Sergeant Stops Officers Annoying Citizen

[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 suspicious activity identification laws and officer conduct and is brought to us by civilians 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 surf shark the average person spends six to eight hours a day online the internet knows a lot about us and that's why it is so important to care about the data you leave behind while surfing the web and with identity theft becoming increasingly more common protecting your data should be a top priority surf shark encrypts your personal information via secure VPN tunnel that no one can access not even surf shark employees surf shark also allows you to access content that is not available in your country and offers an entirely different digital experience on websites like YouTube and Netflix a surf shark subscription also includes protection for your mobile devices so you can be protected on the go and right now surf shark is offering the 80 a community an 85 percent discount with an additional three months free using the link in the description that is the best price available in the VPN market you can try surf shark risk free with their 30-day money-back guarantee so what are you waiting for click the link in the description to get your exclusive offer now thanks again to surf shark for sponsoring this episode this is yet another interaction where the details are somewhat scarce but what is apparent from the video is that the encounter took place in the town of Ottawa Ohio and the responding officers are from both the Ottawa Police Department and the Columbus Grove police department it is also safe to assume that this video was filmed sometime in 2020 as mr. civilian makes a remark about social distancing the Ottawa Police Department received a 911 two suspicious individuals and the first officer on the scene is officer bargain ear from the OPD you identify yourself name the badge number please name and badge number please what can I do for you I don't consent you to walk any further I do not consent you to walk any further okay you gotta go I'm broken carrying today yes okay well I was just here because somebody I'm just walking around and exercising my First and Second Amendment rights all right yeah man that's you got what's your name man I don't answer questions can you please identify yourself again please bad number please thank you yeah so yes somebody thought you guys were suspicious you know so none major okay nothing major at all I have no ill will no bad intentions towards anybody okay okay what's your name I don't answer questions you can call me a good citizen I would answer questions why is that so I'm not legally obliged to answer any questions I would prefer to remain silent okay am I being detained okay this is a consensual conversation this is a consensual conversation okay I'll allow you to proceed I will allow you to proceed I'm just trying to get your name man I like to know who I'm talking to you can call me sir good citizen bossman whatever applies well you're legally obliged to because you're a public servant you're legally obliged to provide information because your public servant on duty I'm going to lock my door close it we're having a consensual conversation I'm not being detained yes sir yes sir well you've asked and I've answered again I've got no ill intent no ill-will towards anybody I've got a second Amendment right to walk around with my firearm that's all I'm doing literally all day yes sir which I applaud you in it's okay what can I ask you something then if you applaud me and you're aware that this is a second Amendment right and you've it's suspicious on a felony or a misdemeanor all those suspicious activity in and of itself does not constitute an arrest able offense but Terry versus Ohio case established that suspicious activity can warrant an investigation by police one of the most important aspects of suspicion is the context by which is considered reasonable or unreasonable and the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the concept of reasonable suspicion is not readily reduced to a neat set of legal rules instead it requires an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances surrounding particularized interactions the supreme court characterized reasonable suspicion as the sort of common sense conclusion about human behavior upon which practical people are entitled to rely thus rendering it inherently subjective the reasonableness of an officer suspicions are generally considered on a case-by-case basis because the context of that suspicion plays such a dire role in determining its legality officer bargain year reveals later in the video that the call they received only mentioned that there were two individuals dressed in black with the camera it is important to consider the implications of that description fulfilling the reasonable suspicion doctrine as well as exploring the variability of the information at hand for example if dressing in black and carrying a camera in public did meet the requirements for reasonable suspicion then anyone who wanted to carry a camera outside of their home would be forced to consider what clothing they were wearing for fear of being perceived as a potential threat now let's examine the variability of the information if wearing black and carrying a camera mounts the suspicion what happens when you replace the camera with a briefcase or perhaps changing the clothing from black to blue changing the elements of the information does not change the context in which the information is acting on this information essentially amounts to policing what types of clothing can be associated with any particular item that an individual may be carrying and disregards the notion of criminality without complimentary information which would imply that criminal activity could be present such as being in a high crime area or actively avoiding detection the report that the Ottawa officers are acting upon is unfounded and does not warrant investigation all that said officer bargain ear did the right thing by initiating a consensual conversation with mr. civilian rather than assuming criminal activity was involved in detaining mr. civilian well no suspicions not a crime can I have your name the badge number please my name and badge number please Thank You officer Mayer 5 - that's what I'm trying to figure out I got I was called in the area all right yes sir so I don't know you well I don't know I mean I know you as an officer of the law right now so yes sir have I committed a crime today ok and I've told you what I'm doing yes I did I'm walking