sure to give police state new jersey's channel your support 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 my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,512,952

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: p-JHn8n3FdY

Length: 16min 25sec (985 seconds)

Published: Thu Oct 07 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/Fun_Wonder_4114]

Not good enough. That cop needs to be arrested for his threats.

Same thing that would happen to me if I went up to someone and said "if you don't give me your property or do what I tell you to do, my friends and I will inflict as much violence on you as we want and then hold you in a cage until a ransom is paid"

[u/Teresa_Count]

This is one of my favorite audits of all time. Glad to see it again as, if I'm not mistaken, the original channel that uploaded it was deleted.

[u/spreyes]

About time.

[u/spreyes]

About time.