around exercising my second Amendment right that's that's literally it that's literally all I'm doing you can call me good citizens sir or boss man how about a crime today have I committed a crime I'm not required Ohio Revised Code 292 1.29 clearly states that officers must reasonably suspect that an individual is committing has committed or is about to commit a criminal offense in order to demand identification this code was drafted under the doctrine of the Terry case and does not apply retroactively Lee as this officer is suggesting officers must first establish reasonable suspicion before they are lawfully authorized to demand identification citizens are protected from unreasonable intrusions into their personal privacy under the language of the Fourth Amendment and what this officer is suggesting is contrary to the basic principles of both fourth amendment and the concept of freedom as a whole according to the officers logic any member of law enforcement should be able to identify any member of the public regardless of their involvement in criminal activity and the implications of that notion draw many parallels to the big brother ideology that is essentially the antithesis of the freedoms that the Constitution was drafted to protect the Fourth Amendment plays a major role in all aspects of policing and such a grave misunderstanding of how identification laws function is certainly cause for concern under what suspicion what's your ras right it's suspicion on a misdemeanor or a felony I'm not required to identify myself unless I must have committed a crime no I'm on making sure were six feet apart I won't look down I won't move my hands my hands are up here yes sir listen I do not consent any search of seizure there's my Fourth Amendment right but if it may excuse me if it makes more you more comfortable I will not resist you seizing my property from me my firearm on my side right now okay if it makes you if it makes you feel more comfortable I will not I'm not allowing you to do so but if you I will not resist at all if you decide you want to seize my property from me and just put it aside while we have this conversation so you feel more at ease right look you got the right to walk down these streets you know that's your right man yes sir we're just I just got a call that there was two males wearing all black I didn't there was no firearm in the description I was just two males all black with the camera so that's so which part of that is suspicious or illegal well if I'm not committing a crime then once again this officer displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal process operates the American justice system was built on the premise that all suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty and baseless assumptions bear no merit within that philosophy determining the criminality of an action must be based upon the evidence at hand and the CGT PD officer has no evidence to suggest that mr. civilian is illegally carrying a firearm a reasonable suspicion do you believe that I am committing a crime right now okay right second amendment find out what suspicious activity is yes well if I haven't committed a crime at some point during the encounter officer bargain year radioed for a supervisor and the unmarked SUV pulling onto the scene is the Supervisory officer on duty vicious veils with a camera that's all well blacks just a color okay were you on the sidewalk yes sir to try to go any buildings no sir we just walking yes sir I didn't say anything to anybody okay you lock the door I'll tell you I'll explain yes sir thank you can I even name the badge number please thank you very much you guys have a great day it appears as though the officers left the scene without further incident and mr. civilian was allowed to go free overall officer bargain year gets an a- because although we did press mr. civilian for information that he was not legally entitled to he never detained mr. civilian and he did not overstep the bounds of his authority at any point members of law enforcement are free to engage with any citizen in a consensual encounter an officer bargain ear did so in a reasonable manner officer bargain year approached mr. civilian with respectable degree of professionalism and maintained a balance between carrying out his duties diligently and preserving mr. civilians constitutionally protected rights officer bargainer also contacted a supervisor for further consultation instead of taking the risk of making a mistake or escalating the encounter I commend officer bargain ear for his patience and professionalism the unnamed Columbus Grove officer gets an F for displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal process using accusation 'el and inflammatory statements throughout the encounter and baselessly insinuating that mr. civilian was a criminal although this officer did not step outside of his authority it is clear that this interaction would have had a dramatically different outcome if he had been the primary officer and such an egregious display of ignorance of the law is astounding for someone who was enforcing said law this officer would do well to re-examine the very basics of law enforcement and gain a deeper understanding of civilian rights officer Vance and mr. civilian both get an A+ mr. civilian displayed a thorough understanding of his constitutionally protected rights remained calm and collected throughout the encounter and refused to surrender to the intimidation of the CG PD officer although this interaction was not necessarily an audit mr. civilian displayed all the characteristics that a successful auditor should strive to acquire mr. civilian exercised his rights peacefully and respectfully without making incremental sacrifices in the face of adversity I commend mr. civilian for doing his due diligence and conducting himself in a manner that reflects well on the Constitution we're community as a whole officer Vance carried out his duties objectively and effectively and did not waste any time or resources on a citizen engaged in exercising their rights officer Vance asked all the right questions necessary to quell any suspicion surrounding mr. civilians actions and managed to treat mr. civilian with dignity and respect without introducing ego into the encounter I commend officer Vance for bringing a swift end to the interaction and respecting the rights of mr. civilian let us know if there is 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: 1,767,646

Rating: 4.8500252 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: ggicq81Ii-0

Length: 16min 0sec (960 seconds)

Published: Tue Jul 07 2020